Re: "Support Our Troops" - Cognitive Dissonance Embodied

James Dao begins to get at the dubiousness of the yellow ribbon phenomenon in this Week In Review article:

Certainly, dozens of volunteer organizations send care packages to troops in Iraq and Afghanistan; rehabilitate wounded soldiers; and help veterans return to civilian life. But the people who take part are more the exception than the norm. With no rationing, draft or other policies that would require personal sacrifice, most Americans are free to do little or nothing at all, contributing to such groups the way they might donate to a sidewalk Santa or a church canned-goods drive for the poor.

Or they can buy a yellow ribbon. In past wars, families and friends of troops deployed overseas displayed yellow ribbons until their loved ones came home, reflecting a singular contribution to the nation's defense. Today, they are ubiquitous consumer items, available on T-shirts, hats, bumper stickers, pins, key chains and refrigerator magnets for $5 or less - a loved one in a war zone is not required.

Indeed, "support our troops" has become something of a jingle. Scores upon scores of mail-order businesses peddle Support Our Troops trinkets, from windsocks to baby blankets to silicone bracelets. In some cases, a portion of the sales revenue may actually go toward supporting troops; the rest flows to the sellers' bottom lines.

But this is only scratching the surface. Every time I see a yellow ribbon-magnet on a truck that gets 13 miles to the gallon, I think about what it means, on an individual, day-to-day level, to support the people fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

To some, undoubtedly, it means total allegiance to the policies and decisions of a wartime president - disagreement and dissent are not acceptable because that shows that there are cracks in the national sense of solidarity about the validity of the mission. This, allegedly, bolsters the enemy's confidence and their ability to fight.

This country, however, was founded on the notion that dissent, dialogue, and debate are fundamentally necessary to a healthy democracy. Even in a time of war. There are 292 million U.S. citizens, and by all indications, there's not a lot of consensus about the necessity of invading Iraq. So even if you do agree that we should be there, do you write off the other 146 million citizens as "liberal whiners," etc., or do you accept that they have a right - even an obligation - to articulate their beliefs and stand up for those beliefs?


**more coming**