March 20, 2003
-
Jonathan Freedland’s 03.19.2003 editorial in the Guardian titled Dilemmas of war does a pretty good job of seperating support of the war from supporting our troops.
An excerpt:
For some, the start of war will mean an end to the anti-war campaign. For them, to do anything less would be to undermine our armed forces just asthey place themselves in harm’s way.
But this is one of those cliches of political protocol that makes little logical sense. As Robin Cook put it in his spellbinding resignation speech to the Commons: “It is false to argue that only those who support war support our troops. It is entirely legitimate to support our troops while seeking an alternative to the conflict that will put those troops at risk.” Indeed, opponents of war can say it is precisely because they value the lives of our service personnel that they wish they were not risking their lives in a questionable cause.
It’s true that anti-war movements have sometimes made the mistake of failing to support troops exposed to danger. The treatment of US soldiers returning from duty in Vietnam – often ostracised as if personally responsible for that tragedy – is a shaming example. But an anti-war position hardly entails such behaviour. Those who believe this war is unjust have no beef with the men and women fighting it – only with the leaders who gave them the order.
