3.31.03 rhetoric

Today I read an article in the Seattle Weekly that articulates the fact that the Puget Sound is both a region fed by military spending and host to some of the largest protests against this war.

The writer asks "It's ironic, at least. Is it also hypocritical? Seattle economically profits from the war and the nearby defense installations it protests. Or is it a genuine geopolitical mind-set that divides us as doves and hawks at the city limits?"

This region has a mighty defense industry because we as citizens voted for politicians who brought those projects to the region. When the military went through radical downsizing in the nineties, many bases were closed entirely, but our slice of the military pie increased. The growth of our other high-tech industries was fueled by defense contracts. It is impossible to separate the two issues. The economy of this region was created systematically and intentionally -- and most people who grow up here understand the principle, even if they disagree with certain aspects of the industries. It would be hypocritical to ignore this whole issue; but I think it is mainly the media ignoring the populist aspects of the protests.

For instance, during the Seattle WTO demonstrations a few years ago, the media focused on a specific aesthetic present in the crowd - and on the property vandalism - while almost entirely ignoring the truly awe inspiring nature of the coalitions formed for the effort.

I chose to travel to the WTO protests on the ferry from Bremerton with my kids and a huge contingent of shipyard workers. We stayed with the union demonstrations, and they were of historic size; I didn't see anything I experienced that day on the news (like the fact that all of the ports on the West coast closed in solidarity). I had a sense then that the anti-globalization movement was converging with a systematic, mainstream demand for economic reforms. I saw it happen again and again at protests for three years. The current anti-war protests are coming out of those efforts to expand the dialogue, to connect global politics to regional economics.

The Puget Sound region has a strong military and defense industry precisely because of a long tradition of radical labor agitation. The civil service and the armed forces and even the system of allocating defense contracts were created by popular demand. The fact that we want good jobs does not mean that we are docile and trusting; the opposite is true.

The Stranger offered an article detailing one journalists personal support of the war effort, and how his opinions differ from his neighbors, friends, and colleagues.

This journalist is right when he points out that our military is made up entirely of volunteers. He is right when he dismisses the illogical rhetoric of some activists. He is right to support his brother without reservation, and it is certainly his prerogative to believe that the war effort is justified -- even if the U.N. and NATO and the majority of the world might differ in their views of our conduct.

The problem with this line of thinking is that it stops short of the goal. Clarifying the emotional commitment to family is important but ultimately, more is required. Regardless of political affiliation or personal preference, there is a need for action. Our troops need more than just flag-waving and yellow ribbons and speeches. Rhetoric is an emtpy gesture, no matter what form the sentences take.

Even the staunchest supporters of this war need to understand that the current budget does not allocate sufficient funds to pay a living wage, let alone address the physical and psychological legacy of combat. We haven't adequately addressed the crisis of our aging veterans from previous wars, let alone the serious and even devastating effects of the first Gulf War.

The best way to support our troops is to actively demand services and funding; we have sent people to war. We need to take care of them.

share: facebook|stumbleupon|twitter