The Solidarity Sentiment

As I have been indicating in recent posts, I have become convinced that "war is not the answer" — not any more, not in today's world. It is accordingly of great concern to me that not many of my fellow Americans seem ready to denounce the war in Iraq in no uncertain terms. The "antiwar" Democratic presidential nominee-presumptive, Senator Barack Obama, has not engaged in ringing rhetoric against the war, by any means. Meanwhile his opponent, Senator John McCain, is at least as much of a hawk as President Bush is.

The dominant sentiment in this country seems to run as follows. The president, as commander-in-chief, made a judgment call in the wake of 9/11 that U.S. troops had to be committed indefinitely in Afghanistan, to harry Al Qaeda, and also in Iraq to depose Saddam Hussein. The justification for the latter involvement turned out to be ill-founded, perhaps, but at the time almost all of the present opponents of the Iraq War (with the conspicuous exception of Obama, who was not yet in Congress) concurred that Bush ought at least to be given authority to go to war if necessary.

Once he had been so authorized by Congress, he went ahead and invaded Iraq. We can argue about whether he was right or wrong, about what his real intentions were, about whether he was totally honest with the American people, about whether this war can ever be won, etc., etc., etc. What we cannot argue about now is that our troops are there, in Iraq, in harm's way right now. Many of them have sacrificed lives, limbs, physical and mental health, marriages, and other less tangible things. The mission is not yet accomplished, and more valiant sacrifice remains to be made. The last thing we at home ought to do now is pull the rug out from under our troops.

Keeping faith with the troops is job one of the patriot today ... so the story goes.

When a duly authorized commander-in-chief sends troops into danger, even if his judgment is and was flawed, we all henceforth need to suck it up and stay the course, however unlikely the chances of ultimate success may seem. To cut and run now guarantees that all the sacrifices made to date will have been in vain.

Once the bleeding and dying have begun in a war, any war, we at home must have infinite patience. If we back away hastily, we are in effect spitting on the graves of the 4,000+ who have died while carrying the American flag into peril in Iraq.

Solidarity with the troops is thus the gripping hand when it comes to sentiment about the Iraq War, for many Americans today — even those who tell pollsters of their private doubts about the purposes and justifications of that war. On the one hand, spreading democracy around the globe sounds like a good idea. On the other hand, Iraq doesn't seem ready for it. Eliminating Saddam's WMD threat was necessary; yet, was there really any threat? Saddam was, or was not, in collusion with America's mortal enemy, Al Qaeda.

Debate between these two outlooks would ordinarily be understandable, even healthy. But there is that third, gripping hand to take into consideration: the need to support the troops. Undercutting the commander-in-chief by attacking his motives and challenging his reasoning only prolongs and intensifies the danger they face every hour of every day.

That's the dominant motif in how many patriots see the war. This blogger understands it, and even though he doesn't personally subscribe to it, he realizes that it is the prime impediment to any hopes he may have for an effective peace movement to arise that will push this country away from war. Solidarity with those in uniform who bleed on our behalf is always an honorable and noble point of view. To ask people to insist on peace seems accordingly to be asking them to behave dishonorably and ignobly.

I also recognize that today's widespread solidarity sentiment is being advanced as a beautiful way to try to make amends for the shameful lack of solidarity with returning soldiers many citizens exhibited during and after the Vietnam War.

How can one argue with such a sense of duty and obligation and honor and nobility? By its very nature, it transcends pro-and-con argumentation. It repudiates reasoned discourse and silences philosophical debate ... which is a large part of its appeal. It can be a way of coming together behind the Man in the Driver's Seat and putting mere ideological disputes in the back seat or trunk, where they belong in time of war.