US Indymedia Global Indymedia Publish About us
Printed from Boston IMC :
IVAW Winter Soldier

Winter Soldier
Brad Presente

Other Local News

Spare Change News
Open Media Boston
Somerville Voices
Cradle of Liberty
The Sword and Shield

Local Radio Shows

WMBR 88.1 FM
What's Left
WEDS at 8:00 pm
Local Edition
FRI (alt) at 5:30 pm

WMFO 91.5 FM
Socialist Alternative
SUN 11:00 am

WZBC 90.3 FM
Sounds of Dissent
SAT at 11:00 am
Truth and Justice Radio
SUN at 6:00 am

Create account Log in
Comment on this article | Email this article | Printer-friendly version
Commentary ::
"Support Our Troops," Or Support The Resistance?
19 Apr 2004
Modified: 09:43:29 AM
This article was written by Puerto Rican activist and member of New England Committee to Defend Palestine Marta Rodriguez. In this piece, Ms. Rodriguez questions the efficacy of the antiwar movement's troop friendly slogans in affecting the behavior of the American military in the places they occupy, or moving American public opinion from a position of support for occupation to one of rejection of such a policy. Ms. Rodriguez argues that the present approach of the antiwar movement makes what happens to the occupying troops take precedence over the war crimes they commit against occupied people, as well as the right of those people to rid themselves of those who violate their territories, lives, and sovereignty.
April 16, 2004

*Please forward widely!*

As the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan drag on, the American antiwar movement
continues to respond to the atrocities of their government with slogans like
"support the troops" and "bring the troops home." So far these slogans have
made no dent in the willingness of the U.S. population to permit said
atrocities, or in the willingness of those troops to commit them.

One of the main problems with these slogans is that they make what happens
to the troops take precedence over what is visited upon the Iraqis and
Afghans by way of the invasion. The "support the troops" slogan adds insult
to the many injuries visited on those occupied by the U.S. because it lends
legitimacy to the actions of an army that has existed to violate other
people's borders and enforce their enslavement.

Antiwar organizers often point to the economic draft that affects the poor
and members of nations that have already been colonized by this country as a
reason for using these slogans. They frequently remind us that the freedom
of the Iraqis and Afghans requires the exit of those troops. But economic
draft or not, once those soldiers engage in the butchery and genocide
required to serve U.S. interests abroad, the circumstances driving their
decision to join the armed forces are made irrelevant by the fact that they
become the victimizers of the people they occupy.

My country, Puerto Rico, has been occupied by the United States since July
25 of 1898. One of the odious realities of our condition as a colonized
people is that thousands of our young have been inducted into the United
States armed services to help do to
others what has been done to us. Puerto Rican young people are now
among the trained thugs that are brutalizing the people of Iraq and
Afghanistan. This government's all the more abhorrent and worthy of
contempt for wasting their lives in wars of plunder against people that
haven't done anything to us. The problem is that neither the economic draft
nor the colonization of those young men and women negate their capacity to
consider certain facts which they did not: like the fact that neither the
Iraqis nor the Afghans have ever done anything to harm or threaten the
people of Puerto Rico; like the fact that they didn't even do anything to
harm or threaten the U.S. That was readily apparent in spite of the
propaganda promoting these wars. By joining this country's armed forces,
those individuals decided that any job they might get as a result of their
training was worth the lives and freedom of the people they help to occupy.
That makes them culpable for the war crimes this government perpetrates to
enforce its occupations.

Another problem with those slogans, is that by treating the troops as
something that we should stay away from criticizing, we're letting the
government frame the discussion of its wars for us. The government accuses
war protesters of "betraying" the "poor" "brave" young men and women who are
now "in harm's way," and we're quick to fall all over ourselves in our
efforts to prove them wrong. Some of us claim that "we're not unpatriotic
or disrespectful" of "our" "fine men and women in uniform," that "we're just
against these wars," while others do our best to convey that it's not the
troops we have the issue with but the government. Thus, the government sets
the tone for our discourse, and a discussion which should be about the
butchery and abuses experienced by the Iraqis and everyone else under U.S.
occupation is reduced to an argument over who cares more for the troops, us
or Bush.

