27 December 2003, Suvrat Raju, ZNet | Iraq
Nicholas Kristof tabulated the casualties of the war in The New York Times on Nov 19: "... at a cost so far of 400 American lives and (one study suggests) at least 11,000 Iraqi lives." I was struck by the obvious racism. Kristof does not mention it, but he is counting American troops and Iraqi civilians. The 30,000 Iraqi soldiers who perished in the war are not awarded the status of human beings. Kristof is a meek liberal but turning to more radical sources, I was distressed to find the same attitude. For example, writing for Counterpunch, David Vest argued that reconstruction benefits should be awarded to American troops and Iraqi civilians.
The American government has set out the terms of discourse for discussions on the cost of the war. "We did not mean to kill their civilians, but those who took up arms against our boys deserved to die. You dare not suggest otherwise." The anti-war movement, in a display of rare unanimity, has accepted these rules. In the mainstream as well as the alternative media, I have read dozens of articles discussing the plight of American troops. It is almost laughable to think of an article devoted to the travails of Iraqi militants. We seem to have accepted that they are illegitimate terrorists. I believe that this is part of a larger problem that we need to grapple with: our attitude towards the U.S. military and the Iraqi resistance.
The right wing has tried hard to appropriate the troops. Before the war, I remember counter-protesters at anti-war rallies yelling at me to 'support the troops.' Michael Moore points to this: "One thing was for sure -- if you said anything against the war, you had BETTER follow it up immediately with this line: 'BUT I SUPPORT THE TROOPS!'" Bush, with his foray to the USS Abraham Lincoln and his daredevil visit to Iraq, has tried hard to associate himself with the troops. This tendency has been noted and criticized.
What has not been noted is that the anti-war movement has also tried to appropriate the troops. Lest anyone suspect Moore of blasphemy, he quickly adds: "people like you have ALWAYS supported 'the troops'." Moore typifies a branch of the anti-war movement that proceeds with a highly romanticized view of the American army. In this view, 'our kids' oppose the occupation and would like to return home.
This viewpoint has its merits. It is undeniable that military service is a form of oppression. To quote Moore again: "They are our poor, our working class." Moreover, it is true that many troops are speaking out against the occupation. Organizations like Military Families Speak Out [MFSO], are an important part of the anti-occupation movement.
However, this view cannot accommodate Corporal Ryan Dupre who was quoted during the war: "Wait till I get hold of a friggin' Iraqi... I'll just kill him" or the hubris captured in the famous photograph of American troops ensconced on Saddam's throne. Neither does it account for the fact that occupation troops are now guilty of every crime in the book ranging from rape and murder to petty larceny. Not a day passes without the emergence of a new story of the sadistic exploits of 'the troops.' Tens of thousands of Iraqis have died. 'The troops' killed them.
FULL ARTICLE
30 December 2003, Suvrat Raju, Harvard Initiative for Peace and Justice Weblog: Our Troops and Theirs [part 2]
