Can We Support Troops and Not the Iraq War?

by Gary Wood
©October 4, 2007

For many there is a dichotomy surrounding the question of supporting our troops while attempting to maintain a stance against the Iraq War. Someone near to you serving in Iraq will probably least understand the sentiment as their efforts to help stabilize Iraq while attempting to rid the country of the terrorist groups the war invited in is very hard to see. Many families and friends see the support of one being somehow connected to the support of the other. For them there is no split in the two, in order to support our troops one must stay strong in the support of winning in Iraq or the loss of life and limb has gone for not.

At SupportYourTroops.us there is a message board and videos from people across this land. There message is quite simply that of supporting the troops no matter what you may think of the war. A foundation is in place for anyone to share a thought with the troops far away and thanks to the Internet the troops can read and respond to these positive feelings of warmth and hope. There are many helpful links and overall the site has steered clear of the political debate regarding the war itself.

On the ‘Bring Them Home Now’ website there is a copy of ‘An Appeal for Redress from the War in Iraq’ which was sent by over 100 active duty troops to their Representatives and Senators stating their desires to remove all troops and bases from Iraq as, in their view, it is not working nor is it worth continued bloodshed. Again, this group of brave men and women are in Iraq now, serving and risking their life and no doubt support their fellow soldiers while not supporting the war.

Within the military community there are organizations that have come into being which share exactly the message, support the troops and not the war. Visiting the website for ‘Veterans Against the Iraq War’ there is a different way of stating this sentiment. “Support the Troops, Oppose the Policy” is their rallying cry. The statement of purpose for their organization has some interesting insights into their formulation of the stance against the war yet there is no doubt this group of veterans supports the troops.

Are these and others simply non-patriotic, are they merely cowards afraid to face the fact we have terrorists in our world who mean to wipe us off the map as a nation? Can we believe them to be pacifists or isolationists too naïve to understand the importance of the foreign policy which led to this encounter in Iraq? President Bush declared a straight-forward objective in launching the attack as being "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people." That was some four and a half years ago. Now we must stay in Iraq since the Al Qaeda terrorists are there and we have to fight them on that front or we shall fight them on our own soil. The war on terror has expressed needs, the policy must be upheld, and we must keep up the fight in Iraq, right?

There was a clash during the South Carolina Republican Debate between Ron Paul and Rudy Giuliani which was started by the comments of Dr. Paul. In part he stated, “There's a strong tradition of being anti-war in the Republican Party, it is the constitutional position, it is the advice of the founders to follow a non-interventionist foreign policy. Stay out of entangling alliances. Be friends with countries, negotiate and talk with them and trade with them.” He went on to explain even the CIA warns of blowbacks from an interventionist foreign policy and among the blowbacks was the attack on 9/11. Giuliani garnered loud applause when he countered, in part, “I would ask the Congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us he didn't really mean that.” However, there is that word again, policy. Did he mean it, and what is it?

The Iraq War was started nearly a year and a half after the attacks yet clearly the foreign policy of intervention has been practiced in earnest for decades and the results seem consistent, war erupts, both civilian and military lives are lost, debt is piled high, and does anyone ever win? For retaliation against the terrorists who attacked the United States on 9/11 was the front in Iraq or was it in Afghanistan and perhaps Saudi Arabia?

Hussein and bin Laden, the mastermind of the cowardly attack which killed and forever wounded so many souls, did not even get along. The front of the war on terror was clearly not in Iraq at the time yet the foreign policy of intervention led us to toppling a hated dictator thereby opening up a new front, one that is now in Iraq. This policy decision reminds me of a dog trying to chase two rabbits, clearly a hunter knows the confusion and challenge in that and the hunt for bin Laden still goes on today, one rabbit who’s gotten away. He is a much safer man since we attacked Iraq and his terror and influence is still felt around the world.

