Do Bush's Supporters Hate Our Troops?
A soldier raises his hand to ask a question at Camp Buehring where
Secretary Rumsfeld had to answer for some of the mistakes of the Bush
administration
December 2004
It seems everywhere you look you see more and more “Support Our Troops” magnets on cars. Some people seem more willing to say they support the troops, but is it all just talk?
In a recent “town hall style” meeting at Camp Buehring in Kuwait, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was confronted with tough questions from some of the soldiers whose lives are needlessly jeopardized by the ill-conceived war plans of the Bush administration.1
One soldier asked why the Bush administration is forcing soldiers to stay in the military beyond their contractual obligations and against their will with the Administration's “stop loss policy.”2 Another asked why the government was late in sending his unit their pay, because their families back home were receiving calls from collection agencies.3
The question that raised the most attention from the worldwide media was from Spc. Thomas Wilson, a Tennessee National Guard soldier. The soldier asked the Defense Secretary why members from his unit had to scavenge junk yards for scrap metal to use as armor their vehicles. Secretary Rumsfeld gave the now famous reply, “As you know, you go to war with the Army you have. They're not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time.” Adding insult to injury, he also said, “If you think about it, you can have all the armor in the world on a tank and a tank can be blown up.”4
It would appear that Rumsfeld's attitude seems consistent with the rest of the Bush administration. While the Administration was never forthcoming with the American people on why it wanted to go to war with Iraq, the reason it gave to the United Nations security council was that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.5 Their claim has since turned out to be false, but the Administration remained defiant -- asserting that they were right to invade anyway. With the death toll of American soldiers recently crossing 1,000, some are questioning why the Bush administration chose to risk the troops' lives; given that America never really faced a national security threat from Iraq.
When faced with the question of how the U.S. could sustain two simultaneous wars, one in Afghanistan and one in Iraq, Administration officials tried to convince Americans that the Iraq war could be done on the cheap. Even after U.S. Army General Eric Shinseki testified to Congress that several hundred thousand troops would be needed for the postwar, Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary, contradicted the General, calling the claim “wildly off the mark.”6 However, the invasion was not so quick as members of the Administration had initially speculated, and the postwar situation drags on to this day. The meager troop presence contributes to daily casualties as American soldiers often have to give up control of one city in order to gain control of another city when fighting insurgents. Perhaps if the Administration was originally forthcoming about the true costs of the war, and committed the proper amount of soldiers to win the peace, they wouldn't feel the need to spread the troops so thin.
The Bush administration has banned media coverage of deceased service-members
arriving at Dover Air Force Base, denying the American people the opportunity
to honor the soldiers who died in service to their country.
The overall attitude of the Bush administration toward the U.S. soldiers would appear to be one of contempt. Members of the Administration seem to be trying to assert their ideological views or win political arguments at the expense of the troops.
So what does it say about those who have supported George W. Bush and his administration through all of this? Do they share in his apparent contempt for the troops? Or does their concern for the troops only extend so far as is politically convenient for the President? Why are the sacrifices of the American soldier not as important as the ideology of a politician? If the Administration's negligence toward the troops consisted of a single act or oversight, many say they would not question Bush's support for the troops. But, the overall pattern that has emerged seems to be one of reckless disregard.
It is easy to profess one's support of American service-members. It is another thing entirely to act on that support. If they truly do support our troops, how can they continue to support Bush?