… make sure the first part isn’t just lip service to cover the second.
One thing that everyone knows, but that never seems to be fully considered in discussions regarding our current prosecution of the campaign in Iraq, is that the U.S. now operates with an all-volunteer force. There is no draft; there are no inductees; everyone wearing the uniform made a deliberate choice to do so. The maximum enlistment period is six years (and that mainly for Reserve and National Guard members); the average would probably be more like three to four years.
We’ve been in Afghanistan since December of 2001. In Iraq since March of 2003. Six years and four years, respectively. This means that practically all of the people now serving in America’s armed forces either enlisted or re-enlisted at a time when the U.S. military was actively engaged in combat operations, and they knew that they could — and very likely would — be assigned to some phase of those operations. Furthermore, the new-enlistment numbers continue to hold steady, meaning that many who have never before served are choosing to do so now.
Think about those facts. Every time we hear that Americans are tired of feeding their sons and daughters into the mess in Iraq, characterizing it as endless, pointless and futile, what isn’t being said is that those sons and daughters are stepping forward to commit themselves to exactly that service.
It goes farther than that, though.
(Henceforth, speaking of those actually fighting the war — primarily Army and Marines, though Navy and Air Force personnel fill a lot of slots in-country as individual augmentees — I’ll say “we”, because I’m among their number. I did tours in Iraq and Afghanistan both, and I expect and intend to return a few times before I reach retirement. I can’t speak for everyone at the tip of the spear, but I can certainly speak as one of them.)
There is no fixed uniformity of belief and attitude in the armed services, which is why it’s always possible to find someone willing to speak out against current policies, but there are undeniable trends and tendencies. We tend to be more conservative, more apt to recognize and accede to lawful authority, more actively patriotic: not simply because the profession demands that of us, but because people with those attitudes are more likely to enter military life in the first place. We tend to be more hawkish, and we tend to vote Republican. (Remember Al Gore trying to exclude military absentee ballots from the Florida recount?) In sum, we’re somewhat more likely than most other Americans — and considerably more so than the average Democratic senator — to support George Bush, support his current policies, support continuing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and oppose withdrawal without victory.
If you disagree with us, that’s fair; we disagree with you. You think we’re wrong, we think you’re wrong, and clearly at least one side must actually BE wrong. Naturally, I believe my side is the right one, but I recognize that it might — just might — not be.
The thing is, if we are in fact wrong, it’s honest error. We have reasons for believing as we do, and those reasons are valid even if the conclusions should turn out to be incorrect.
If you oppose the war, check your own reasoning. If that reasoning still holds solid, then you pretty much have to follow your conscience, even if it takes you in a direction I’d rather you didn’t go. Be careful, though, regarding the flavor of your opposition. If you accuse our current President of stupidity, mendacity, criminal conduct, even insanity (I’ve seen it done), based on his prosecution of this war … if you do, keep in mind that the troops you claim to support 1) mostly support him, 2) mostly agree with the majority of his decisions, and 3) mostly believe in what we’re doing under his direction.
If the President is a lying, mentally deficient criminal lunatic, then are the soldiers who agree with him equally beyond contempt?
If we have honest reasons for believing what we believe — even if we’re wrong — then is it inconceivable that our Commander in Chief might be equally honest in his beliefs and intentions?
Ultimately, those are the only choices available:
- He’s evil and despicable, and we know it and throw in with him anyway, which makes us just as bad as he is.
- He’s evil and despicable, and we’re too stupid to realize that he’s using us as witless pawns.
or, - He can disagree with you without being evil or despicable. He might simply be wrong. Or — who knows — it might be you who’s wrong.
If you go with #2, your ‘support’ assumes that they (we) are too naïve and misinformed to make responsible choices, and so someone has to do it for us. For our own good. Thanks, no; I’d rather be considered a mercenary thug.
And if you settle on #3 … well, then, congratulations. We may be able to deal respectfully with one another, even if we never agree.
Be clear on one thing: we, the troops, believe in what we’re doing. Furthermore, it’s not theoretical for us, but a matter of direct relevance. Your opposition may be sincere, it may be honest, it may even prove to be correct … but you can better afford to be wrong than we can, because you have nothing at stake that doesn’t apply equally to us. Following our beliefs, on the other hand, requires that we put our own lives at risk, yet we still choose to take that path. Even if that doesn’t automatically make us right, it definitely means we’re committed.
You can disagree with us, but don’t patronize us. We’re not victims. We’re not pawns. We’re not helpless dupes or unwitting cannon fodder. We’re volunteers, and we went into this with our eyes open.
And, if you presume to speak for us, be sure and listen to us first.