So it begins again

The BBC has reported today that a station commander in Britain suggested that members of the RAF not wear their uniforms in public because of verbal abuse from people opposed to the Britain's involvement in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Slowly, then we can see the resurgence of the Vietnam myth: that antiwar activists hate the troops, that we spit on them or deride them, or verbally abuse them. Antiwar individuals run the gamut in their opinion about the troops, or the army, but on the whole the antiwar movement is, and has been, incredibly supportive of individual soldiers (especially veterans) while at the same time being incredibly critical of the system that creates soldiers - a position that is in no way contradictory.

We stage counter-recruitment events not out of a hatred of the troops, but out of a hatred of the war and the current Army, and out of a desire to keep more young men and women from the trials and tribulations of armed service.
This particular incident strikes a chord with me, based on an event that happened just yesterday while on the Quad, tabling for our Week of Action. An individual began a heated debate with us about how he had family over in Iraq, and how what we were doing was disgraceful. In his mind, antiwar activists since Vietnam have opposed the troops, and the troops have in turn opposed the antiwar community. While debating individuals can be cathartic and fun, it also does tend to reflect poorly on us when we are tabling. Shouting at people on the Quad makes us seem quite hostile, more radical than we are, and frankly, unapproachable and unfriendly. People like that will not be swayed in the two minutes we spend yelling at them, and in that time we may very well loose others who might have come out. I am not, of course, saying that we should not have civil discussions with people with whom we disagree, and I fully expect shouting to be a part of that. But when we table, I feel that discussions should try to be as civil as possible.

The idea that the antiwar community and the community of active and veteran soldiers are set at odds is, of course, a falacy, but one which unfortunately continues to exist. Education is the best way to combat this issue. By working closely with IVAW, we are able to show people that the antiwar community respects the veterans. By counter-recruiting, the antiwar community shows that it respects and values lives more than the Army does. By showing educational films - such as Sir! No Sir! and The Ground Truth - the antiwar community is able to show that we have a history of supporting the veterans and the troops, and that the myth of spitting on vets is just that - a myth.

A number of weeks ago, a fellow student told me that he really supported a sign that I had in my window for some time: "Support the Troops, Bring Them Home." He, like many others, has been taught only the myths of the antiwar movement, and he told me that the sign showed him that on the whole the antiwar movement is made up of normal people, and not fringe radicals.

Now, I won't say that such "verbal abuse" never happens, nor will I say that it never will happen. However, happily Brown's government has come out decrying this claim as rediculous, and the report mentions that no reports of such actions have been filed.

We must all be active in our rejection of the myth of the antiwar movement as a movement that is also opposed to the veterans, both in our words and in our actions.