The Ideological Troops
Ideology is one of those things about life that can feel so
secure and clear. It can provide you a clear position from which you can see
the world and assign value to certain idea, places and even bodies. But at the
same time ideology is something that is so pervasive and massive, it cannot
help but also be unforgivingly contradictory and sometimes appear to make
absolutely no sense. There is a feeling that things should be black and white,
but there is also a feeling that things are really actually gray.
We move between these two positions in a strategic way. When
things being black and white works in our favor, we take that position in order
to argue that our position is in line with the clear nature of reality. There
is no wiggle room, what we stand for and believe in is so completely clear. But
when the ideological black and white world is not in our favor, we tend to take
the position that the exceptions matter and that in between those two binary
opposites, is the world we all actually live in.
The military buildup was something where the ideological
lines on island have been drawn and redrawn over the past few years. For some
the buildup was a clear ideological issue. If you supported it, you were a
patriotic American, who believed in a prosperous island and a strong military.
If you didn’t, you were a crazy activist, a “communist” who hated America and
wanted to give comfort to its enemies. For those who saw or continue to see the
world this way, they perceived the buildup as a gift to Guam from the United
States. It was not something to question but just to accept. It was the
island’s duty to accept to and not make a fuss and most importantly not act
ungrateful and dare to refuse it.
One of the things that held people ideologically in place and
didn’t allow them to “question” and “critique” the buildup was the way it
became associated with “the troops.” “The troops” is one of the most intriguing
ideological constructions. It isn’t really the actual troops that serve in the
military, but instead an image of it that everyone purports to speak for and be
defending with their ideology. Those who often talk the most about supporting
“the troops” are actually those who do them the most objective damage. Those
who speak about them the most are often the ones who put them in harm’s way
more often and usually for things that aren’t actually that important. Those
are the ones who would rather throw huge sums of money at defense contractors
than the troops themselves.
Curiously, “the troops” are simultaneously supposed to be
strong and powerful defenders of the nation, but also seem to be weak and meek
in terms of how easily they are wounded by words or a lack of flag waving. In
the minds of those who see the buildup in black and white, the reason it isn’t
happening or has been stalled is because of the island’s lack of support and
faith. Bases closed in the 1990s because people dared to protest the military.
If we criticize Uncle Sam and the military too much one day they may decide to
just pack up and leave us. The Achilles’ Heel of “the troops” is that while
they are capable against all foreign enemies, they are apparently weak and
easily crushed by domestic ones.
That is the key to why this construction exists. It is an
ideological tool meant to curb speech and control speech. We should all support
the troops and so if someone claims you exist on the other side of that
ideological rift, then you have basically been positioned as something that
shouldn’t exist. In terms of the buildup many people felt they couldn’t express
themselves or be wary of it because of that aura of not wanting to be the thing
that weakens the resolve of “the troops.”
Over the past few years I have had very interesting
conversations with people serving in the military, and had some express their
own concerns about the buildup and its effect on the island. “The troops” after
all are made up of millions of different people with different opinions and
beliefs. To speak of them in such a simple way doesn’t do them and their
diversity justice. The most touching of these moments was when I took a group
of National Guardsmen on a tour of the Pagat area. The intent in going there
was to give the troops a greater understanding of the place and history. Their
commanding officer told his troops that while in the military they are curbed
in terms of their ability to speak freely, this doesn’t mean that soldiers are
mindless grunts. They should know and understand what they are fighting for.
Comments