Perhaps the most unremarked-upon aspect of the much-noted fourth anniversary of the Iraq debacle is the deeply confused way Americans talk about it. Most egregious is the constant refrain from all sides that whatever they want is first and foremost about "supporting the troops" - whether keeping them there forever, or bringing them home immediately. While concern for American forces serving in Iraq is certainly well-intentioned, the rhetorical focus on "the troops" is not just irrelevant, but dangerously misleading.

The most significant reason "the troops" are not the central issue in Iraq is that they're all volunteers. This is radically different from Vietnam, where almost all the soldiers, and certainly the grunts, were there because of a socio-economically unjust draft that allowed Bush and Cheney, for example, to avoid serving in a war they "supported." As a result, the demand at that time to "bring the troops home" had substance in both foreign and domestic realms, since the vast majority had not signed up for the armed forces, let alone guerrilla war in a tropical jungle.

But when applied to an all-volunteer military, the same slogan means almost nothing - which is why both Bush and his most determined opponents are able to invoke "the troops" as their chief motivation with, at least seemingly, straight faces. And the fact that "the troops" can be used to justify completely contradictory positions indicates precisely why American discourse about Iraq is so radically off-course.

For Bush, "supporting the troops" justifies the same policies he has promoted since 2002, whose chief beneficiaries have been political Islamists like Sunni Osama bin Laden and Shiite Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, on the one hand, and, on the other, extortionate no-bid contractors like oil-logistical-services Halliburton and high-tech mercenaries Blackwater.

From this perspective, "supporting the troops" means:

1. Congress has to approve any and all Iraq appropriations, because failing to do so is prima facie evidence of, you know, not "supporting the troops"; and


2. the US has the right to go after anyone - Iran/Sunni insurgents/Moktada al-Sadr/whoever - it claims is "hurting" the troops, because not to do so would mean failing to, you know, "support the troops".

At the same time, the focus of the "anti-war" movement on "bringing the troops home" is as wrong-headed as the Bush/Cheney/Rove mantra - completely unchallenged by intimidated Washington Democrats - of "supporting the troops".

To be sure, the reasons are different - but equally problematic.

A main one is nostalgia for the simplicities of anti-Vietnam war days, which you can see baby-boomers happily re-living and channeling into their own - and, by this point, grand - children. But contrary to both domino and conspiracy theorists of the day, South East Asia in the 50s/60s/70s was just not very important either economically or strategically during the Cold War era. That's why the US could just pack up and leave, albeit in undignified retreat, without any discernible adverse effects, at least for Americans.

Iraq, by contrast, lies at the heart of both the key oil-producing region of the world political economy and the volatile Arab/Islamic world. Consequently, "bring the troops home" is a visibly inadequate response to a highly complex and strategically crucial situation that cannot safely be abandoned, unlike mid-1970s South East Asia. In this sense, "bring the troops home" is an attempt to avoid the deeply unsettling fact that Iraq has destroyed "politics as usual" - not just domestically, but, even more importantly, in America's now structurally disturbed relations with the rest of the world.

Put bluntly, no one is going to help the US clean up the disaster it unilaterally created in Iraq - over the objections of the entire world - without fundamental change in the entire American mind-set that "supported" this insanity in the first place.

That's why the obsession with "the troops" is not just irrelevant and - in view of the shocking medical neglect of the wounded - unseemly, but a major impediment to any possibility of fixing the catastrophe in which major American elites - political/media/business/academic - have responsibility.

As a result, anyone who wants to do something constructive about Iraq should immediately stop talking about "the troops" and start thinking about how to begin the profound house-cleaning the US must undertake if it is going to have a prayer of getting anyone in the world to co-operate with it - about anything - ever again.

>> Fundamental change in the entire American mind-set that "supported" this insanity in the first place.

Tell it Oprah .. madam we will never forget.

We need to pull out our troops before the U.S. impregnates the Middle East with the bastard of all foreign policy blunders. Waiting for a safe withdrawal only increases the chances of a premature explosion of violence. The democrat led congress should pass a “Morning After” bill that wilts military spending in Iraq and deflates the volume of troops in Iraq. Only when Bush is unable to keep up his forces in the Middle East will the rape of this fragile region find relief.

"...Iraq has destroyed 'politics as usual'...." The counter view goes that elements of the Muslim world were busy trying to destroy politics as usual, in various Muslim and non-Muslim countries" from 1928 (Al Banna's calls to arms) or the 1950's (Sayyid Qutb et al manifestos), or 1979 (Khomeinist proxy campaigns against the Great Satan) up to 9/11/01, when the main targets got the irrevocable message from OBL. For the rest of your article, am amazed to see you, a media guru, not only wave a red herring, but eat it, too. More likely germane and informative to the general educational, rather than polemical, drift of articles (not comments) at alt.muslim would be your "13 Principles" for understanding the Mideast, as in your "Mideast 101" at grokyourworld. Love to see the crossfeed on that in this forum.
Hey, JP, need some Immodium?

