(Dis)Respecting the Troops

Are the Troops Beyond Criticism?

The issue of respect for American troops, as well as what exactly constitutes "supporting" them, has long been the subject of debate between opponents and supporters of the war in Iraq. Generally, those on the right (and some leftist hawks) claim that one must support the war itself in order to "support the troops," since the troops are defined by their involvement in the war. On the other hand, opponents of the war claim that one can "support the troops" as individuals and wish for their well-being without approving of the policies which they are forced to carry out.

While the majority of the anti-Iraq-war crowd insists that they support the troops, Washington Post writer William Arkin has, in the eyes of many, crossed the line in his blog posting The Troops Also Need to Support the American People. In the post, Arkin objects to the expression by numerous servicemen that they disapprove of those in the civilian population who oppose the war:

These soldiers should be grateful that the American public, which by all polls overwhelmingly disapproves of the Iraq war and the President's handling of it, do still offer their support to them, and their respect.

Through every Abu Ghraib and Haditha, through every rape and murder, the American public has indulged those in uniform, accepting that the incidents were the product of bad apples or even of some administration or command order.

Sure it is the junior enlisted men who go to jail, but even at anti-war protests, the focus is firmly on the White House and the policy. We just don't see very man "baby killer" epithets being thrown around these days, no one in uniform is being spit upon.

The response to Arkin's post in the conservative blogosphere has been very strong, with "Uncle Jimbo" of Blackfive (a military blog) contributing a post entitled "A Hearty F*** You To William Arkin." Those who support the war generally objected to Arkin's references to Abu Ghraib and Haditha, and pointed out that the troops enjoy the protections of the First Amendment, just as civilians do (except where restricted by their contractual obligations as soldiers). Referencing a meme that has become very popular in conservative circles, a number of bloggers said that those in the military are the only ones who have truly "earned" their right to free speech.

While Arkin went too far in his blanket criticism of the troops, his post could open a valuable debate on exactly how much Americans are obligated (culturally and politically) to uncritically support the military. Politicians in both major parties have carefully avoided any criticism of the troops, and have been sure that any criticisms of the war are leveled against political leaders (in the Pentagon and White House) or at least high-level military commanders, rather than the rank and file. When John Kerry accidentally appeared to speak ill of the troops in a "botched joke" meant to criticize the president a few months ago, the widespread backlash reinforced the perception that servicemen should stand beyond criticism.

As the war in Iraq becomes more unpopular and more Americans look upon the operations in Iraq with a critical eye, it is possible that the troops could suddenly find themselves a legitimate subject of criticism, especially if abuses similar to those at Abu Ghraib or Haditha were to surface once again.

The Evolution of a Political 'Fishing Story'

In a related event, there has been a minor uproar among conservatives regarding an altercation between antiwar protesters and conservative counter-protesters from the FreeRepublic.com community. Following a period in which the two sides exchanged insults and slogans, when the antiwar protesters moved past the counter-protesters en route to another location, the two sides were only separated by a few feet and tensions apparently escalated. While further insults and even threats were exchanged, it is alleged that an antiwar protester spat in the direction of Iraq war veteran and amputee Joshua Sparling. The original report of the incident in the New York Times is as follows:

Later, as antiwar protesters passed where he and his group were standing, words were exchanged and one of the antiwar protestors spit at the ground near Mr. Sparling; he spit back.

This relatively minor incident, in which it is unclear whether offense was even intended (since the protester spat "at the ground near Mr. Sparling"), took on an entirely new significance as it made its way through the conservative blogosphere. From the original, balanced description in the NYTimes, conservative blogger Michelle Malkin posted on her blog with the incendiary title "Spitting at a War Hero," also saying "Shame on the spitter. May you rot in hell."

This, however, was far from the end of the evolution of this story. In the aforementioned article at Blackfive, "Uncle Jimbo" claimed that "Joshua Sparling got a bit of lefty love via a wad of spit." Finally, the process of exaggeration and increasingly incendiary language was completed when the widely-read site FreeRepublic.com reported on the incident with the title "Wounded Iraq Vet Threatened, Spat on by 'Antiwar' Protesters." (my emphasis) Commenters at FreeRepublic then went on to point out that spitting on someone can be categorized as assault. Even more telling, none of the 50 comments by readers pointed out the inaccuracy of the title.

This story, in which a possibly-innocuous incident of "spitting on the ground near" someone gradually evolved into a malicious assault on a "wounded war hero," points out exactly how quickly and easily the right-wing spin machine can distort even the most basic facts in order to smear opponents of the war (variously called "traitors," "idiots," and "semi-humans" by those at FreeRepublic). Those who so obviously thrive on hatred of their political opponents saw no need to check the facts themselves or correct the obvious exaggeration that was occurring.

It is disturbing -- though not entirely surprising -- that these people would so uncritically swallow these lies, just as many of them accepted (and somehow continue to hold on to) the lies leading in to the war in Iraq and the new incendiary claims of the Bush administration regarding Iran, Syria, and numerous other alleged "threats" to America.