Death
From Above
By Mickey Z.
12 April, 2007
Countercurrents.org
I find it virtually impossible
to avoid analysis of the omnipresent "support the troops"
concept. The latest opportunity presented itself as I walked through
a parking lot in suburban Texas. On the rear window of a pick up, I
saw a decal that read: "Death from Above." Translation: The
truck owner (or someone the truck owner knows) is affiliated with some
sort of airborne military unit. To them, "Death from Above"
is a source of martial pride and patriotic passion.
In reality, "Death from
Above" means nothing less than mass murder from 15,000 feet. It
means daisy cutters, bunker busters, cruise missiles, napalm, and white
phosphorous. It means depleted uranium and cluster bombs littering the
landscape for decades. It means rubble, destruction, the ruination of
lives by the hundreds, by the thousands and more. It means Dresden,
Pearl Harbor, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki. It means "shock and awe."
It means 9/11. It means more than space allows me to explain, yet it's
perfectly normal for an American to slap a "Death from Above"
decal on his/her vehicle...right next to "support the troops"
sticker.
Many of us don't like the
idea of our tax dollars paying for the aerial bombing of civilians but
who do you think does the actual bombing? Our (sic) troops. Yeah, the
same volunteer soldiers given a free pass by folks across the political
spectrum. I know I've made this point before but, since repetition seems
to work well for Corporate America, here it is again:
The "support the troops"
excuse making typically touches on these two areas:
1. They were just following
orders
2. Those who enlist do so
for economic reasons
The first line of defense
flawed argument. Principle I of the Nuremberg Tribunal (1950) states:
"Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under
international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment."
Principle IV adds: "The fact that a person acted pursuant to order
of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility
under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible
to him." And please don't get me started on the Geneva Conventions.
As for excuse #2, a November
2006 New York Times editorial put that myth to rest. Authors Tim Kane
and Mackenzie Eaglen "analyzed demographic data on every single
enlistee, not just a sample, and found that in terms of education, last
year's recruits were just as qualified as those of any recent year,
and maybe the best ever. Over all, wartime recruits since 1999 are in
many respects comparable to the youth population on the whole, except
that they are on average a bit wealthier, much more likely to have graduated
from high school and more rural than their civilian peers." They
also found that youths "from wealthy American ZIP codes are volunteering
in ever higher numbers" while "enlistees from the poorest
fifth of American neighborhoods fell nearly a full percentage point
over the last two years, to 13.7 percent. In 1999, that number was exactly
18 percent."
Are some of the American
soldiers in Iraq there primarily for economic reasons? Sure. Did others
sign up for a chance to shoot some towel heads? Probably. So, after
factoring out these two relatively small groups and rejecting the immoral
"only following orders" defense, the questions remain:
Exactly how are the men and
women fighting in Iraq immune from any and all blame and what does it
say about a culture when the concept of "death from above"
is proudly displayed on t-shirts and bumper stickers?
Mickey Z. can be found on
the Web at http://www.mickeyz.net.
Click
here to comment
on this article