tygerland.net

Over the past couple of days I have read two interesting commentaries on the subject of supporting the troops in Iraq; one from the States, by liberal journalist Joel Stein, and another by British journalist and military historian Max Hastings.

Stein’s piece will split liberals across America by calling into question their commitment to ‘Support the Troops’, regardless of their declared opposition to the invasion of Iraq. It’s an interesting quandary and will again leave liberals open to cries of ‘hypocrisy.’ Sometime politician and long-time Westminster barfly Charles Kennedy took this stance when his party – The Liberal Democrats - opposed the War, yet gave his full support to courageous British troops in the line of fire: -

If British troops are committed to action, then the nation will, of course, support them. Their courage and skill is not in doubt. But they and their families deserve a much clearer statement of aims than they have had so far from their political masters; we owe them that.

Politicians who question military action are careful not to allow their opponents to use their stance as a stick to beat them. Kennedy traversed a fine line between constructive dissent and a patriotic need to wish national forces well. Quite how the increasingly pickled Kennedy remained lucid long enough to pull off this duplicitous position is unclear.

Contentiously, Stein writes: -

Blindly lending support to our soldiers, I fear, will keep them overseas longer by giving soft acquiescence to the hawks who sent them there — and who might one day want to send them somewhere else.

Surely Stein is right? If anti-war liberals are declaring that they ‘Support the Troops’, surely this means they hope they’re successful in their endeavour, which of course they also now ‘support’ by association. Acquiescence is, as Stein suggests, paramount to concurrence. You can’t really ‘Support the Troops’ if you don’t hope they’re successful.

For a moment let’s indulge ourselves and take this duplicitous position to its logical extremity. How can the anti-war liberal, who claims to value all life equally, hope the coalition pilot safely delivers his devastating payload over Baghdad? Do you want the pilot to survive and potentially kill tens or hundreds of civilians? You’re either supporting the troops, with all the inevitable repercussions, or you’re not.

The Right of course will seize on such a position. Divide and Conquour is the Rovian mantra; Washington has kept the lid on public disquiet by constantly linking the undertakings in Iraq with patriotism – and we all know how attached those Americans are to their Chinese-made Stars and Stripes. President Bush constantly criticises liberal dissension as compromising the safety of the troops and even claims that opposing the war is in-effect ‘helping the terrorists’. Such false dichotomy is crude but highly effective.

In UK politics only the Saddam-hugging Labour politician George Galloway openly opposed both the war and its operational success; he was pilloried from all sides for doing so. Galloway was summarily booted out of the Labour Party for this principled display of indefatigability – the party claimed his statements were “prejudicial or grossly detrimental” to the organisation.

The best thing British troops can do is to refuse to obey illegal orders ~ George Galloway

In stark contrast Max Hastings wrote in The Sunday Telegraph, in reverence of the American people who ‘perceive the distinction between the war’s demerits, and a duty of loyalty to those who fight under their country’s flag.’ Hastings wants the British people, with whom he admits the war is ‘unpopular’, to follow the American example and swallow their disapproval and shower their soldiers in gifts: -

The other night, I met a friend who has a son in the US Army in Iraq. Like every American soldier there, he told me, he finds himself knee-deep in “comfort boxes” and goodwill messages from unknown admirers at home. “Do British soldiers in Iraq get the same sort of stuff?” he asked. Not nearly as much, I said.

Hastings’ piece has a wider message about the impact of litigation on the armed forces following the ‘excesses of European Human Rights law’, but he adds in conclusion: -

Right now the Services are feeling unloved. We should try to change that. Anybody who wants to write or send a parcel to a serviceman in Iraq or Afghanistan can find addresses on the net through BFPO.org.uk. The Armed Forces are among Britain’s finest institutions. It is shameful that they are taking so much of the pain for this Government’s deceits and failures.

We must, Hastings beseeches us, become more like the Americans and lionise our armed forces and support their work however odious we find it. This doesn’t level with me; I don’t see why Brits, through gritted teeth, should send their support to the troops who are carrying out policies they don’t agree with. Not only would vulpine politicians hijack this as justification, but it would also muddy the voice of dissent.

This is not to suggest we should spit on the returning troops, after all it’s not their fault, but neither should we be obliged to offer a sugar-coated thumbs up.

So is it hypocritical for those who openly and vocally criticised the war, to declare they support the troops? Well that depends on your reasons for opposing action. If you took the pacifist line and/or complained of American neo-imperialism then you can’t really hope that the foot soldiers of our oppression succeed in their dastardly plan, can you?

However if you feel the war was a pretty stupid idea built on Whitehouse sophistry, and you view the troops as being a bunch of unfortunates blindly dragged into a thankless war, then I see no duplicity in opposing action yet hoping for a quick war and the safe return of our lads.

I’ll sleep tonight… will you?