Don’t Support the Troops — Bring Them Home

JBeee

Time Out
Jun 1, 2007
1,826
52
48

[FONT=Arial,Geneva,sans-serif]by Sheldon Richman[/FONT], [FONT=Arial,Geneva,sans-serif]July 8, 2011[/FONT]

[FONT=Times,Times New Roman]
Reversing long-standing policy, President Obama will now send condolence letters to the families of U.S. military personnel who commit suicide in combat zones.

That’s nice. But he could prevent future suicides by bringing all the troops home and ending America’s interventionist foreign policy.

“They didn’t die because they were weak,” Obama said. “And the fact that they didn’t get the help they needed must change.”

But the help they really needed was not to be sent to invade foreign countries in the first place and to fight senseless wars, like the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan. Repeated combat tours in behalf of imperial policies are intolerable. But even one tour is one too many. For the last 10 years the U.S government has fought aggressive wars by choice. They were not defensive but rather a continuation by other means of American intervention in the Arab and Muslim worlds. The criminal attacks on 9/11 were not the cause of that intervention but the consequence.

Wars of aggression such as the U.S. government has pursued since 2001 have many costs. First are the lives lost and ruined among the foreign population. Presidents Bush and Obama undoubtedly are responsible for more than a million deaths, many civilians among them, including those in Pakistan and now Libya. The U.S. government calls many of its victims “insurgents” and “militants,” but that may mean only that they objected to a foreign occupier. The cost also includes destruction of water and sanitation facilities and power generation, jeopardizing the health and lives of people, especially children and the elderly.

Another obvious cost is the money sunk into imperial missions. The occupation of Afghanistan costs $10 billion a month. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars have now cost more than $1 trillion, and these money pits are still in operation. Let that sink in: The government has a $14 trillion debt. Annual budget deficits are running at more than $1 trillion a year. Congress and the president are wrangling over whether to raise the debt ceiling. And the government is spending $10 billion a month in Afghanistan alone.

If this were a movie, you’d dismiss it as ridiculous beyond belief. Yet our “leaders” expect us to accept this as reasonable, reassured that wise people in power know what they are doing. If it seems screwy, you must be an “isolationist” or uninformed.

Finally, there is the personal cost to the U.S. troops. Here we have a horrifying lesson in the old saying “talk is cheap.” Politicians love nothing better than to pay tribute to “our troops,” especially those who have made “the ultimate sacrifice.” Yet those words stink of hypocrisy when one realizes that the same politicians create the conditions that then are used to justify invasions, occupations, and war in foreign countries. Despite all the nonsense about valor on the battlefield and sacrifice for one’s country, war wreaks havoc with the lives of those who physically survive it.

Some are wrecked bodily, others psychologically. Their marriages and families are disrupted if not destroyed. Some will return home permanently scarred, perhaps to live on the streets as beggars. Others will take their own lives.

The Indianapolis Star reports, “By 2008, the Army suicide rate surpassed the national average, reaching a rate of 20.2 per 100,000, compared to the national average of 19.2 out of 100,000.” The New York Times notes, “There were more than 295 suicides last year among active-duty personnel, a majority outside combat zones.” How many were waiting to ship out?

Suicide is a chosen act, of course, but the politicians and war planners share in the responsibility because of the horrors to which they callously subject young people.

Apologists for the empire will laud American military personnel for “serving their country” and for “fighting for our freedom.” Nonsense. They, like the public, were duped into believing that. In fact, their lives were destroyed serving the political and economic interests of empire-builders and contractors. There was nothing elevated in what the troops were ordered to do. Their mistake was in trusting the people who claim to be “leaders.”

Support the troops, we’re told. Here’s a better idea: Don’t “support” them. Bring them home now.
[/FONT]
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
by Sheldon Richman, July 8, 2011


Reversing long-standing policy, President Obama will now send condolence letters to the families of U.S. military personnel who commit suicide in combat zones.

That’s nice. But he could prevent future suicides by bringing all the troops home and ending America’s interventionist foreign policy.

“They didn’t die because they were weak,” Obama said. “And the fact that they didn’t get the help they needed must change.”

But the help they really needed was not to be sent to invade foreign countries in the first place and to fight senseless wars, like the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan. Repeated combat tours in behalf of imperial policies are intolerable. But even one tour is one too many. For the last 10 years the U.S government has fought aggressive wars by choice. They were not defensive but rather a continuation by other means of American intervention in the Arab and Muslim worlds. The criminal attacks on 9/11 were not the cause of that intervention but the consequence.

Wars of aggression such as the U.S. government has pursued since 2001 have many costs. First are the lives lost and ruined among the foreign population. Presidents Bush and Obama undoubtedly are responsible for more than a million deaths, many civilians among them, including those in Pakistan and now Libya. The U.S. government calls many of its victims “insurgents” and “militants,” but that may mean only that they objected to a foreign occupier. The cost also includes destruction of water and sanitation facilities and power generation, jeopardizing the health and lives of people, especially children and the elderly.

Another obvious cost is the money sunk into imperial missions. The occupation of Afghanistan costs $10 billion a month. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars have now cost more than $1 trillion, and these money pits are still in operation. Let that sink in: The government has a $14 trillion debt. Annual budget deficits are running at more than $1 trillion a year. Congress and the president are wrangling over whether to raise the debt ceiling. And the government is spending $10 billion a month in Afghanistan alone.

If this were a movie, you’d dismiss it as ridiculous beyond belief. Yet our “leaders” expect us to accept this as reasonable, reassured that wise people in power know what they are doing. If it seems screwy, you must be an “isolationist” or uninformed.

