I’m writing in opposition to Ted Rall’s March 28 article in C-Ville Weekly, “Don’t Support The Troops,” in which he stated:
“We’re ruled by an evil, non-elected warlord… (and we) don’t want the soldiers fighting his unjustified wars of expansion…”
“[The United States] losing the Vietnam War… to Third Worlders in PJs led Americans to decades of relative humility, self-examination and taking the moral high ground in conflicts such as Haiti and Kosovo.”
“Like a good German [in World War II] watching my countrymen march into Poland… I don’t want them to win and I don’t want them to lose. [The role of] members of [America’s] armed forces… don’t deserve support.”
First, it is instructive to note that the only high-profile public figures quoted in the news media – other than Rall – who have even come close to calling President Bush an “evil warlord” are Saddam Hussein and Kim Jung Il, two of the world’s most brutal dictators.
A “warlord” is one who has murdered his way to power, and initiates unprovoked wars to maintain and expand on it. In contrast, no U.S. president can deploy our military except under two conditions: (1) unless he/she has credible evidence that an attack on America is imminent, or (2) unless he/she has the backing of a majority of Congress. Bipartisan majorities in both houses of Congress recently voted to authorize President Bush to engage in military conflict in Iraq, if he deems it necessary.
This is obviously not a “war of expansion.” This war, as Rall must know, is about two things: (1) Enforcing the terms of the cease-fire that the Iraqi regime agreed to, in writing, 12 years ago, to disarm itself of its weapons of mass destruction, and (2) Using all means necessary to secure and destroy such weapons (well, those that have not yet been transferred to terrorists, possibly including Al Qaeda). After 12 years of allowing Saddam Hussein to play hide and seek games, and ignore 17 U.N. resolutions, it’s clear that the only way to achieve these missions is to remove him and his regime from their dictatorial, brutal powers.
On the humanitarian side, when given the chance to sell Iraq’s oil for money to buy food and medicine for his people, Hussein instead used this money to build even deadlier weapons, construct nearly 100 elaborate palaces for himself, and stash away upwards of $7 billion for himself – while simultaneously starving and/or murdering 500,000 of his own citizens, many of them children. When was the last time you heard Rall – or any of the peace marchers – condemn these acts? No, instead, they condemn America for insisting that he honor the terms of the cease-fire.
There are two key differences between the conflicts in Iraq, Haiti and Kosovo. The first is the name of the president at the time. The second is that while both Haiti and Kosovo were ruled by brutal dictators, neither presented any clear or present danger to America’s security. In contrast, if even half of what the U.N., President Bush and our defense and intelligence agencies say about the Iraqi regime is true, America now faces or will face danger from the weapons that Hussein has developed, which – in either his hands, or those of the terrorists he supports, protects and arms – could kill so many Americans that 9/11 would look like a subtle, albeit violent prelude to a larger series of unprovoked attacks.
In contrast, the “far left” in America – with whom Rall aligns himself – cheered President Clinton on to initiate wars in Haiti and Kosovo. They hailed him for “liberating” innocent peoples from being oppressed and murdered by butchers – like Saddam Hussein.
Just as a citizen has a moral right to protect an innocent person from impending physical attack, America – and indeed, all free or semi-free nations – have a clear moral right to protect free or semi-free people from being encased in a totalitarian bubble. Whether, when, and where they employ this right, is up to the discretion of their elected leadership. They don’t need the approval or sanction from anyone – let alone the moral sham that is the U.N. (which recently elected Libya – one of the world’s most brutal regimes – to oversee its “human rights” investigations).
In regards to Rall’s “good German” comment, applying this concept to our troops, and America’s heritage, is about as close to national blasphemy as I can imagine. The Nazis were determined to conquer the world, while exterminating “undesirables” such as Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, etc. When the Nazis marched into Poland and began murdering its citizens, any “good German” who supported these acts of barbarism would be as guilty as those who committed them. So when Rall states that a “good German” wouldn’t want the Nazis “to win or to lose,” this means that this person sit on the fence, watching as his/her military goes on a brutal rampage, in the hope that the world will sits by, holding peace marches, and that eventually, the Nazis conquer enough territory and peoples to be placated, without first being defeated by the Allied forces. To say that America’s soldiers are on a similar quest, and that we should hope they neither win nor lose, is outrageous.
Contrary to the peace marchers’ mantras, our world is not just one big “group hug” away from a civilized co-existence. Ours is a very, very dangerous world, where sometimes, free nations must defend themselves from butchering dictators like Saddam Hussein. And sometimes, in doing so, the people who’ve been terrorized by them are also liberated. But their liberation is only a byproduct of this larger effort.
America’s soldiers are facing injury or death at every turn, to follow the orders that their government has given them. For any commentator – or publication – to urge Americans to not support their troops is an irredeemable slap in the face to every noble soul who has fought or died in the uniform of a branch of the United States military.
Jon Sutz is a multimedia and animation designer, who lives in Charlottesville, VA .