On Sunday afternoons, I often attempt to retreat from the political issues of the day by viewing a National Football League game. But it seems impossible to escape the war in Iraq. The announcers, whose political insights are somewhat limited, find it necessary to remind us about supporting the troops. Wearing American flag emblems on their lapels, they insist upon commending the soldiers for the effort which makes it safe for the rest of us to lounge in our armchairs and watch sporting events. It never seems to cross the commentators’ minds that the war in Iraq has made the world a more unstable and dangerous place for those watching television, as well as those serving on the front lines. This type of propaganda is simply trotted out several times per ballgame and unthinkingly absorbed by the mass audience. It is little wonder that so many Americans continue to believe in the fiction that 9/11 was the work of Saddam Hussein.

But the real purpose of the continuing refrain of “support the troops” orchestrated by the administration and the mass media is to de-legitimize dissent. To exercise one’s right of dissent and question the administration’s shifting case for the war and staying in Iraq becomes the unpatriotic act of undermining the military. This approach tends to place those who oppose the war in the seemingly untenable position of failing to support our neighbors called into active service. To use the reasoning of President Bush, you are either with the troops or the terrorists.

The simplistic football announcers, yellow-ribbon campaigns, and bumper stickers supporting American men and women in uniform assume that once the president commits troops, all debate must end. This approach allows the commander-in-chief to operate free from the restraints of democracy. The “support our troops” mantra also ignores much of American history and makes false analogies regarding the Vietnam War.

Draft resistance in the Civil War, which was fueled by class resentment as the wealthy in the North could hire a substitute, culminated in the New York City draft riots. Issues of class, ethnicity, and political ideology were crucial to the draft and war resisters of World War I. This opposition to the war was used as an opportunity to crush the Industrial Workers of the World and an indigenous socialist movement. Even World War II witnessed draft resistance on the behalf of conscientious objectors. The so-called Cold War consensus was always questioned by pacifists and the peace movement of the 1950s. Antiwar agitation, however, seemed to reach its high water mark during the Vietnam War.

One of the major misconceptions regarding the Vietnam era was the idea that the antiwar movement targeted American soldiers for ridicule. Instead, there was considerable cooperation between antiwar activists and military personnel. In addition to the active participation of such groups as Vietnam Veterans Against the War in marches and moratorium activities denouncing the war, there was considerable support by peace groups for servicemen. In addition to providing legal counsel for soldiers resisting deployment to Vietnam, the antiwar forces employed such support services as coffee houses and counseling for soldiers seeking to exercise their constitutional right to question the war. But this history of the Vietnam War is lost in the mindless pabulum of supporting the troops. Today, popular mythology subscribes to the “stab in the back” perception of protestors. In this scenario, similar to the argument of German fascists during the 1920s, those on the home front failed to support the war effort, resulting in the demoralization and defeat of the troops. Accordingly, to avoid the Vietnam syndrome we have to mindlessly endorse the commitment of troops in combat situations. This was certainly apparent in the 2004 election. Although John Kerry’s opposition to the Iraq War was often rather timid, those on the political right who seek to limit political discourse would not forgive Kerry for his criticism of the Vietnam War. Swift boat veterans, who perpetuate the legacy of the Nixon administration, continue to equate dissent with treason and deny the mutual support that was often in evidence between antiwar activists and military personnel during the Vietnam era. These myths regarding Vietnam are used to silence opposition to the current conflict in Iraq.

Instead, we have wasted valuable resources in Iraq that could be employed in the real war on terror. While the ill-advised war contributes to record deficits, the greatest tragedy is the loss of Iraqi and American lives. Our policy in Iraq has destabilized the country, which is on the verge of a religious civil war.

Our service men and women seem to increasingly understand the untenable position in which the administration has placed them. Fellow soldiers applauded the service man who questioned Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld regarding the lack of armored vehicles available for the troops. A befuddled Rumsfeld mumbled that we go to war with the army we have. Of course, he failed to acknowledge that the timing of this conflict was completely in the hands of the administration. Our troops have also challenged the so-called backdoor draft in which those who volunteered to serve are now not being allowed to leave when their tour of duty is complete. Soldiers are now being sentenced to prison terms for their involvement in the Abu Ghrib prisoner abuse scandal. Yet those higher in the chain of command, who fostered an environment in which such abuse could occur, are not charged with criminal behavior. In fact, Alberto Gonzales, whose advice to the president paved the way for the torture and detention of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, was nominated for the position of Attorney General.

The war in Iraq is a class conflict. Working class people join the National Guard in order to earn extra money for their families or to stay in school. But it is the working class people in the military, many of them noncitizens, who are being called into active service in what is a backdoor draft. In this regard, the current conflict is similar to the Vietnam War. Middle class young men were able to secure college deferments, while their working class counterparts were drafted into military service.

Our troops are living these discrepancies, and they are beginning to voice their discontent. As in the Vietnam era, those opposed to the war should provide aid and comfort to their fellow citizens in the military who question the wisdom of deployment. If the administration really believes that the current conflict is essential to the nation’s security, then perhaps a draft would be in order. Such a course of action would alienate the affluent Bush constituency, so the troop shortage continues as National Guard enlistments plummet by approximately 30 percent nationwide. However, it is the lack of troops which may force the administration to ratchet down some of its rhetoric targeting Iran. Our soldiers, much more than our sports commentators, understand the dangers of our militaristic foreign policy.