As the war build-up continues, one of the key talking points for warhawks across the political spectrum is the importance of “supporting our troops.” Indeed, this has become important ammunition against anyone who voices criticism of the administration and its war of aggression. Peace advocates often find themselves confronted with an artificial choice: choose us (meaning our troops), or choose them (meaning terrorists/dictators/evil-doers). Michael Albert wrote an excellent response to the “support our troops” argument in yesterday’s ZNet.

Albert outlines the options that activists have when responding to this argument.

“We could point out that our troops in Iraq are barely in danger at all because they are assaulting a tenth-rate opponent that has no serious means to defend Iraq much less to attack the world’s sole superpower.”

This claim seems fairly accurate but it misses the point - war, in itself, is morally wrong. Under the logic of this “equality of force” argument, two evenly-matched nations would be justified in waging war. Therefore, this contention lacks the moral force of other responses.

“Or we could point out that the lives of American troops are no more worthy of compassionate support than the lives of Iraqis, and that we didn’t kill Hussein a million times over with our decade-long sanctions but we instead killed a million Iraqis once each—with Hussein getting stronger as each new corpse was added to the carnage.”

While this argument will hold little weight with pro-war zealots, it recognizes the inherent worth of all human life and the devastating impact of war. The object of our agression, Saddam Hussein, is himself a human rights abuser and will no doubt use his citizens as defensive weapons in the conflict with the U.S. And for all Bush’ talk about restoring Iraqi democracy and securing the medical needs of the people, we must not forget that the last decade of economic sanctions has reeked unimaginable suffering on the population of Iraq. We might soon declare war, but war (in another form) has been going on for years.

Albert’s conclusion is that we ought to agree with those who demand that we “support our troops.” Specifically,

“I will reply that I support our troops not having to kill people in Iraq.”

“I support our troops not being ordered to assault defenseless populations, towns, farms, and the infrastructural sinews of life that sustain a whole country’s citizenry.”

“I support our troops not having to carry out orders from Commander in Chief George Bush and then having to live the rest of their lives wondering why they obeyed such a barbaric buffoon rather than resisting his illegitimate, immoral authority.”

Read the rest of his article - it’s well worth your time. Albert uses a unique analogy, that of “supporting our troops,” to call into question the assumptions and implications of U.S. foreign policy choices in Iraq. In so doing, he relates the conflict in Iraq with the larger social justice struggles at home (and abroad). No doubt, these arguments will not convince those who believe that “our troops are fighting for our freedom.” They will, however, allow us (those who support peace) to eloquently situate the administration’s war of aggression within a larger context of oppression. Hopefully at least a few people take notice…