War doves not against troops

After all those weeks of fuddling around with non-binding resolutions to condemn our Iraq… After all those weeks of fuddling around with non-binding resolutions to condemn our Iraq War policy, the Democrats finally decided to go out on a limb and try a revolutionary new approach: propose a binding resolution. These are some exciting times indeed on Capitol Hill.

Just a week ago, a resolution to set some definite limits on the Iraq War was narrowly defeated in the Senate by a vote of 48-50. According to an article from Congressional Quarterly, the resolution would have begun measures to scale down operations in Iraq within four months of its passing as well as set a goal (but not a requirement) that all combat troops be yanked from Iraq by March 2008.

Instead, as quoted from Congressional Quarterly, “The Senate instead voted overwhelmingly in favor of two non-binding, more benign resolutions that essentially said the Senate supports U.S. troops.”

Well, thank God for that. Good work, Congress. That’s the kind of deliberation we need to figure out what to do with this war.

Now I recognize that Congress isn’t generally known for swift and decisive actions, but maybe it’s time they move on from standard mottos like “We support the troops.”

Of course Congress supports the troops. Or at least, of course they will say that – it’s political suicide to say otherwise. The Walter Reed Veterans Hospital scandal is a stinging reminder that if there’s one demographic in America that politicians don’t want to cross, it’s the troops. “Support the troops” has been one of the few stalwart mantras that war hawks and doves alike are happy to endorse. And after all, the soldiers are just doing their jobs, so why wouldn’t we support them?

The general point of contention between the pro-war and anti-war groups, then, is what exactly it means to support the troops. The mainstream Republican logic seems to insist that, in order to help our military, we must continue to pump huge amounts of money into the war campaign and keep the troops there till they “finish the job.” It’s something akin to the simple logic of a sports match – if you support your team, then that’s got to mean you want them to win, damn it. How can you possibly be helping your team if you’re not letting them win?

Thus far, this rhetoric has served the war hawks well in paralyzing the Democrats, who tread carefully when suggesting withdrawal plans lest they get branded as being unsupportive of the troops or, possibly even worse, soft on terror.

And sure, continuing to give the troops massive funds and keeping them stationed in the heat of a de facto civil war is one way to support our soldiers, I guess. But I’m wondering why it hasn’t entered the rhetoric of our Congressmen that taking the troops out of the line of fire is probably an even more effective way of supporting them. You can beef them up with all the funding and equipment you want, but I still don’t think that beats not having to risk being killed. It’s strange to me that so many people think that supporting the troops means keeping them where they will continue to run the risk of being killed.

War supporters will call that cowardice. Some of them have pragmatic concerns about the inevitable power vacuum in Iraq. To others, it’s a matter of pride. They dread a repeat of Vietnam, which shook Americans’ confidence in our nation’s military endeavors and helped create a cynical attitude toward the United States’ overreaching foreign policies until Reagan came along in the ’80s.

But when I think about it, that loss of confidence is a useful lesson and a boon in disguise. It’s one of the few good things I can hope will come out of the Iraq mess. Looking back on the history of the United States as a superpower, I tend to prefer a cynical, less haughty America – like the one that was prevalent in the aftermath of the Vietnam War before the Gipper ruined it. I’d like the United States to give up this dream of being the sole “global policeman” and keep more or less to its own region in terms of military presence. As much as it profoundly sucks to have botched our campaign in Iraq, maybe at least some humility will rise from the ashes, and, just maybe, our foreign policy will be wiser for it.

Unfortunately, it seems like a superpower has to undergo ages of painful loss through wars before you can kick enough ego out of it and get it to simmer down. At least, that seems to have somewhat worked for most of Western Europe. And with the way that the United States continues to thump its chest on the world stage, Iraq will perhaps be just one in a series of sharp kicks to Uncle Sam’s balls before he finally gets this hyperpower buzz out of his system.

E-mail Konrad at klk27@pitt.edu.