While on one of my weekly pilgrimages to Wegman’s, I found myself faced with a detour due to road construction. So, instead of speeding along towards my favorite supermarket, I found myself plugging along at 15 miles per hour behind an eighteen-wheeler whose back panel was decorated with a large American flag above the slogan “Support Our Troops.”

The sluggish pace of traffic, combined with complete absence of any good music on the radio, gave me some time to actually sit and think. More specifically, I found myself thinking about the slogan on the truck in front of me: Support Our Troops. We see it everywhere — on t-shirts, on posters and, of course, on those magnetic yellow ribbons that seem to have magically appeared on everyone’s cars in recent years.

The question that comes to my mind is this: Who doesn’t support our troops? I am sure that certain conservatives reading my column are jumping out of their seats to answer that question. “It’s those damn anti-war protesters! They hate our troops!”, they are saying. It’s a common criticism leveled against any who dare to oppose a war that the U.S. government is engaged in at that time. We’ve all heard the apocryphal stories of Vietnam-era protesters spitting in the faces of returning soldiers, which conservatives use as proof that anyone against the war is also against the troops.

The problem with claiming that anti-war protesters do not support our troops is that the statement is simply untrue. It is a false dichotomy to say that if you oppose the war, you also oppose the troops fighting in it. In fact, I have found members of the anti-war movement to be some of the most pro-troop people I have met. These are people who have taken in the horrors of war and understand the horrifying situations that our soldiers are forced to deal with. Many members of the anti-war movement are themselves veterans, working within groups like Veterans for Peace and Iraq Veterans Against the War.

Beyond that, the anti-war movement is the first, and often the only group, that steps up to support those troops who have decided that their conscience will no longer allow them participate in a war. When brave men like Pablo Paredes, Camilo Mejia and Ehren Watada decide to resist their orders and refuse to fight in the war in Iraq, we no longer hear any cries of the familiar slogan. Instead, these soldiers’ supposed supporters call them cowardly, anti-American and disgraceful. It is the anti-war movement that stands behind these men and women, supporting them in what is an incredibly difficult and courageous decision.

So what is the purpose of this slogan “Support our Troops”? For many, of course, it is simply a statement of support for the men and women who are risking their lives in Iraq, Afghanistan and other places around the world. But, for others, it takes on a different meaning. For these people, the statement “Support our Troops” can roughly be translated to “Keep Your Mouth Shut.” By portraying anyone who opposes the war to be therefore against our troops, this slogan serves as a subtle reminder to anyone who disagrees with the current policy that they must keep quiet.

This message is clear to the anti-war movement. During meetings of Cornell For Peace and Justice, an anti-war group on campus, members often joke about detractors who declare that, if you oppose the war, you “hate freedom.” Although the discussion is lighthearted, there is a serious message behind it. I myself was scared to get involved with anti-war activism for fear that people would think that I didn’t support the troops. Although I have gotten over my initial reservations, there are many others who wish to more publicly oppose the war but are afraid of the “anti-troop” label that accompanies this action.

One of my roommates recently got a tattoo on her back that portrayed Picasso’s “Dove Of Peace.” Shortly after getting the tattoo, she wrote to her brother, who is currently serving in the U.S. military. She explained to him that the tattoo was not meant to be a sign that she disagreed with his decision or did not respect him. Rather, the tattoo was a show of support for him, imagining a world where he would no longer have to leave his family to go fight in a foreign war. What kind of place do we live in where we must be apologetic for displaying symbols of non-violence and where voicing support for peace is controversial?

And in all this discussion of supporting the troops, where are the troops themselves? If we have decided to so fervently support them, perhaps we should look at what they really want. A Zogby poll done earlier this year found that 72 percent of American troops serving in Iraq believe the U.S. should leave within one year, including 29 percent who believe that troops should withdraw immediately. If we support the troops, and the troops want to leave Iraq, isn’t the natural conclusion that we should bring the troops home now? Yet there is no serious movement in the federal government to even establish a timetable for withdrawal. One must wonder who we are truly supporting by continuing to remain in Iraq.

Recently, alongside the traditional magnetic ribbons proclaiming “Support Our Troops,” I have seen a small but growing number of cars sporting ribbons that say “Support Our Troops — Bring Them Home.” To me, the owners of the latter cars are the more supportive, because they are recognizing the desires of our soldiers. But if we really want to support our troops, let’s skip the ribbons and the bumper stickers altogether. Instead, let’s raise our voices and declare “Troops Out Now!’

Laura Taylor is a senior in the School of Industrial and Labor Relations. She can be contacted at lat34@cornell.edu. Kind of a Big Deal appears Tuesdays.