Document text
July 11. 2015 12:01AM Rothschild: Support our troops? Maybe not In the run-up to our 2003 invasion of Iraq, polling indicated that a majority of Americans didn’t support it. This despite a disinformation campaign shamefully abetted by mainstream media. Only after troops were committed did opposition fall. We had to “support our troops.” How should we regard “our troops”? I’m led to address this difficult question because in Ashland’s Fourth of July parade there was a small military contingent. It consisted of an olive drab truck and one desert-colored Humvee ambulance. A few soldiers in combat fatigues rode on the truck and three from different service branches marched between the two vehicles. The truck displayed a big banner saying "Thank our troops." For a Fourth of July parade — or, indeed, any parade in this country — the military presence in Ashland’s was small, no larger than the presence of Peace House and Veterans for Peace-Rogue Valley. When I lived in Houston, the MLK and Cesar Chavez parades were heavily militarized even though the heroes they honored advocated nonviolence. There’s a reason for this disparity: The military concentrates its outreach on poor youngsters, especially poor youngsters of color, and there aren’t many such kids in Ashland. Peace people don’t want to appear anti-troops. One reason is tactical. As the swing in opinion toward the Iraq invasion indicates, in the public mind there’s such a disconnect between military policies and those who loyally execute them that our chances of success in opposing war will be reduced if we oppose our warriors. The other reason is substantial. Troops take an oath to obey, and the consequences of disobedience are dire. Factor in the economic pressures that induced so many youngsters to enlist and it seems unfair to hold them responsible for following orders. So we peace people say things like, “Support our troops — bring them home.” More usefully, we try to educate those who are thinking of enlisting about the realities of military service, including the high rates of rape (both male and female), mental illness, suicide, and domestic violence associated with it, as well as expose the half-truths that recruiters routinely tell them. And we muster support for that small number of active duty personnel brave enough to follow their consciences rather than their orders. Still, given our society’s basic assumption that each of us is responsible for our actions, should troops be given a pass, much less be thanked, for harming their fellow human beings without proper cause? At the post-WWII trials of Germans, the Allies didn’t accept “just following orders” as an adequate defense. Nor did we try only those with large authority. In “Forgotten Trials of the Holocaust,” Michael Bazyler and Frank Tuerkheimer chronicle the numerous trials of lower-level functionaries. The British alone held 358 trials, convicted 1,085 Germans, and executed 200. Can we put an end to our endless wars if we don’t create a culture of individual responsibility? Our military failures have acted as a brake. But because we held no one legally responsible for the horrors of our war in Vietnam, we eventually resumed large-scale interventions. We need trials, certainly of those at the top. And even as we provide care for our veterans, we must stop colluding with those who tell them they have sacrificed for a good cause. We must assume that those brave enough to face death are brave enough to face the truth. Note: My column last week ran in Friday’s edition. You can read it on-line at www.dailytidings.com/article/20150703/OPINION/150709954 Herb Rothschild Jr. is chairman of the board of Peace House.   http://www.dailytidings.com/article/20150711/news/150719982 © 2016 Copyright © 1995-2011 Crain Communications Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use Privacy Statement -->