Anti-war people, support the troops?

Great Debates
1

This thread is mainly directed at anti-war people. Pro-war or pro-military people, I can’t stop you from posting, but you’re wasting your time. The gulf between our views is too great for either of us to be convinced.

Some of my fellow peace activists are saying, “Support the troops – bring them home.”

Well, I don’t support the troops, and I will not hold up any sign saying that. I do not support any troops, anytime, anywhere. I am for peace, period.

A “troop” or soldier is someone whose function, by definition, is to kill other human beings. They are not policemen. They are not guards. They are TROOPS (killers).

For me, supporting the troops is like a death-penalty activist saying “support the executioners”.

I am willing to support human beings, as long as they stop being troops. As an idealistic person, I am offended by the idea of anti-war activists supporting US troops while pointedly NOT supporting the Iraqi troops. I support human beings, whether American or Iraqi. I do not support any troops, whether American or Iraqi. If you’re really anti-war, you cannot consider an American life to be more sacred than an Iraqi life. So either support the troops from both sides as human beings, or don’t support any troops from either side. I choose the latter.

I remember anti-war people in the first Gulf War saying “support the troops,” and it backfired on the movement once the war started. The slogan isn’t even good from a practical political standpoint.

Yes, I have people in my family who are in military service, and I am so sorry that my views offend them. My cousin is still furious with my mother for trying to interest him in Conscientious Objector status when he was thinking about joining up. Still mad at her after twenty years. Boy, can he hold a grudge. I guess he’ll have to stay mad at me forever, too.

I don’t support troops. I support human beings. Let them come home and stop being troops. Then I’ll support them.

2

I always saw it as a sort of ironic jab at the right. How can they be “supporting the troops” when their sending them off to kill and die?

Also many people against this war are not complete pacifists since this war clearly has little to do with self defense.

I do however have a similar problem with “Peace is Patriotic”, since patriotism is almost always associated with war in my mind.

3

They ARE human beings.

My best friend’s husband is over there somewhere. We don’t know where. They have a six-month old baby girl. He originally joined the Army not to blow up enemies, but to feed his family, and to acquire some useful job experience and school money.

As people, I support them and I hope they do such a damn good job that this is over real quick. I detest what they’re going to be doing. But I’m not going to take out how I feel about how the President has mishandled this whole situation on guys like Josh.

4

The problem I have with your take on it is that you make a distinction where there is not one. To make it simple (perhaps overly so), troops are human beings too.

I have friends in the armed forces. We live in a town that supports a naval base. My wife teaches students whose parents are currently serving on ships in the Middle East. We see the very human toll this takes on our troops and their families every day.

Further, the political decisions of our leaders are not the fault of those serving in the military. Most people in the military are honorable and good people, and they are serving their country (that’s you and me) in the best way they know how, with courage and dedication. I see no reason to criticize them, and I for one hope that they do their duty well and stay safe and whole. Whatever happens in Iraq, I hope to see the safe back home soon.

I’m anti-war, but I support our troops.

5

I support our troops every time I get only 2/3 of what I earned each week. :slight_smile:

I support those who enter the military to defend our country, as I find it a necessary evil as long as we humans are on this planet. It’s a crappy job, but someone has to do it. I even did it myself a long time ago.

I support those who are forced to go to Iraq, even though they don’t feel it’s the right thing to do, as our military has a pretty strict rule about obeying orders.

I don’t support, but I’m not against, those who willingly went there, believing their commander in chief when he puts out his propaganda about how much danger Iraq presented to our future. As long as they remain aware of the fact that an Iraqi civilian’s life is just as important as an American civilian’s life, I will hope that they come home alive and well, and do as little harm as possible to those who didn’t choose to be a part of this.

I loathe, despise, and actually wish horrible things on those who are going over there because “Some Ay-rab heathens need some killin’, so I’m gonna introduce them to my Jesus.” They are no better, and possibly worse, than the regimes that we have issues with at this time.

6

I’m sure you could have a sign that says simply “Bring the troops home” which would fit the bill just as nicely, and stay in tune with your feelings. I agree that the “support the troops” part could backfire on the anti-war movement if used by itself, but the rest of the statement renders that point moot.

