A Citizen's Obligation

The other night I was sitting with some people and the subject of Iraq and "supporting the troops" came up. One person involved had family in the military and another had served. The old platitude how once the decision has been made to go to war it is the citizen's duty to support the soldiers - which equates to supporting the military effort - because, after all, they are defending our "freedoms" was consistently served up.

Now these people I was talking with can be labeled as middle class, educated white Americans, early to late 30s with both males and females there. They were, at best, aware of the what is generally going on in the world, however replete with all the traditional media narratives and for the most part dreadfully uninformed even about their own domestic political realities.

Now quite obviously the idea that the invasion of Iraq is somehow protecting Western freedoms is very much a non sequitur, not to mention the many freedoms that are being dramatically eroded at an alarming rate in the so-called "War on Terrorism." Nevertheless it got me thinking a little more of what is required of the citizen to protect the freedoms established in a democratic system as well as the irony of the discussion itself.

Most reading this should be familiar with the maxim regarding not caring about politics, that is, to say you don't care is like someone drowning saying they don't care about water.

Well, after the initial discussion on supporting the troops, someone (a very well educated engineer) made the absolute ludicrous claim * that the media has only been interested in anti-war figures and that war supporters don't get their chance to make their case. (after Cindy Sheehan's name came up in response to someone else arguing that somehow those without family in the military can not criticize the war effort because they don't know what it's like to have loved ones at risk.)

Eventually most everyone started to get emotional and abruptly the topic was changed with the standard, let's not talk about politics plea.

Ok, here's my point. On one hand you have some declaring that one must support the troops and their effort because they are defending the freedoms we treasure so highly. In other words, it becomes one's duty as a citizen. Minutes later someone else makes an astonishingly naive and absurd claim regarding the media and the war (and others, by the way, hardly a clue of the any political machinations of the Bushies, the media or the political system itself  - for fun I asked who believed that Al Gore said he invented the internet.They all did and a couple got upset by that "phony" Gore) Then the subject must be dropped because, in the midst of their ignorance of the politics and media, they got too worked up.

What kind of ridiculous paradox is this? It is never anyone's obligation - whether there is family involved or not to blindly support naked imperialism and do so out of some misguided notion of patriotism. Rather the obligation the citizen has is almost completely contrary to this. If these people value their freedoms and democracy as much as they claim then it is their fundamental obligation to maintain themselves informed  and speak truth to power in order to check imperialistic aims and ensure a democratic society can function within the nation's boundaries.

But try having a debate on politics and society with your "average guy in the street" without either, one, hearing an amazing array of falsehoods argued as fact with the utmost tenacity and two, the conversation ending as others bitch about bad it is to talk about politics.

Is it any wonder that the democracy is crumbling?

Update: Just to clarify one thing. In no way is this meant as a comment on the role of the military or the soldier in a democratic society. That, of course is another issue and for me, the idea of supporting the troops most certainly must include keeping them out of harm's way by avoiding or stopping needless and irresponsible wars.

Update 2:

From the Smirking Chimp, Senator Jim Webb:

I still keep my father's picture to remind me of the sacrifices that my mother and others had to make, over and over again, as my father gladly served his country. I was proud to follow in his footsteps, serving as a Marine in Vietnam. My brother did as well, serving as a helicopter pilot. My son has joined in the tradition, now serving as an infantry Marine in Iraq.

Like so many other Americans, today and throughout our history, we serve and have served, not for political reasons, but because we love our country. On the political issues those matters of war and peace, and in some cases of life and death we trusted the judgment of our national leaders. We hoped they would be right, that they would measure with accuracy the value of our lives against the enormity of the national interest that might call upon us to go into harm's way. We owe them our loyalty, as Americans, and we gave it. But they owed us sound judgment, clear thinking, concern for our welfare, a guarantee that the threat to our country was equal to the price we might be called upon to pay in defending it.

Webb is a very prominent anti-Iraq war politician who calls for the removal of all U.S. military bases and withdraw of all combat forces from Iraq so I guess then that makes him guilty of not supporting the troops.

-----

* To give just a couple of examples:

• Prior to the war just 7% of ABC coverage was anti-war.
• In an interview on April 4, 2003, with Aaron Brown,lead anchor for CNN’s Newsnight on Democracy Now! Rendell [Steve Rendell, from Fair and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR)] noted that,“…On the four flagship shows on each of the four networks, that less than 1 percent of the guests they had speaking on stories about Iraq over a two week period in February…less than 1 percent anti-war voices were heard there.”
• The infamous New York Times work as an official government propagandist by printing all the Bush administration lies in the build-up to the war.
• Also one can click here to see a full outline of the American media coverage of the Iraqi war from the outset to the war to present day as well as, of course, Media Matters.
• Finally, it is exceedingly difficult to explain, if the media had an antiwar bias, how the a University of Maryland study could produce such startling results as these:

# Fifty-seven percent of mainstream media viewers believed the falsity that Iraq gave substantial support to Al-Qaida, or was directly involved in the September 11 attacks (48% after invasion).
# Sixty-nine percent believed the falsity that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the September 11 attacks.
# Twenty-two percent believed the falsity that weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq. (Twenty-one percent believed that chem/bio weapons had actually been used against U.S. soldiers in Iraq during 2003)
# In the composite analysis of the PIPA study, 80% of Fox News watchers had one or more of these misperceptions, in contrast to 71% for CBS and 27% who tuned to NPR/PBS