The prevalence of "support our troops" on the bumpers in America is slightly alarming. This statement is outwardly harmless, but it conceals other, subtly ominous, messages.
Okay, to start off: I hate those stupid metal ribbons. I mean, besides the "support your troops" ribbons, we have peace ribbons, breast cancer ribbons, USA ribbons, even "I adopted my Golden Retriever" ribbons. I've seen six of the stupid things lined up across the bumper of some Suburban for our reading pleasure.
It's like those old "I (heart)" bumper stickers: I (heart) New York; I (heart) my (insert breed of dog here). How about just getting it over with and producing an "I support and (heart)everybody and everything 'cause I'm just that cheezy" ribbon?
That said, I don't agree with the idea they're somehow ominous. The guy in the minivan with the "support the troops" ribbon - the one with some Disney flick paying on the built-in DVD to amuse the three kids in the back while he's cruising at exactly 66 MPH down the highway - he's ominous? Really?
I'll grant you he's annoying, particularly when he pulls out right in front of me and hovers in the left lane for the next fifteen miles to pass someone going 65.2 MPH. But ominous? Not so much.
Noam Chomsky discussed the use of this precise statement as propaganda during the first Gulf War. He compared "support our troops" to, of all things, the question, "Do you support the people in Iowa?"
In an interview in 1992, he explained why this is an impossible question to answer. "Can you say I support them or no I don't support them? It's not even a question, it doesn't mean anything. And that's the point of public relations slogans like support our troops ... they mean as much as whether you support the people in Iowa."
Bonus points for working the word "Iowa" into your article, but that's a really poor analogy. The people of Iowa were not sent here to protect others. We are not subjecting ourselves to rigorous training, deprivation conditions, or putting ourselves into danger for Mr. Chomsky, or anyone else for that matter. The people of Iowa are not owed any thanks by Mr. Chomsky. Service members are, whether or not he agrees with Iraq or any other military action.
The point of good propaganda is to keep people from thinking about the real issue, and this statement does it successfully. You can't argue against supporting the troops, and it would be pointless to try. Your support for the troops should have nothing to do with your support for the war, but the two are presented as interchangeable.
By whom? The guy in the minivan? The convenience store clerk where these metallic decorations are sold? I understand that you feel that President Bush and other politicians are using patriotism to justify unfounded and/or immoral political action. Fine, critique the speeches that make that equation. Don't impute that to Joe Neighbor and his Toyota.
The current President Bush and his administration hide behind statements such as this. They deflect argument and pre-empt debate on the justness or effectiveness or means of the war by throwing out the concept of patriotism. Bush uses the troops as a type of human shield to protect himself from difficult questions.
Again: So, fisk Bush. Fisk the administration. Call them out on the hypocrisy, the fallacies they're presenting. Leave poor Joe Neighbor out of it.
Propaganda is binary in nature. It is all or nothing; there is no spectrum of beliefs. If you agree with the line "support our troops," then you accept all that goes along with it. You are automatically agreeing with the policies and methods of the administration without ever consciously considering them.
Oh, come on. You're saying people who put a stupid yellow ribbon on the car are automatically bound to each and every position advocated by the Bush administration? Does that include social security, or only foreign policy?
If, on the other hand, you do not support the war, then you have no compassion for those poor men and women fighting so far from home. You are un-American.
Again, who says? The guy in the minivan? All he's said is that he supports the troops. Maybe he's got a brother over there, and it's important to him that people have a visual reminder of the sacrifices his brother is making. Maybe he's a veteran and puts the ribbon up out of a sense of pride and respect. Maybe he does agree with the war in Iraq and thinks that you should, too. Maybe there's a rust spot on the fender and he thought that would be a good way to cover it up. The point is, you have no freaking clue.
One might point out that those who protested the war wished to prevent casualties on both sides. One yellow ribbon sticker I have seen includes the message, "Bring 'em home safe." How much safer would they be if they had never left in the first place? How much safer would we all be?
This is an argument that will fall on deaf ears because of the effectiveness of the war propaganda.
Yep, you are the only person in America who believes that the troops should never have been sent over there in the first place. No one else is capable of hearing that message, because we've all been brainwashed by big brother.
I'm sorry, I know this is a touch sarcastic on my part, but how dismissive of you. As far as I can tell, about half the country feels that Iraq was and is a mistake. Polls very, but the election results were a fairly good indication of national sentiment. So the idea that no one can hear the message that Iraq is a debacle is pure fallacy. On the other hand, your argument completely dismisses anyone who does support the war as a helpless victim of an insidious propaganda vehicle, rather than a rational, thinking individual who just might (gasp) disagree with you. How very patronizing of you.
Propaganda is designed to turn the public against protesters. It presents them as disruptive and harmful. It accuses them of being against the common interests, though it never clearly defines these. If you are against the war, you are somehow for violence against America.
Propaganda is designed to sway public opinion, I grant that. Sometimes it clearly defines the common interest, sometimes it does not, it depends utterly on context. (Is it just me, or is it just a bit ironic that you use such sweeping generalities to criticize propaganda for being . . . a sweeping generality?)
There have certainly been statements made that all those who are against the war advocate violence against America. In general, that is a completely false and unfair statement and it should be strenuously challenged. To be fair, though, please recognize that some anti-war protesters can become overly heated in defending their position, and say things to the nature that we 'deserved' 9/11 for our arrogance, or that they hope that the Iraqis 'teach us a lesson.' Given that 9/11 epitomizes violence against America, and the only way the Iraqis can teach us a lesson is by killing our soldiers and/or civilians, the advocacy of violence against America can validly be extrapolated from these statements.
The slogan "support our troops" assigns relative value to human lives. We must show compassion for the Americans fighting in Iraq. However, to discuss the Iraqi families killed as missiles hit their homes in the night is unpatriotic, perhaps even traitorous.
We are at war, and such things must not be mentioned. To dissent is un-American. To question information and sources and decisions is dangerous to the welfare of our troops.
I disagree. The slogan "support our troops" means that you should recognize sacrifices made on your behalf by others. It does not mean that you should ignore civilian Iraqi casualties. As a nation, we have the responsibility to monitor our national actions, discuss them, and rectify abuses. That is what a democracy does. Do you really think that guy in the minivan is plotting ways to shut down the national conversation and the curtail freedom of the press while he cruises through the drive-through window at Hardee's?
On a side note, I'd also like to point out that even if he is one of those people who believe that to criticize the war is to hug a terrorist, is it not his right to use his bumper to advocate his position? Or should we selectively shut down his side of the national conversation?
Ironically, debate and the expression of dissenting opinions are vital to the success of a democratic government, which is what we are told we are bringing to Iraq. But perhaps irony has no place right now.
Actually, as I pointed out earlier, irony is alive and well and living in this article. Only not the way you intended. Ironic, isn't it?
After all, we are at war.
And all the protesting and voting in this great democratic nation of ours could not prevent it.
And that, too, is the nature of a democracy. We debated, we voted, and in the end, the Bush administration won. It may not be what you feel is right, but we are still debating, still voting, still protesting, and still coming to whatever consensus is possible between the gagillion-and-some diverse people that comprise this great democratic nation of ours.
No comments:
Post a Comment