3.21.03 – more war-related rant

i swear if i hear the term “shock and awe” on the news one more time today i’m going to vomit on the radio in protest. they make it sound like they’re talking about fireworks, not a bombing campaign. it makes me sick.

the boise community is all a twitter today because on wednesday the Weekly published our regular column by New York-based syndicated columnist Ted Rall with the headline “Don’t Support Our Troops.” i admit i was shocked when i looked at the headline, but actually reading the column reveals that Mr. Rall’s opinion is pretty much in line with the newspaper’s anti-war stance. i’m not sure about the decision to run such an inflammatory headline (i’m just the receptionist, i tell callers repeatedly, but that doesn’t stop them from making bodily threats and 20-minute rants on things completely unrelated to anything), but the real problem is that most of our furious callers (a sales agent for a local news station is calling for a boycott of our advertisers, distribution sites are telling us to pick up our boxes and stop delivery…) didn’t actually read the article, just the headline. i hate ignorant anger. the paper’s stance, and mine, is that the best way to bring our troops home safely to their families and loved ones is not to send them out there at all. its not really about not supporting troops, its about not supporting the administration. not supporting the people who come up with crap like “shock and awe” to describe how they’re going to flatten baghdad.

to borrow a clip out of Rall’s column:

“Sen. John Kerry, the Democratic presidential frontrunner, opposes war with Iraq. Despite this stance, he suggests that Americans should set aside their political differences…’When the war begins, if the war begins,’ says Kerry, ‘I support the troops and I support the United States of America….'”

it’s so easy to take a middle-of-the-road stance like that: to oppose war right up till it starts, and then throw in the cards and cheer along with CNN, praying that they’ll nuke baghdad quickly and efficiently and then come home to their families. that’s bullshit. if the war is wrong, it’s wrong before and during and after. you can’t jump sides just to be on the winning team. supporting our troops, to me, means not sending them into an unjust war. it means not sacrificing their lives over oil prices. other people need to support our troops by sending over shipments of coffee or valentines, by waving flags and holding prayer sessions, and i do understand that. but i’m supporting our troops by NOT supporting an administration that would force soldiers to make the grave moral decision to take the life of a fellow human being without the least assurance that it will bring about a greater good for the world.

my anger isn’t focused on individual soldiers. i’ll be glad that they’re back home with their families. i respect that devoting one’s life to the military (and that, really, is the potential price of anyone who joins up) is an incredible sacrifice, and i respect and appreciate the people who have sworn to protect the country i live in. i imagine that one of the hardest part of being a soldier is trusting, unconditionally, that our leaders are doing the right thing. but as a civilian, that’s not my job.