Mr Loper,

Here are some quick thoughts about war opposition and troop support.

Can we support our troops in Iraq, but oppose the war we are waging there? In other words, I would argue, Can we disagree with our country's foreign policy while simultaneously backing those who have volunteered to carry out that policy?

When I think about these questions, I think about the EZLN in Chiapas. I've spoken with a number of people who have participated in demonstrations against the current war. Among them are several who also support the Zapatistas. Both the Zapatistas and the U.S. government are apparently fighting for the same thing: the EZLN Declaration of War proclaims that the fight is for "work, land, housing, food, health care, education, independence, liberty, democracy, justice, and peace;" the President of the U.S. has said we are fighting for the Iraqi people, presumably to bring them things like liberty, democracy, justice, and better living conditions. The demonstrators I talked to consider the Zapatista soldiers and the war to be synonymous, there. While the EZLN cause is noble, they say, it is the fighters themselves who need our support. Based on the numerous encuentros -- rallies of solidarity intended to provide material and emotional support to the fighting Zapatistas -- that have taken placeacross the world over the last several years, I believe that most pro-Zapatista activists believe that the troops /are/ the war. "Try fighting one without them," someone has said.

However, some "peace" activists now claim that we can vigorously and completely oppose war with Iraq, but still offer material and emotional support to U.S. troops fighting there, and be ideologically consistent in doing so. Of course, I'm sure someone would argue, "The Zapatistas are (mostly) Chiapans, and because they are fighting for themselves and their community, their cause is their fight. U.S. soldiers are citizens who have volunteered to become automatons in the service of our country." Presumably, then, such an argument would mean that support for our troops is only support for a national military -- support for freedom fighting, in general.

As precarious a position as it sounds, I nevertheless think it's a legitimate one. The U.S. military is set up to be a national resource, a component of democracy that is supposed to do as it's told. In my comparison of the U.S. and the EZLN, a key realization is that the EZLN is the Zapatistas and the Zapatistas are the EZLN, whereas the United States is a structured nation of government, human and natural resources, and empowered citizens. I think it follows, then, that if you believe we ought to keep a military at all (in case, if nothing else, some group tried to take from us our most precious freedoms), then I think you can support the individuals who volunteer for that military and call yourself consistent. U.S. troops, like U.S. tax revenue, are a resource that our government can mishandle and misuse. Opposition to foreign policy should be directed at the citizens and the leadership of our country, not at individuals in the Armed Forces. The proper avenues for disagreement with U.S. foreign policy are the three branches of government, the media, the streets, the telephone poles, the schools and the churches of America.

Max Edason (electronic mail, March 23, 2003)