The 1991 Gulf war provides an example of how absurd we have become in our
tendency to allow this government to dictate our discourse on its wars and
interventions. Back then, one of the antiwar coalitions urged us to protest
the looming war with Iraq on the grounds that we should let the sanctions
work. Their reason for supporting the sanctions was that Bush Sr. had
presented his pending intervention in the Middle East as an intervention to
"support Kuwaiti sovereignty" and "self determination." It was clear that
this coalition wanted to make certain that their opposition to the war was
not seen as support for what their government had presented as an Iraqi
"violation of Kuwaiti sovereignty."

To start with, this coalition forgot that the borders between Iraq and
Kuwait are artificial, the product of British occupation, and Britain's
violation of the Arab world's territorial integrity. It never occurred to
them that if anyone had the right to determine whether Iraq's annexation of
Kuwait was illegal or not it was the Arab world; not countries like the
United States, France, or Britain, that had made a career out of invading
other countries to get their hands on their resources, and whose trampling
on Arab rights not only caused the absurd partitioning of their land into
separate countries, but the loss of the Palestinians' homeland to the
European Zionist apartheidists. They also forgot that the Iraqis weren't
the only "border violators" in this conflict, as prior to Iraq's annexation
of Kuwait, Kuwait had been siphoning oil from the Iraqi wells in Ramallah.
That is one of the reasons Arabs all over the Middle East pronounced
themselves against the United States' intervention in that conflict. This
coalition of course, chose not to hear their message.

So bent was this coalition on making their message palatable to a public
that accepted this government's anti Iraqi propaganda, that they forgot that
sanctions are just as much an act of war as a military invasion. By urging
their constituents to demands sanctions "instead of war," they joined the
war that they were urging them to protest, and became accomplices in their
government's murder by starvation of over a million Iraqi civilians, most of
them children.

When we invoke slogans that attempt to paint the victimization of occupying
troops as equal to that of the occupied, we exclude those troops from the
standards that we would use to evaluate the behavior of other soldiers and
military institutions around the world. Would we accept the argument that
there were "extenuating circumstances" like poverty or the draft compelling
Hitler's soldiers to help him rain his holocaust on millions, and that
therefore they shouldn't have been held responsible for their actions?
Could we accept the notion that they were as much the victims of Hitler as
those they were putting in the gas chambers or brutalizing in the
concentration camps? How is it that we can rightly judge the soldiers of
Pinochet, the Duvalier family, the Somozas, the Shah of Iran, Suharto, as
criminal henchmen, yet spare U.S. troops from a similar judgment though
they've engaged in crimes not unlike the crimes of those soldiers? This
smacks of a double standard; one that continues to promote the notion that
Americans and their troops are to be exempted from any consequence and
responsibility for what their government does around the world. It's not
unlike the argument that attempts to shield Israeli citizens and soldiers
from responsibility for the perverse actions of their leaders, though they
are very actively partaking in the theft and brutality that's imposed on the

Those soldiers who decide not to continue to collaborate with the
encroachment and murder that the U.S. is inflicting on those it occupies
should be assisted in leaving the armed forces. But they won't be seeking
that exit from their colonial duties as long as they continue to enjoy
support from a public that either cheers what they do or treats them as
"witless victims," devoid of any capability whatsoever of making a moral
choice and taking responsibility for their actions.

During the war in Vietnam, the desire of soldiers to abandon their posts
was so great, that many began to frag their commanding officers. Though the
overwhelming defeats that came courtesy of the Vietnamese people were a huge
factor driving that desire, they were also affected by the loss of support
at home. They were not comfortable about being seen as thugs and baby
killers by their own people. The loss of support at home was the final
straw which depleted them of the will to keep slaughtering.

This is what we need to be pursuing with the troops in Iraq and
Afghanistan. We need to remind soldiers that they have no common ground
with those who would jeopardize their lives so as to line their pockets with
profits from other people's resources. We need to remind soldiers of color
that their quarrel should not be with the Iraqis or Afghans, but with the
government that occupies and pillages our lands, that drove Native Americans
to near extinction, that enriched itself with the labor of enslaved
Africans, that condemns us to exist as their source of cheap labor, and
murders our unarmed youths in cold blood in the ghettos of this country. We
need to support them if they struggle to leave the armed forces. However,
we must also let them know that we will not support the crimes they commit
as occupiers, and that our support requires their refusal to follow orders.