What was that policy Dr. Paul mentioned in the debate, non-intervention? Is that a pacifist, isolationist approach to foreign policy, one that is more a coward’s course or a course someone would follow who denied a war on terror was a real threat? I believe I’ve heard that on TV, I believe I heard it right after the debates in fact. However, in researching the founders it can be said there was no desire to be passive, or was there a desire to be in isolation. There was a firm belief in a strong defense against any foreign aggression. The insights into the strength of a foreign policy based on the idea of non-intervention was perhaps no where better extolled than in George Washington’s farewell address, delivered in 1796.

“The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible.... If we remain one people under an efficient government. the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.”

There was a desire to have ‘commercial relations’ or trade with the world. This is not the focus of an isolated nation. Read again the lines about remaining one people under an efficient government, think of the concept he is trying to get across with regards to the strength developed in neutrality. Then read carefully the words regarding belligerent nations and how they will not “lightly hazard the giving of provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.” This is from the outgoing Commander-in-Chief, General George Washington. It was a policy of non-intervention, not a policy of passive isolationism.

Many of those seeking to lead us today and many of those who have led us over the past several decades had me confused about this for a time. However, what this policy is all about is not provoking attacks, not preemptively striking nations and forcing our systems and beliefs on them, but one in which no external country will attack us without clear knowledge the price they will pay will be quite heavy. When there was a need to declare war it is clear these leaders would not shrink from that need yet it would be done guided by justice. I urge you to read the farewell address in its entirety as well as study the other founders with regard to this idea of a non-interventionist foreign policy. You may find what I found, the bad press is misplaced.

In pondering the meaning behind our present policies and the policies of our founders I have discussed it with many people. One theme I hear often is the policy of non-intervention, of neutrality, promoted by these men so many years ago is not applicable today. Somehow, their reason goes, technology and the shrinking distance between countries has changed all that. This is also what I hear from many of today’s leaders in explaining why we must have a military presence in over 68% of all countries on Earth. This is the reasoning for supporting Saddam, arming him, teaching him how to use weapons of mass destruction against Iran and then changing positions and toppling him for being a ruthless dictator. This is the reasoning behind removing the freely elected leader of Iran in 1953, placing our own choice in the leadership role and then being surprised when the Iranian government’s attitude toward us today is less than open and friendly.

We cannot say if the non-interventionist foreign policy urged by Washington would have greatly altered our world had it been followed these past 211 years. We cannot say since the interventionist foreign policy has been the predominant course our leaders have taken since the Wilson Administration. Modern political leaders, including our current leadership, have turned intervention into a preemptive fine art. When Ron Paul dared to utter the idea the policy may be flawed the misunderstanding of the true nature of what the policy was he attempted to explain allowed Giuliani and others to look superior and somehow more patriotic for they supported our troops and could puff up in pride that our policies had no connection, and gave no reasoning, for terrorist attacks against us. The audience and many around the country cheered, while a few decided to investigate the real idea behind the founders’ foreign policy of non-intervention. Giuliani may deny any connection between policy and attitude toward the United States but the connection is clear when studied, perhaps something he should do.

I support our troops, as a veteran who understands the nature of raising my hand and taking the oath of a soldier. We must defend them and honor them for they are defending us and fighting against an enemy in Iraq that does have terror in their hearts and hatred clearly set. However, it is time to plan for the careful and safe closing of the Iraq front, time to begin bringing them home and bringing home all those who are in foreign lands not due to any failure on their part but due to a failed foreign policy of intervention.

We have created a long enough history now to know interventionism leads to ongoing conflict, wars with no ending (as we have on the Korean Peninsula), death and destruction, and the burden of debt more in the heavy debt owed to the family and loved ones who will not see their beloved soldiers again and to those who will see their soldiers as they invest years and tears nursing the wounds of war.

We can support our troops and we can oppose the foreign policy of intervention. We can demand and receive leaders who will place us on a sounder path using the non-interventionist foreign policy from our founders’ days. We can develop a new history of strength and peace, one our great-grandchildren will study and be thankful for our wisdom. This we can do without cowardice, without being unpatriotic, in fact it may well be the most patriotic and brave thing we the people dare to do.