Along with “Support the troops,” “Honor the defenders of freedom” has become the newest hollow catchphrase that encapsulates American militarism. It can be seen on bumper stickers, T-shirts, wristbands and other media slogans. When I think about groups devoted to defending the rights and freedoms of American citizens, I think of the American Civil Liberties Union, the First Amendment Center and social activist groups such as progressive labor unions and Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation. What the military does today to protect American civil liberties is beyond me. Aside from invoking the most asinine and tired imagery of popular patriotism, this increasingly radical aesthetic shows the disturbing link between militarism and our national identity and a backwards conception of American liberty.
Those who claim to “honor the defenders of freedom” by praising military service actually ignore the groups that have been truly responsible for the advancement of American freedom in the realms of social justice and civil liberties. They also ignore the uncomfortable possibility that those who fight in increasingly unjustifiable wars, such as in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, are not defending the rights of American citizens, but advancing, whether voluntarily or not, a fundamentally unsound and immoral foreign policy. Our soldiers have not “defended our freedom” in a major war since World War II. We should not view all soldiers as heroes fighting for a just cause, but rather victims of an atmosphere of nationalism and misinformation.
The cult of the noble and just soldier has become an unquestionable monolith in American identity, and any dissent against it has become absolutely unacceptable. This mindset is a dangerous invitation to† nationalistic hatred towards the victims of American military intervention: if the act of killing is unquestionably noble, the victim is unquestionably evil. Most visibly in the earlier years of the Second Gulf War, the far right has invoked this rancorous sentiment to quash dissent against otherwise indefensible military campaigns.
This culture of unyielding nationalism tied to morally infallible violence recalls Theodore Adorno’s influential studies on the constitution of an authoritarian mindset tracing unquestioned obedience to authority, undying patriotism and absolute consent to the inherent justness of violent authority as the precursors to fascism. Americans are not just entitled to question the moral integrity of our military; the protection of our liberties requires us to so.
Although many United States soldiers surely perform their job with integrity and moral certitude, their inherent nobility is further disproved by some of their actions and prejudices. When we worship our soldiers, we gloss over their atrocities, such as the intentional 2007 murder of Baghdad journalists by helicopter gunners for sport, the 2005 massacre of Iraqi civilians at Haditha and the disgusting statistic that up to a third of women in the military during the Iraq War have been sexually assaulted.
The military’s rampant homophobia, exemplified by Captain Owen Honors’ derogatory slurs against gays in a video addressing his crew, reflects the many prejudicial responses to the overturn of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell by military officials. As a group, soldiers are clearly not fit to be the role models that many Americans make them out to be. Deification of soldiers is a disturbing trend that designates violence as the highest form of national service and patriotism as the highest potential human good, all while creating an atmosphere of uncritical consent to foreign policy and the inherent atrocities of combat. Regardless of national in heritage, no rational and decent human being should pin his moral compass to the foreign policies of his government.
Mr. McGovern:
If President Clinton properly pursued OBL, he would have been on the run and dead in the 1990’s. I understand you have a sincere interest in the truth and in open-mindedness. So, tell me, name for me 2 conservative thinkers who have spoken at COW in the past 4 years that the average American would recognize and who have not been shouted down.
It “seems” to you that “aggressive, militarized American foreign policy did directly influence the 9/11 attack”? I can refer you to the 9/11 Commission Report which was bi-partisan. In it, the Commission confirmed that “they (the terrorists) were at war with us and we were not at war with them.” Yes, Mr. McGovern, it’s called Clinton’s inaction.
Regarding Israel, it’s ironic how Muslims may live in Israel without threats to their lives but Jews living in Yemen or Iran would be slaughtered. Israel’s military ensures their survival. The region confirms that we live in a dangerous world and that it is governed by the aggressive use of force.
America’s actions in Iraq and Afghanistan are noble. The soldiers have freed 50 million people from dictatorship and from treating women as 3rd class citizens. The Afghans live in 3rd century squalor. Is that our fault too? Our efforts are not without flaws. But we have demonstrated more goodwill and deeds in the world than the French, all of Europe or Russia ever will.
While at COW, I heard guest speakers Lester Thurow, Jesse Jackson, Black Panther Stokely Carmichael, Julian Bond, Mary Frances Berry–all liberals. But not one conservative ever walked on the campus. I wonder if today a conservative would be shouted down by the open-minded crowd you speak of.