.........."Hajibaba on the Middle East"...........
----- Warts, Racism, Insults, the Usual ------

Basically, the US is afraid of splintering the I-raq into smaller nations, some of which will align themselves with other powers, and those with oil will be constantly under attack by those who end up with no oil. So there will be no oil for anybody in such an environment.

Arabs are basically a bunch of irritable sqaubling families. Only dictators can rule them in a nation-state format. Otherwise they will be at each other throats in no time. I have no clue why the US thought they could mold them into some kind of democratic nation-state. Idiots.

Muslims. Well. Muslims have never been one political entity since Omar's (ra) time. Thats 1400 years ago. So, this idea, that somehow all of a sudden they will become one after all these years in order to jointly apply the wealth from oil to the betterment of Muslims the world over has frankly one term for it. Idiots.

American Troops. The modern military industrial complex requires frequent wars overseas in order to upgrade its weapon systems, generate economic activity, technological advancement and resultant superiority over other nations, and an avenue for release of anger and violent tendencies of the masses in order to maintain peace and civility at home.

Once these troops come back home, they'll be back somewhere else 10-12 years down the line. I mean if Bush can send them off with such an outrageous set of flimsy excuses, surely the US can manufacture something more credible the next time around.

>>> The counter view goes that elements of the Muslim world were busy trying to destroy politics as usual, in various Muslim and non-Muslim countries" from 1928 (Al Banna's calls to arms) or the 1950's (Sayyid Qutb et al manifestos), or 1979 (Khomeinist proxy campaigns against the Great Satan) up to 9/11/01

I agree. All reactionary movements. Middle easterners should use the US and then lose the US. They aren't ever going to receive better treatment in return.

>> Khomeinist proxy campaigns against the Great Satan) up to 9/11/01

Thats an interesting one. Supported by the existence of a "counter view"

>> elements of the Muslim world

Who said people have the right to determine their own fate in the first place. If the US knows better how to use your economies and governments .. Let it run your countries for you! Such a silly people these brown ones are :-D

>> Once these troops come back home, they'll be back somewhere else 10-12 years down the line

There's trend people can't deny.

>> ... betterment of Muslims the world over has frankly one term for it. Idiots.

idealists, believers, humanitarians, idiots.. same thing

Thanks for the visit. Fold and out for this one.

David- thanks for saying what I, as a Muslim, have been reticent to express. Everywhere I turn I am asked to "support the troops", from my daughter's elementary school collecting for care packages to send to them, the Chamber of Commerce soliciting business discounts and donations for family members of the troops, etc.
The difference between these "troops" and the Iraqi people is that the "troops" chose to enlist, many of them signing up because they wanted to go "defend America" or "kill some A-rabs", the Iraqi people were thrust in this war against their will. I don't really have much empathy for the troops and I shouldn't be made to feel guilty for this. I do have empathy for the hundreds of thousand of innocent Iraqis that have been slaughtered, raped, maimed as a result of this war.

>I don't really have much empathy for the troops and I shouldn't be made to feel guilty for this. I do have empathy for the hundreds of thousand of innocent Iraqis that have been slaughtered, raped, maimed as a result of this war.<

My sentiments exactly.

emjayinc,

What is just as important for Americans to know is how the United States has engaged in regime change and supported brutal dictators that do its bidding, not just in the Middle East, but also in Africa, Asia, and South America. See this interview about Saddam’s relationship with the United States http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/30/1515254&mode=thread&tid=25

You mention “Khomeinist proxy campaigns against the Great Satan.” What about when the United States recruited and trained Muslims to fight its proxy war in Afghanistan, against the Russians?

It’s not only Iran that considers The Untied States the Great Satan. Remember when Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez called President Bush the devil?

*******************************************************

David Caploe,

The reason why the left and right both emphasize talking about the troops is that they don’t want to think about the genocide that they are responsible for in Iraq. One thing Iraq and Vietnam have in common is that the United States has killed million in each country, but no American government official has been put on trial for these war crimes.

"Arabs are basically a bunch of irritable sqaubling families. Only dictators can rule them in a nation-state format. Otherwise they will be at each other throats in no time. I have no clue why the US thought they could mold them into some kind of democratic nation-state. Idiots."

Wow, as an American, I can think of no truer statement about Iraq. I understand that the U.S. did start this war - and must take some blame for the carnage - but it's the Sunni- Shia civl war that is killing all the people in Iraq now. Arabs killing other Arabs. This is the confilct that Bush and the neo-cons so tragically ignored.

'The Troops' are not strapping bombs on themselves and blowing-up markets and Mosques .... but they are over there now (and dying themselves) trying to stop it.