the benevolent invasion

[jfb]

Cheer up, Erik: Some U.S. Troops Meet Iraqis Peacefully. "Thirsty and bedraggled, they said they had decided to test the American assurance that their invasion is a benevolent one." And benevolent, on this day, in this place, it was.


I don't have to tell you guys that Saddam Hussein's a bad, bad man in charge of a bad, bad government. I understood, and really responded to, the argument that we could invade Iraq to liberate it, that we could give Iraqis a better life than they had with or without U.N. sanctions, that we could help build a beacon of democracy in the Middle East. I would love that. I would love it even if it came with, say, lower gas prices, or a resolution of the president's family issues.

So I wasn't opposed to an invasion of Iraq back when we first started talking about it. But then reports trickled in that the Iraqis didn't really want to be liberated, at least not by us. We played games with the Kurds--who've been sold out too many times already--and Iraq's squabbling opposition-in-exile. We refused to consider targeted sanctions or inspections with teeth. We failed to convince any foreign population, as far as I know, that our plan was a good one. (That's a lie; I'm aware of one nation, outside of the United States, whose people generally favor the war. But, come on, one.) We relied on democratically elected leaders to oppose their constituencies to support our invasion.

Invading to liberate is a dicey proposition in any circumstances. But without internal or international support, it's just unbelievable. And that's how I made up my mind. Now you know.

But the reason we say we're invading--sometimes, when we're not spewing crazy talk about displaced revenge and Iraq's weapons of mass destruction--is still to help the people of Iraq. And I desperately want to believe that as many of us as possible mean that, even if I think it's a doomed and misguided effort, even if I think strings are being pulled by people with motives far less benign.


Everyone supports the troops. Some of us say "Support the troops by bringing them home." Some of us say "Support the troops by supporting the war." But we're all for the troops.

I don't want our soldiers to die. But caring about their fate is not, to me, the same as supporting them. I don't want them to die, but I don't want them to kill people, either. And killing people is what they're there to do. It's the job they signed up for. I can't support that. And to support them without supporting their actions seemed to me an empty statement.

What I eventually realized is that they are doing some things I can support. When they accept a surrender with grace and compassion, I can support that. When they treat Iraqi civilians with dignity--despite having encountered Iraqi "civilians" who prove to be armed and angry--I can support that. And when, in Diwaniya, they helped a local farmer get his irrigation pump working again, man, I can support that.


And this is where it comes together. I want to believe my pro-war friends want a better life for Iraq, I want to believe the president's advisers want a better life for Iraq (at least some of them), and I want to believe our soldiers believe they're helping to make a better life for Iraq. And when just one U.S. marine acts like someone who's there not just to fight but to help, for a moment, I can believe it.

Comments

peace is peace

[evandra.livejournal.com]

thich nhat hanh comments often, based on his experiences during the vietnam war, that any even tiny amount of compassion and caring introduced into a situation can make it better. when he dealt with north vietnamese generals, who were charged with stopping the buddhists' seemingly traitorous activities (mostly involving feeding people), there was an enormous difference between the generals who recognized they were dealing with fellow humans, fellow vietnamese, and those who were heartlessly belligerent. even the smallest awareness of each other's humanity led to much better outcomes on a small scale -- individual encounters. and many such awarenesses can lead to much better outcomes on a large scale -- in an entire war.

Chris

[(Anonymous)]

I think the most insidious aspect of the "support your troops" nonsense is the sly transition in implications from "support your troops not getting shot and coming home safely" to "support what your troops are doing". They're not the same thing, but they are frequently used interchangeably and vaguely, depending on which is convenient at the time.

Semantics are fun!

Re: Chris

[greyaenigma.livejournal.com]

Not nearly so much fun as the logic, "If you're not for the war, you're for Saddam!"

I get the feeling a lot of people have been eating their Specious Flakes and going back for seconds lately.

[greyaenigma.livejournal.com]

I'm aware of one nation, outside of the United States, whose people generally favor the war

I'm honestly curious, I can't think of one -- which? Israel?

[jfb.livejournal.com]

I believe so. I don't have a source handy, though.