I do hope to see a list of conservative speakers on the campus of COW. I remain hopeful, if not open-minded, that I will see such a list.
Regards,
Mike Crowe
Houston TX
Mr. Crowe, according to you, “It was America’s inaction after the first WTC bombing on Feb 26, 1993 that inspired OBL to attack again.”
Here to refute that is Osama Bin Laden’s statement on why he attacked the World Trade Center on September 11th, 2001:
“Allah knows it did not cross our minds to attack the towers but after the situation became unbearable and we witnessed the injustice and tyranny of the American-Israeli alliance against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, I thought about it. And the events that affected me directly were that of 1982 and the events that followed ñ when America allowed the Israelis to invade Lebanon, helped by the U.S. Sixth Fleet.”
So not only are you wrong in claiming Clinton’s alleged inaction regarding the WTC bombings of 1993 directly influenced the attacks on 9/11, it seems to me aggressive, militarized American foreign policy did directly influence it. COW is open-minded, we just check our facts now.
The world is governed by the aggressive use of force. Obviously, the writers above have been terribly impacted by the 9/11 attack on America. To say that Americans have had problems with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq is to ignore the events on 9/11, which the writers above do. When was the last time you watched the second plane fly into the WTC?
Our military actions in Afghanistan were justified if that’s where our Intelligence led us to believe the origins of the attack exist. Perhaps our tactics could be improved,as no war is clean and perfectly executed.
Hanson’s notion that our soldiers have not “defended our freedom since WWII” is a farce. Did Germany ever attack America? He ignores the 9/11 attack on our soil but he implies our freedoms were at stake in WWII. Hanson is content that we lost 8,000 American soldiers in one day in Normandy, but the 4,800 soldiers lost in Iraq over 8 years died in vain I suppose.
Hanson fails to quote about 20 Democrats who in the 1990’s regarded Saddam Hussein as the greatest threat to stability in the Gulf Region and to America. He fails to mention the 17 UN Resolutions defied by Saddam Hussein. He fails to mention that Saddam Hussein, and his sons, were in fact weapons of mass destruction themselves. They’re dead now.
President Clinton did nothing after the 2/26/93 WTC attack. It was America’s inaction after the first WTC bombing on Feb 26, 1993 that inspired OBL to attack again. Yes, it may be hip to hate George Bush policies. It may be a cold day in Hell before The College of Wooster invites a conservative speaker on its campus to defend the Iraq War. But there’s a reason that you do not hear Obama claim that the surge in Iraq failed. It didn’t.
Our military exhibits great bravery. It’s the greatest force in the world. We know it protected Europe from Soviet expansionism for decades. Unlike today’s terrorists, our soldiers wear uniforms and openly show their weapons. Terrorists blend in with their neighborhood and systematically kill innocence and destroy poperty. Terrorists are cowards.
Our freedom isn’t free. It is not passed on in our bloodstream from one generation to the next, as Ronald Reagan often stated. It must be protected and defended. It is our military, even with some bad apples, that demonstrates bravery so that may live free.
Regards,
Mike Crowe
Class 0f ’87
(I never spoke up on campus and it’s time for conservatives to stand up and challenge the ocean of liberalism at COW. If COW is so open-minded, where’s the conservative speaker? Where’s the conservative voice?)
If there is a big difference between honoring and deifying, what is it? Either way professional killers are glorified for carrying out terrible foreign policy, murdering innocent civilians and imposing freedom in an undemocratic fashion.
We can’t keep up rhetoric of “Support the troops” because it does nothing to stop people dying, rather it encourages people to participate in it. Again, I honestly see no difference between deifying and honoring. If criticizing soldiers and the armed forces remains taboo we will never stop entering careless conflicts. Maybe young Americans will stop enlisting if the public stops encouraging them to join due to the respect they gain by association.
There’s a big difference between deifying American soldiers and honoring them for upholding their commitment to protecting this country’s national interests, whether they agree with them or not. While you have some valid points about a culture progressively enculturated in favor of a nationalistic viewpoint, it’s unfair to link that to all forms of soldier support.
I’m surprised that in your analysis, you don’t mention at any point that fact that many people put those signs and bumper stickers up expressly as a sign of the fact that (although they had many problems with US forces in Afghanistan and Iraq) criticism over US military engagements. Many of these symbols became popular BECAUSE of public dissatisfaction with the administration’s nationalistic (some might say neo-imperialist) endeavors.