Camouflage, Ribbons and Social Control

punditman says...

What’s up with all the camouflage folks? Everywhere I go, it is camouflage pants, skirts, caps, tops, backpacks, jackets, headbands, snow suits and dog leashes. Grandmas, school children, middle aged pot bellies--name a demographic--and you will see them sporting their earthy tones.

You know your country is at war when the most popular fashion statement around is combat apparel. Does this mean that everyone who wears camouflage supports Canada’s mission in Afghanistan? I doubt it. The latest polls certainly suggest otherwise. So as a fashion statement (or is that “fascist” statement?), you are, ah, trying to blend in with the plastic foliage in the shopping mall?

I don’t get it.

After all, the idea of camouflage is to make one’s self the same as the surrounding environment. Then again, at this rate, the growing sea of green, brown, tan, grey and black splotches may soon turn out to be weirdly analogous to the garb once worn by crowds at Grateful Dead concerts: everyone wore tie-dye and everyone blended in. But that didn't make everyone a hippie—especially so-called “Deadhead” Ann Coulter.

Wearing camouflage used to signify one of two things: the person was either in the armed forces or was setting out on a different sort of mission that involved drinking tons of beer and killing furry creatures in a forest somewhere. But nowadays, the whole idea of hunting (humans or animals, that is), has been demoted by those who dress like G.I. Joe just because they are out hunting for a latte or an Ipod.

Grow a brain, people. This is all about the militarization of our culture.

This past summer I considered buying a new Wilson tennis racquet to replace my old “Hyper Hammer 5.2” frame. But when I went shopping I was informed that the latest incarnation of my old racquet is now called the "Surge.” Is it just coincidence that this corporate branding coincided with the name of Bush’s plan to increase the number of American troops deployed to the Iraq War? I think not. I found a new version of my old racquet online. Somehow it sounds more benign.

Along with camouflage, Canada is now beset by an overabundance of “Support Our Troops” ribbons, t-shirts, bracelets and mugs. You can’t go anywhere without seeing the telltale yellow ribbon on cars. Come to think of it, some are camouflaged. It is high time that the elephant in the room is asked the obvious question that polite Canadians would rather avoid: What does “Support Our Troops” really mean?

Those who decorate their vehicles thusly would have us believe that the decals are politically neutral symbols of support for soldiers overseas. This is nonsense and they know it. The intended audience are those of us who forego yellow ribbons. If you think about it, the phrase “Support Our Troops” is sort of bossy, like a drill sargent’s snarl. This is known in grammatical circles as the “imperative mood.” Therefore the directive to “Support Our Troops” comes off like an order, but with a somewhat fuzzy meaning: What exactly am I supposed to do? Buy a ribbon, I guess.

Yet the context is obvious. This is all about the Afghan War and nothing else. The yellow ribbon campaign has succeeded in convincing at least eighteen Canadian municipal and local governments to affix the decals to police cars, ambulances, fire trucks, buses and other municipal vehicles. Since this is all public property, this is a divisive move, not an inclusive one. Why this cause, but no others? Why not “Support Our Cancer Patients” or “Support Our Single Moms”? Are they less worthy?

Pretending the yellow ribbon is neutral means pretending that everyone supports the troops. But if you stop to think about it, this is neither true nor possible. One can not “support the troops” but not their mission because that is a logical inconsistency. If you want to see the combat mission ended and Canada's soldiers brought home as soon as possible, then you really do not support them because a good part of their current mission is to kill or be killed.

For the record, I have no grand scheme, nor any simple answers to end the latest Afghan quagmire. In fact, nobody does, including those who obediently support military missions that have no exit strategy.

One can debate the need for security first as a means to development and stability, versus the need for development as a means to security, but what should be obvious is that occupation and counter-insurgency have terrible track records historically. As noted in the Toronto Star recently, according to Thomas Johnson, professor of national security at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, “Since World War II, is there one successful counter-insurgency? The answer is none. This war will never be won militarily.”

For this reason, Canadian Pulitzer Prize-winning photo journalist Paul Watson wants to ask a few questions of his old high school friend, Prime Minister Stephen Harper:

"I would beg him, as a former friend and someone who has access to intelligence that I don't, to explain to me why we're putting soldiers' lives on the line and asking them to kill civilians to defend themselves when all the military people I've spoken to admit that there is no military solution in Afghanistan," said Watson.

Actually, efforts to negotiate by bringing in all sides— various Pashtun tribal leaders, Taliban and other insurgent groups, and the government in Kabul, as well as in Islamabad—are ongoing. In fact, according to The Nation, a major English-language newspaper in Pakistan, secret talks began there in August between U.S. officials and the Taliban.

Oddly enough, the two sides have at least one thing in common: both are split along fractious lines. The renewed Taliban is divided between moderates and extremists, while the Bush administration appears to be divided on whether or not to launch a preemptive strike against Iran.

One may well ask: where should Canada’s foreign policy priorities be right now? Tied down in Afghanistan, begging NATO allies for more help in what looks more and more like an intractable military stalemate? Or, working through diplomatic channels to try to prevent a global conflagration between the US and Iran that could even go nuclear?

It’s time to ditch the camouflage and put on your thinking caps.