"Support Our Troops" Should Be More Than a Bumpersticker Slogan

So here we are at the four-year anniversary of the war in Iraq, and my son is on his way back for his second tour. He shipped out Friday, the same day I visited the Oregon Health and Science University's dental school in Portland to have my yearly checkup. While waiting for my name to be called I reflected on the stories of his first deployment, the carnage, the lost friends, the senseless bloodshed. Hard to imagine such a loving and caring boy being exposed to that.

I was distracted by an older man begging at the receptionist window for some one to see him because he had broken two molars. The lady at the window was quick to point out that this was not a free clinic, and that since he was a Veteran, he should go to the VA Hospital next door. He quickly replied that he HAD gone to the VA first, but since he was not 100% disabled he did not qualify for dental benefits. I was floored. So must have been the receptionist, because she picked up the phone and made a call to the VA on his behalf only to find that, sure enough, unless a Veteran is 100% disabled, they do not qualify for dental care. Wow. Just wow.

Well-meaning soldiers like my son, which enlisted for a love of their country, or because joining the military provides them the only opportunity to have an education, spill their blood and the blood of the occupied people so that a few can enlarge their coffers. Presently, concurrent with the call for patriotism and support, certain senators plot the end of military medical benefits for those very same soldiers they sent to the desert in order to pass those savings on to the hungry corporations (HMO's and other medical insurance corporations). Some support. It should come as no surprise that investigations into the poor health care provided to soldiers at the VA Hospital has revealed that the management of those hospitals is outsourced to Halliburton. What is surprising is that they have absolutely no shame.

This war is a pretty good scam, if you think about it. Taxpayers foot the bill for a military occupation to benefit business interests. Soldiers are exploited and are stripped of their benefits so that they will either have to pay to for the emotional and physical injuries that they incurred while fighting for the same companies that are now discarding them like broken tools, or else join the thousands of mentally and physically handicapped vets - a large majority of whom are homeless.

Meanwhile, in what once Yugoslavia, soldiers who fought for that country get tidy pensions, medical and dental for the rest of their life, even if one isn't injured or disabled. It seems that at least for THAT government supporting their troops is more than some slogan on a bumper sticker. They are compensated because they stepped up... they COULD have been injured, disabled, or worse, but they did what they had to for their country. They are patriots and treated like heroes. This all makes me think about the collection my family took up to make sure my son could serve with battle grade armor, because the Army was not going to give him any.

Elsewhere, genocide and ethnic cleansing occurs on our little blue planet, but since there is no economic benefit to corporate interests there, "the powers that be" turn a blind eye to the slaughter. To prove this point, we must simply consider how the US has imposed trade embargoes on Cuba and Vietnam "because they are communist" while China (which is also communist), a country with a horrible record and long history of human rights violations can be awarded "most favored trade status." The answer is quite simple. Huge corporate interests in the US can benefit by the cheap manufacturing that slave labor provides, so it is allowed.

Osama Bin Laden just celebrated his 50th birthday. Remember Osama? The guy responsible for 9/11? Ever wondered why he isn't being hunted down like the animal that he is? Our government doesn't know where he is, we are told. But they DO know that he isn't, and never was in Iraq. In fact, Sadamn Hussein and Osama Bin Laden were mortal enemies. Why then, did we spend billions of dollars and spill the blood of American soldiers to go after a leader we once supported from a country which posed no threat to the US? A country that had no military left to defend itself with since its military had been devastated by the first US invasion? The people who are fighting our troops in Iraq aren't in some Iraqi army, they are tribal citizens fighting for control of the country that was fragmented by the war.

The present conundrum in the Middle East can be summed up thusly. We can trace this problem to an Iranian "bad guy" that wouldn't play ball with the US government. The US government replaced this leader with someone they could exploit. This led to the American hostage crisis, where the radical Iranians kidnapped American citizens. Back then, Saddam was a "good guy," and Reagan armed him to fight against the Ayatollah, who was a "bad guy." When Saddam wouldn't play ball with the US, President Bush Sr. dubbed him a "bad guy" and carpet-bombed his country. Later, when now Vice President Cheney wanted to do business with him, he was once again a "good guy" -- until, of course President Bush Jr. needed a diversion for not being able to find Bin Laden -- who in turn was a "good guy" when we armed him to fight the Russian invasion of Afghanistan in the 70's and 80's, but a "bad guy" for having the US bombed in 2001. In short, people who do what we want are "good guys" - but they are "bad guys" when they resist exploitation. There is a lesson here if one reads closely.

Support our troops? Of course we support our troops. They are our sons and daughters; nephews and nieces; grandchildren and neighbors. Now, the people that have put them in harms way for purely economic-political reasons need to support them too. Should patriotism begin with out leaders and the people who put them in harms way?