Support Our Troops
Angelika And we observed a distinctly American phenomenon immediately after the outbreak of the war: As soon as American boys and girls are fighting, the criticism falls silent. Even the most liberal commentators of the New York Times, who just a day before were railing against the war machine, stood behind the fighting troops ("Support our Troops"). Now, it is not clear to me what one has to do with the other, and I tried to find out from our American friends and acquaintances what this is all about.
Aside from the somewhat unsatisfactory answer that it would be unpatriotic, I didn't make much progress with my analyses. The whole thing is difficult for me to understand because the American army is a professional army, and everyone knows that American soldiers often find themselves on the front lines. Anyone who voluntarily joins the American military knows that sooner or later they will be deployed in active service.
But the problem is more complex, because the US Army is mainly composed of marginalized groups, namely America's minorities and the poor. Many serve in the American military because they have no other prospects. Here, they receive both financial security and the opportunity to pursue an education. The wars declared by politicians at the highest level are ultimately fought by other people's children. The old guard, consisting of Bush, Rumsfeld, and Ashcroft, knows war, for example, only from the comfort of their armchairs in front of the TV (with Secretary of State Colin Powell being an exception).
There were already calls to reintroduce universal conscription in America in order to distribute the burden more fairly and not place it solely on the shoulders of minorities. I believe that America would not be so quick to engage in military interventions if there were conscription for everyone—as there was during the Vietnam War: thousands took to the streets to demonstrate against the war, driven by the fear of being drafted and having to fight themselves.
){kind=link}