(crossposted from www.brianwood.com)
"Do You Support The Troops?"
I get asked this more often than you might think sometimes in interviews, sometimes in casual emails, and other times more aggressively, as if the person asks me already suspects how I might answer. One person at a convention asked me this before he would engage me in conversation, I guess to suss out if he was going to bother or not. Writing something like DMZ and being openly critical of the war and the Bush Administration, some people might wonder.
And it always annoys me because this is a binary question that has no binary answer. And what the hell does "supporting the troops" mean, anyway?
If you're the Bush Admin, it means keeping the troops in Iraq for as long as possible, or sending them back in for multiple tours. That doesn't sound like "support" to me (just like still shorting them on body armor isn't particularly "supportive" either). So I don't support the troops the way my government does.
I feel sympathy for them. They shouldn't be there in the first place. Is that support? Emotional support, maybe, but they don't know who I am and my thoughts don't have any tangible impact on them and their day-to-day, so is that really support? No, it's just me and my feelings.
And how can one really offer a blanket statement of support? What about the troops who rape and murder civilians, the ones convicted of those crimes and the ones never charged? What about the male soldiers who harrass and rape their female fellow soldiers? I can't support them - they're horrible people. How could I? So I couldn't say I support the troops without qualifying it.
There are a lot of alternative plans being floated by people in power that are just variations on the Bush theme. Most of them show the troops a little more consideration, though, by recognizing that the war is fucked and we need to expedite their return to one degree or another. But even an additional day spent over there means more wounded and dead soldiers, which feels callous, not supportive. An immediate and total withdrawal is probably the most beneficial thing that could be done, if we're talking purely supporting the troops - get them out of harm's way right now. But that position is seen as "bad" for a lot of reasons, one of them being that it somehow invalidates all the soldiers who have been killed or injured up to now, another being that a "cut and run" plan would just bring the enemy back home to our neighborhoods (neither of which I agree with).
No one I ask seems to have a good way to explain just what "supporting the troops" means. The best one I've heard is to not blame them for the war. A pretty good one, but ultimately flawed, is to try and fund them better. But that just keeps the Bush War Machine humming along. But the answer expected when that question is asked is "yes", and that seems to satisfy people. That guy who asked me this question at a convention visibly relaxed when I answered "yes", and only then paid for the copy of DMZ that he was holding in his hands. I don't mean to come down hard on him I suspect he wanted to be sure I wasn't the sort that would spit on returning troops or call them baby-killers, since that copy was for his buddy serving overseas. But this question is unfair, it's too binary, and too often used in a manipulative way. And I'm not doing anyone any favors, certainly not the troops, when I answer "yes".
But what other answer could I give, except this one you just read?
-bri
"Do You Support The Troops?"
I get asked this more often than you might think sometimes in interviews, sometimes in casual emails, and other times more aggressively, as if the person asks me already suspects how I might answer. One person at a convention asked me this before he would engage me in conversation, I guess to suss out if he was going to bother or not. Writing something like DMZ and being openly critical of the war and the Bush Administration, some people might wonder.
And it always annoys me because this is a binary question that has no binary answer. And what the hell does "supporting the troops" mean, anyway?
If you're the Bush Admin, it means keeping the troops in Iraq for as long as possible, or sending them back in for multiple tours. That doesn't sound like "support" to me (just like still shorting them on body armor isn't particularly "supportive" either). So I don't support the troops the way my government does.
I feel sympathy for them. They shouldn't be there in the first place. Is that support? Emotional support, maybe, but they don't know who I am and my thoughts don't have any tangible impact on them and their day-to-day, so is that really support? No, it's just me and my feelings.
And how can one really offer a blanket statement of support? What about the troops who rape and murder civilians, the ones convicted of those crimes and the ones never charged? What about the male soldiers who harrass and rape their female fellow soldiers? I can't support them - they're horrible people. How could I? So I couldn't say I support the troops without qualifying it.
There are a lot of alternative plans being floated by people in power that are just variations on the Bush theme. Most of them show the troops a little more consideration, though, by recognizing that the war is fucked and we need to expedite their return to one degree or another. But even an additional day spent over there means more wounded and dead soldiers, which feels callous, not supportive. An immediate and total withdrawal is probably the most beneficial thing that could be done, if we're talking purely supporting the troops - get them out of harm's way right now. But that position is seen as "bad" for a lot of reasons, one of them being that it somehow invalidates all the soldiers who have been killed or injured up to now, another being that a "cut and run" plan would just bring the enemy back home to our neighborhoods (neither of which I agree with).
No one I ask seems to have a good way to explain just what "supporting the troops" means. The best one I've heard is to not blame them for the war. A pretty good one, but ultimately flawed, is to try and fund them better. But that just keeps the Bush War Machine humming along. But the answer expected when that question is asked is "yes", and that seems to satisfy people. That guy who asked me this question at a convention visibly relaxed when I answered "yes", and only then paid for the copy of DMZ that he was holding in his hands. I don't mean to come down hard on him I suspect he wanted to be sure I wasn't the sort that would spit on returning troops or call them baby-killers, since that copy was for his buddy serving overseas. But this question is unfair, it's too binary, and too often used in a manipulative way. And I'm not doing anyone any favors, certainly not the troops, when I answer "yes".
But what other answer could I give, except this one you just read?
-bri
People who are really concerned may want to phraze the question more like, "do you appreciate the sacrifices our armed forces make to ensure our freedoms," or something like that. Appreciating the troops seems more meaningful that "supporting" them.
Does that make sense? Or is it all just semantics?
I don't think the answer is to come up with new questions. Obviously no one wants more soldiers to die. Once everyone's on that same page, the question and answer kind of takes care of itself.
bri