Miranda Devine on 'supporting the troops'
'Anti-war protests made some sense before our troops were committed, so those opposed to Australian involvement in Iraq could send a message to Canberra. But now they just appear to be the futile gesture of sore losers who don't care who they hurt. Protesters should understand they have lost the argument. Whatever your position on the war, the only outcome of continuing activism is to create more discord and division at a time when troops need to know they are supported at home.'

Washington made up its mind to attack Iraq at least 6 months ago, possibly as long as over a year, dating back to the 'axis of evil' speech in January 2002. Inspections have been a charade and only a miracle could ever have stopped the war on Iraq. The purpose of protest has rather been to expose and condemn American militaristic hegemonism, and, if not stop the war on Iraq, generate resistance which may stop further attacks. In this the protest movement, historic opposition from Europe, and effective international diplomacy have been spectacularly successful, and must not, cannot stop now. The work has only just begun.

The best way to 'support our troops' is to bring them home: disengage from action, redeploy to the rear, and be brought home. We want them to neither kill nor be killed. Devine shows how the call to 'support our troops' easily translates into pro-war propaganda. Australian troops in this war are all volunteers, as opposed to the conscripts who were sent to Vietnam. They have a choice - they could resign from the force or even simply decline the potentially dangerous anthrax vaccine. In one of the most shameful episodes in Australian military history, 'our troops' are being treated like mercenaries, the 'American Gurkhas': crack, underpaid mercenary troops who can be sent anywhere no questions asked, including illegal, immoral wars of aggression against more or less defenceless populations on behalf of an empire which owes them nothing. At least Turkey bargained hard for cash and other benefits. What has Howard won, either for 'our troops' or Australia generally? Howard seems to be operating under the delusion that if we serve America slavishly, then when we call in the debt, America will respond. His experience over Timor has not disabused him of this notion.

Miranda Devine on 'supporting the troops'
'Anti-war protests made some sense before our troops were committed, so those opposed to Australian involvement in Iraq could send a message to Canberra. But now they just appear to be the futile gesture of sore losers who don't care who they hurt. Protesters should understand they have lost the argument. Whatever your position on the war, the only outcome of continuing activism is to create more discord and division at a time when troops need to know they are supported at home.'

Washington made up its mind to attack Iraq at least 6 months ago, possibly as long as over a year, dating back to the 'axis of evil' speech in January 2002. Inspections have been a charade and only a miracle could ever have stopped the war on Iraq. The purpose of protest has rather been to expose and condemn American militaristic hegemonism, and, if not stop the war on Iraq, generate resistance which may stop further attacks. In this the protest movement, historic opposition from Europe, and effective international diplomacy have been spectacularly successful, and must not, cannot stop now. The work has only just begun.

The best way to 'support our troops' is to bring them home: disengage from action, redeploy to the rear, and be brought home. We want them to neither kill nor be killed. Devine shows how the call to 'support our troops' easily translates into pro-war propaganda. Australian troops in this war are all volunteers, as opposed to the conscripts who were sent to Vietnam. They have a choice - they could resign from the force or even simply decline the potentially dangerous anthrax vaccine. In one of the most shameful episodes in Australian military history, 'our troops' are being treated like mercenaries, the 'American Gurkhas': crack, underpaid mercenary troops who can be sent anywhere no questions asked, including illegal, immoral wars of aggression against more or less defenceless populations on behalf of an empire which owes them nothing. At least Turkey bargained hard for cash and other benefits. What has Howard won, either for 'our troops' or Australia generally? Howard seems to be operating under the delusion that if we serve America slavishly, then when we call in the debt, America will respond. His experience over Timor has not disabused him of this notion.