When the 4th Stryker Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division rolled out of Iraq last week, the colonel commanding the brigade told a reporter that his soldiers were “leaving as heroes.”
While we can understand the pride of professional soldiers and the emotion behind that statement, it’s time for Americans -- military and civilian -- to face a difficult reality: In seven years of the deceptively named “Operation Iraqi Freedom” and nine years of “Operation Enduring Freedom” in Afghanistan, no member of the U.S. has been a hero.
This is not an attack on soldiers, sailors, and Marines. Military personnel may act heroically in specific situations, showing courage and compassion, but for them to be heroes in the truest sense they must be engaged in a legal and morally justifiable conflict. That is not the case with the U.S. invasions and occupations of Iraq or Afghanistan, and the social pressure on us to use the language of heroism -- or risk being labeled callous or traitors -- undermines our ability to evaluate the politics and ethics of wars in a historical framework.
The legal case is straightforward: Neither invasion had the necessary approval of the United Nations Security Council, and neither was a response to an imminent attack. In both cases, U.S. officials pretended to engage in diplomacy but demanded war. Under international law and the U.S. Constitution (Article 6 is clear that “all Treaties made,” such as the UN Charter, are “the supreme Law of the Land”), both invasions were illegal.
The moral case is also clear: U.S. officials’ claims that the invasions were necessary to protect us from terrorism or locate weapons of mass destruction were never plausible and have been exposed as lies. The world is a more dangerous place today than it was in 2001, when sensible changes in U.S. foreign policy and vigorous law enforcement in collaboration with other nations could have made us safer.
The people who bear the greatest legal and moral responsibility for these crimes are the politicians who send the military to war and the generals who plan the actions, and it may seem unfair to deny the front-line service personnel the label of “hero” when they did their duty as they understood it. But this talk of heroism is part of the way we avoid politics and deny the unpleasant fact that these are imperial wars. U.S. military forces are in the Middle East and Central Asia not to bring freedom but to extend and deepen U.S. power in a region home to the world’s most important energy resources. The nation exercising control there increases its influence over the global economy, and despite all the U.S. propaganda, the world realizes we have tens of thousands of troops on the ground because of those oil and gas reserves.
Individuals can act with courage and compassion serving in imperial armies. There no doubt were soldiers among the British forces in colonial India who acted heroically, and Soviet soldiers stationed in Eastern Europe were capable of bravery. But they were serving in imperial armies engaged in indefensible attempts to dominate and control. They were fighting not for freedom but to advance the interests of elites in their home countries.
I recognize the complexity of the choices the men and women serving in our military face. I am aware that economic realities and the false promises of recruiters lure many of them into service. I am not judging or condemning them. Judgments and condemnations should be aimed at the powerful, who typically avoid their responsibility. For example, a journalist recently asked Ryan Crocker, former U.S. ambassador to Iraq, to reflect on U.S. culpability for the current state of Iraqi politics. Crocker was reluctant to go there, and then refused even to consider the United States’ moral responsibility: “You can ask the question, was the whole bloody thing a mistake?” he said. “I don’t spend a lot of time on that.”
It’s not surprising U.S. policymakers don’t want to reflect on the invasions, but the public must. Until we can tell the truth about U.S. foreign policy, and how the military is used to advance that policy in illegal and immoral ways, we will remain easy marks for the politicians and their propagandists.
Part of that propaganda campaign is suggesting that critics of the war don’t support the troops, don’t recognize their sacrifices, don’t appreciate their heroism. We escape the propaganda by not playing that game, by telling the truth even when it is painful.
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
Other articles in Editorial
Staying Sober 22 May 2012
Postcolonial Theory, Whiteness & Palestine 18 May 2012
The Zionist Scenario: Now And In The Future 15 May 2012
Housing Subsidies: Capitalism’s Smoke and Mirrors 12 May 2012
Historic Hunger Strikes: Lightning in the Skies of Palestine 09 May 2012
Media Censor Palestinian Holocaust 07 May 2012
The Massive Palestinian Hunger Strike 03 May 2012
Power Struggle within Israel’s Security establishment 01 May 2012
Holocausts: Theirs and the Many Ours 29 April 2012
Freedom’s Three R’s: Riots, Rebellion and Revolution 28 April 2012
Featured_Author
Opinion
|
Is Jeffrey Feltman Iran’s Best Friend in Lebanon? |
| Franklin Lamb | |
|
Staying Sober |
| Lawrence Davidson | |
|
NO NO NATO |
| Bob Boldt | |
|
Jerusalem Day |
| Stephen Lendman | |
|
Why An Ex-Marine Turns Pacifist |
| Sherwood Ross | |
|
Hafez Aladdeen is an Israeli Patriot |
| Gilad Atzmon | |
|
Ongoing Palestinian Genocide |
| Gideon Polya | |
|
Is the Occupy Movement Justified? |
| Timothy V. Gatto | |
|
And Lukewarm Was His Name-O |
| Will Durst | |
|
The New Protest |
| Uri Avnery | |
|
That Was Now, This is Then |
| Nima Shirazi | |














