'The Bonus Army' Lesson

This week's word according to Orwell is the phrase "support our troops." In popular political language it has become the rallying cry for those who supported the preventive war launched on a defenseless Iraq – a country that posed no threat to America and has since been turned into a greenhouse for the cultivation of "terrorists."

From a marketing standpoint, the phrase is an ingenious antidote to the so-called "Vietnam War syndrome" – a pseudo-psychological condition caused by Uncle Sam exiting the Vietnam War, tail between legs, because "girlie-men" Americans couldn't stomach the needless death of thousands of its young.

Apparently, the Vietnam War syndrome also gave rise to the Powell doctrine, named after retired general and former Secretary of State Colin Powell, whose experience in Vietnam convinced him that when America goes to war it should do so with overwhelming force.

Though Powell was supposedly the voice of restraint in George Dubya's first administration, even those within the inner circle who disagreed with Powell bought into his war doctrine as is evidenced by the "shock and awe" campaign, which initiated a war that has killed more innocent Iraqi civilians than U.S. soldiers and those who perished in the 9/11 attacks.

And it's not that soldiers don't deserve our support. They do, namely because good soldiers are the embodiment of courage, willing to risk their lives (and those of others) in the name of national defense.

Even Gandhi gives it up for true warriors. "My nonviolence does not admit of running away from danger and leaving dear ones unprotected. Between violence and cowardly flight, I can only prefer violence to cowardice. I can no more preach nonviolence to a coward than I can tempt a blind man to enjoy healthy scenes ... As a coward, which I was for years, I harbored violence. I began to prize nonviolence only when I began to shed cowardice."

Though a seeming paradox, soldiers, by and large, are closer to nonviolence than the majority of the peace movement.

So yes, "support our troops" – but it doesn't logically follow that such a sentiment means supporting the policies that unnecessarily put troops in harm's way. Unfortunately, Bush-backers, many of whom claim to have a personal relationship with the "Truth" (Jesus), have somehow been convinced by the absurdity that public criticism of the policies dreamed up by privileged people in secure, plush offices is tantamount to not supporting troops.

How are troops supported? For an excellent historical reminder that soldiers are supported by organized action outside of the political process, get yourself a copy of The Bonus Army: An American Epic authored by Paul Dickson and Thomas B. Allen.

The Bonus Army tells the story of how the GI Bill came to be. In the summer of 1932, 45,000 World War I vets marched on Washington demanding bonus pay promised them before the war. But a bill that would have allayed their grievance was defeated in the Senate after it passed the House.

Fearing the racial implications of an integrated "bonus army" erroneously believed to be controlled by communists, President Herbert Hoover, Army Chief of Staff Douglas MacArthur and others decided that the protesting soldiers had to be kicked out of Washington by force. And they were, with tanks, tear gas and bayonet-tipped rifles.

FDR seized the moment and used the issue to help propel him to the White House. In the book's prologue, the authors discuss how they set out to answer a question raised in a 1994 thesis paper. "'Why,' (it was) asked, 'had historians seen the Bonus March as an insignificant event?'"

Following that lead, "we tracked that change and discovered an odyssey that began in Portland in 1932, wove through the Great Depression and into World War II, and re-turned finally to Washington, where in June 1944 (FDR) signed into law the GI Bill."

Because of the GI Bill the doors of colleges and universities were blown open for the middle and lower classes, the book notes, The number of college grads more than doubled between 1940 and 1950.

By the cutoff date of July 25, 1956, 2,232,000 vets had enrolled in college using the GI Bill. "The education produced 450,000 engineers, 238,000 teachers, 91,000 scientists, 67,000 doctors, 22,000 dentists, and more than a million other college trained men and women."

Nearly 8 million vets benefited from the GI Bill with 11 million homes being built in the 1950s, financed by GI Bill loans. Amazing how neocons completely ignore such things when chastising "liberals" about free-market panaceas and how government programs only make things worse.

"The enduring legacy of the Bonus Army," write Dickson and Allen, "goes well beyond the GI Bill ... (They) taught an American lesson to those who fretted over revolution: If you have a grievance, take it to Washington, and if you want to be heard, bring a lot of people with you."

In other words, supporting troops means more than writing letters to soldiers abroad, flying the flag and putting a yellow ribbon around the old Oak tree.

As you read these words, there are veterans in VA hospitals paying for their meals while the president's budget, among other things, would more than double the co-payment charged to many veterans for prescription drugs, and would require some to pay a new fee of $250 a year to use government health care.

Why? To pay war bills while giving disproportionate tax cuts to those who least need it.

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. AlterNet’s journalists work tirelessly to counter the traditional corporate media narrative. We’re here seven days a week, 365 days a year. And we’re proud to say that we’ve been bringing you the real, unfiltered news for 20 years—longer than any other progressive news site on the Internet.

It’s through the generosity of our supporters that we’re able to share with you all the underreported news you need to know. Independent journalism is increasingly imperiled; ads alone can’t pay our bills. AlterNet counts on readers like you to support our coverage. Did you enjoy content from David Cay Johnston, Common Dreams, Raw Story and Robert Reich? Opinion from Salon and Jim Hightower? Analysis by The Conversation? Then join the hundreds of readers who have supported AlterNet this year.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure AlterNet remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to AlterNet, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.