The antiwar Movement's desire to secure the involvement of broader sectors
of the population in our fight against occupation is understandable. But
shouldn't we be doing a bit more than making a space for them to come into
our movement regardless of where they're at politically? Shouldn't we be
doing something to challenge their notion of this empire as a nice little
country" which would be a "delight to live in" if it weren't for the
"occasional" colonial war or the "occasional" domestic racist and repressive

Reducing the antiwar demands to a demand for troops to "come home" during
the Vietnam war did little to promote the American people's understanding of
this country as an empire, guilty of many more Vietnams besides the one they
objected to, and capable of visiting even more horrors on even more people
around the world. While the American troop withdrawal allowed the
Vietnamese to eventually take their country back, it certainly didn't end
the carnage that continued to be inflicted upon them. It didn't spare them
from the mining of the port of Haiphong in the summer of '72; it didn't
spare them from the barbaric bombing campaign against the northern part of
the country, which was escalated toward the end of that year; it didn't
spare them from this government's vindictive kidnapping of many of their
children toward the end of the war; it didn't spare them from the U.S.
initiated sanctions which aggravated their difficulties in rebuilding their
country, and it certainly didn't bring them reparations for all of the death
and destruction that had been visited upon them.

Our knowledge of the imposition of reparation costs on the Germans for the
horrors the Nazi government perpetrated against the Jews should have enabled
us to launch a vigorous campaign demanding reparations from the U.S. for the
destruction it inflicted on the people of Vietnam. Unfortunately, we were
solely concerned with the return of the troops. Once the troops were back,
the antiwar movement washed its hands of the Vietnamese people. We left
them to solve for themselves the clean up of their land from all of the
toxics the United States dumped in their country. We left them to solve for
themselves the care and rehabilitation of the many civilians this government
mutilated during its massacres and bombing campaigns. We left them to solve
for themselves the feeding of infants whose mothers' milk supply was tainted
with Agent Orange. We left them to solve for themselves the cleanup of
their land from all the mines the U.S. government deposited. The Vietnamese
regained their country, but the negligence we exhibited by reducing Vietnam
to a discussion about troop withdrawal was colossal and criminal. Thanks to
that negligence, the Vietnamese today have to hire themselves out as cheap
labor to the companies of the very country they fought to avoid being
enslaved by.

The return of the troops from Vietnam was followed by:
the American-engineered coup against Allende in Chile;
the American-engineered invasion of East Timor;
the American-engineered coups in Argentina and Uruguay that left thousands
maimed and dead;
the joint American/Israeli invasion of Lebanon;
the continued war against the Palestinians through the U.S. proxy state of
the invasion of Grenada;
the war against the people of El Salvador;
the war against the people of Nicaragua;
the overthrowal of the revolutionary government in Afghanistan;
the efforts to subvert the revolution in Angola;
the U.S. promoted Iran/Iraq war;
the first war against Iraq;
the 12 years of sanctions against Iraq;
the second war against Afghanistan;
the American-engineered attempted coup in Venezuela;
the second war against Iraq;
and the coup against the Aristide government in Haiti.
For the most part, these wars and interventions have been met with either
American full support or indifference, because the government has seen to it
that the casualties for its military personnel are low. If Americans become
too uncomfortable with the casualties in Iraq or Afghanistan, the U.S. will
either continue to conduct its wars from the air, or it'll find a way to
internationalize them. They've already begun to do this in Iraq, by
importing troops from South Korea, Japan, and Central America, and by
assigning more responsibility to the European troops for the repression of
the Iraqi resistance. If we continue to appeal to the self interest of
Americans and nothing else in our opposition to this country's wars, what
are we going to do when the government finds a way to prosecute those wars
while leaving those interests intact?

The antiwar movement owes the peoples this country occupies a lot more than
the withdrawal of troops from their lands. We owe them support as they
resist, because their resistance is what will ultimately free them from the
violence of occupation. That must take precedence over our pursuit of some
abstract end of violence that never seems to take the rights and needs of
oppressed people into account. We owe them compensation for the damages
this country brings to their doorstep, because they deserve better than the
choice between slow death by starvation or slavery in the sweat shops of the
American companies that have benefited from their misery.

Our ability to meet these obligations requires that we shift the focus of
our antiwar organizing from one that solely seeks an end to troop deployment
to one of support for those fighting against occupation.
See also:

This work is in the public domain
Add a quick comment
Your name Your email


Text Format
Anti-spam Enter the following number into the box:
To add more detailed comments, or to upload files, see the full comment form.