Finally, there is the personal cost to the U.S. troops. Here we have a horrifying lesson in the old saying “talk is cheap.” Politicians love nothing better than to pay tribute to “our troops,” especially those who have made “the ultimate sacrifice.” Yet those words stink of hypocrisy when one realizes that the same politicians create the conditions that then are used to justify invasions, occupations, and war in foreign countries. Despite all the nonsense about valor on the battlefield and sacrifice for one’s country, war wreaks havoc with the lives of those who physically survive it.

Some are wrecked bodily, others psychologically. Their marriages and families are disrupted if not destroyed. Some will return home permanently scarred, perhaps to live on the streets as beggars. Others will take their own lives.

The Indianapolis Star reports, “By 2008, the Army suicide rate surpassed the national average, reaching a rate of 20.2 per 100,000, compared to the national average of 19.2 out of 100,000.” The New York Times notes, “There were more than 295 suicides last year among active-duty personnel, a majority outside combat zones.” How many were waiting to ship out?

Suicide is a chosen act, of course, but the politicians and war planners share in the responsibility because of the horrors to which they callously subject young people.

Apologists for the empire will laud American military personnel for “serving their country” and for “fighting for our freedom.” Nonsense. They, like the public, were duped into believing that. In fact, their lives were destroyed serving the political and economic interests of empire-builders and contractors. There was nothing elevated in what the troops were ordered to do. Their mistake was in trusting the people who claim to be “leaders.”

Support the troops, we’re told. Here’s a better idea: Don’t “support” them. Bring them home now.

Is the job done over there?
 

JBeee

Time Out
Jun 1, 2007
1,826
52
48
well...put it this way. americans have ensured revenge attacks of every nature on themselves. for at least the next 30 years so yea, one could say mission accomplished.




Is the job done over there?
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,337
113
Vancouver Island
Last I heard there are still Taliban running around so the job is not finished. JBee just has a problem with democratic governments.
 

TenPenny

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 9, 2004
17,466
138
63
Location, Location
I think it's called, 'any excuse to criticize the US'

Probably a daily feed of the outrage of the day.

Boring, pointless, predictable, and tiresome.
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
23,220
8,057
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
well...put it this way. americans have ensured revenge attacks of every nature on themselves. for at least the next 30 years so yea, one could say mission accomplished.


Were the Americans not already ensured attacks of every nature on themselves, for at
least the next 30 years anyway, by the very nature of their existence as a democratic
nation of substancial size with a decent standard of living for most of their peoples,
which many in other less fortunate countries compared themselves and their
political & economic situations against, scaring the living bejebus out'a the
people in power (fear of uprisings) in these other countries, so that they
had to demonize the Americans so as to try to retain their grip on the
reins of power over thier populations? Just ask'n.....

Attacks of every nature, or revenge attacks of every nature (?)....tough choice, as I
don't see much differance.
 

JBeee

Time Out
Jun 1, 2007
1,826
52
48
no matter. any and all future attacks on america will have been well earned and deserved.after witnessing the slaughter of millions of innocents abroad in last decade by america`s bloody hand, the world will be more understanding of any and all revenge attacks, i`m sure, thanks to wikileaks.
Were the Americans not already ensured attacks of every nature on themselves, for at
least the next 30 years anyway, by the very nature of their existence as a democratic
nation of substancial size with a decent standard of living for most of their peoples,
which many in other less fortunate countries compared themselves and their
political & economic situations against, scaring the living bejebus out'a the
people in power (fear of uprisings) in these other countries, so that they
had to demonize the Americans so as to try to retain their grip on the
reins of power over thier populations? Just ask'n.....

Attacks of every nature, or revenge attacks of every nature (?)....tough choice, as I
don't see much differance.
 

Mowich

Hall of Fame Member
Dec 25, 2005
16,649
998
113
75
Eagle Creek
I fail to see how withdrawing support for the troops will help bring them home any faster and certainly any safer. Maybe you should define support? Do you mean the letters and packages, phone calls and emails of family and friends? Denying the troops contact with their family? That's going to help? Or do you mean the weapons of war that at least provide some assurance of protection? Would you deny your own son and daughter support were they in the same circumstances as the U.S. troops?
 

Cliffy

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,850
192
63
Nakusp, BC
Like I have said before, I support our troops - bring them home and stop the death of our young people for the benefit of the rich and greedy.
 

ironsides

Executive Branch Member
Feb 13, 2009
8,583
60
48
United States
Pakistan our favorite buddy, please say again why we should leave them as big dog in the area again?


While coalition forces in Afghanistan wage a battle against improvised explosive devices, a Military.com investigation has revealed Pakistani officials are turning a blind eye toward smugglers who deal in the main ingredient used to make the deadly weapons.

More disturbing is that along with Taliban smugglers using secret routes much of the supply has been carried across the Afghanistan-Pakistan border in trucks contracted by NATO, which allows them to cross between the two countries unhindered.

Improvised explosive devices have accounted for 66 percent of the overall casualties in Afghanistan since the war started in 2001. The makeshift bombs have claimed 368 troops in 2010; this year the tally has already reached 143.


Karachi’s ethnic rioting, political instability, and sectarianism – along with the fact that in the last four years over 5,000 people have been killed in politically-motivated violence – have earned Karachi the dubious reputation of being the world’s most dangerous city. Once the center of al Qaeda’s operational headquarters, the city remains a Taliban stronghold.