time mag and the other mouthpieces of the government and corporate elites spin this story as a quandary for the obama administration, where a third of veterans of iraq and afghanistan don't think their wars were "worth it", at a time when continued fundage for imperial territorial conquests is in doubt.
Poll: 1 in 3 Vets Sees Iraq, Afghan Wars as Wastes - TIME: "(WASHINGTON) — One in three U.S. veterans of the post-9/11 military believes the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were not worth fighting, and a majority think that after 10 years of combat America should be focusing less on foreign affairs and more on its own problems, according to an opinion survey released Wednesday.but if this is weighing against continuing the military free-for-all that's been a staple of US policy for the past 10 years, it's hard to pick out a reason why.
The findings highlight a dilemma for the Obama administration and Congress as they struggle to shrink the government's huge budget deficits and reconsider defense priorities while trying to keep public support for remaining involved in Iraq and Afghanistan for the longer term."
if one out of three thinks the wars aren't worth fighting, then two out of three must disagree. with all the news reports of US atrocities against civilian populations, to say nothing of the indignities committed by foreigners on other nations' soil, our troops' support of the imperialists' mission remains basically intact. there appears to be no groundswell of support for an alternative, especially when it means a steady paycheck to people who would otherwise be languishing in butt-fuck city, USA.
if someone asks if you support the troops, what do you say? that you support the people, but not the mission? that doesn't seem adequate, if the goal is to put a stop to this insanity that has the US fielding mercenary armies to advance corporate interests. if the troops support the mission, can someone in good conscience support the troops?