Remember, too, that the majority of people who signed up to serve in the armed forces did so not because they were expecting to get sent off to war and have the opportunity to kill foreigners, but because of the educational and employment opportunities offered them through the advertising and recruitment blitz they got on TV and in school. Going to war against Iraq wasn’t their decision. They shouldn’t be castigated for placing themselves voluntarily under the command of a government whose orders they must obey regardless of their own personal convictions.

7

“I’m sure you could have a sign that says simply “Bring the troops home”…”

Exactly. “Support the troops. Bring them home” has become a very common message among peace protesters.

8

I haven’t changed my mind in the 15 minutes this thread has been up, but so far I am getting some very intelligent, sincere, well-thought-out responses. So far this thread is doing its job: it’s reaching the people it was meant to reach, and inspiring the debate it was meant to inspire.

But, please consider this: shouldn’t an anti-war person be just as concerned about the lives of the Iraqi soldiers whose violent deaths, in large numbers, are probably imminent? They probably had even LESS choice in this conflict than our own boys and girls. Also, they are human beings too: husbands, fathers, brothers, beloved sons. And most of them have been doomed to die by our President. Not for invading another country, but for defending their own.

They can surrender, you say? Yes! They do have that choice. Hopefully they will be ABLE to surrender safely, once things get started. But the American troops also have a choice, even at this point. Those who believe this war is wrong and joined up for other reasons can stay in their barracks, or sit on the runway, and refuse to fight. They will be imprisoned and dishonorably discharged, but they will not be harmed. As a peace advocate, I could not advocate any other course of action for a soldier in the Gulf. And this was the course of action which was actually chosen by some soldiers in Vietnam, Panama and the first Gulf War.

I think my visceral reaction to the “support the troops” slogan stems from my horror at the massive impending waste of Iraqi lives, soldier and civilian. “Support ALL troops as human beings, or none.” That remains my slogan.

9

I think that “support the troops” is often used as a very Orwellian term. What does it mean? Obviously, there are many many different things it could mean: some ways almost everyone would agree with (or be horrible), other’s not so (without the stink of horriblity).
But the common usage of “support the troops” today doesn’t allow such nuances. If you don’t support what the troops are doing, then you don’t “support the troops”… and thus you are a horrible person that doesn’t care about the lives of our soldiers. See how it works? One meaning is used to vaguely equivocate into all other possible meanings and implications, wherever convienient.

The same game is played when public figures announce that they “expect” something. This same term expresses both a demand AND a prediction at the same time.

10

Who says we aren’t? The use of one particular slogan doesn’t mean anti-war activists are focused on one issue and one issue alone.

11

First, I am not “anti-war”, I am not a pacifist, but I have not supported US policy to use force in Iraq without (explicit) UNSC authorization.

That said, I certainly support our troops. I can not hold them accountable for our President’s actions.

I could not condone for them to replace our President’s judgement with their own, and lay down their weapons, or refuse to participate. They are soldiers - they should follow (lawful) orders, and not question the judgement of their superiors. That job is left for the public at large.

Many of our soldiers joined the armed forces for idealistic reasons, such as to provide for the defense of our national security. I respect that. I admire their courage and bravery to place the interests of this nation above their own.

I recognize the same can be said for Iraqi troops. Again, I hold the leaders responsible, not the soldiers.

Not that I agree with the message, but folks interested in this topic may be interested in reading the recent OpEd by Ted Rall, “Don’t Support Our Troops”.

12

Tclouie, you are missing an entire posistion. I am anti-war. I don’t believe we should have our military invade Iraq.

Yet I support the soldiers, because IF we go to war, the best possible outcome is to win, get rid of Saddam’s regime, and improve life for everyone in Iraq. It is simply making the best out of a bad situation.

13

I don’t want to throw this thread wildly off topic, so I’ll keep it as brief as possible. Nightime, there’s some very good evidence that US-sponsored “regime change” is what got Saddam into power in the first place. This post from a Dutch listserv spells it out quite nicely - special attention is called to the quote from the Cockburn book about a third of the way down the page.

14

I am anti-war and I definitely support our troops. It’s not their decision to make, but they signed up to defend our nation, and sometimes, they have to fight to do so.

Also, I believe there are a few Dopers who may be shipping out or who have family members who will. My thoughts are with them.

15

I agree with this completely, and this is at the root of the reasons I have for being against war in general, and against this specific war in Iraq. I disagree with our President and the actions he has taken to lead us to this point. I think that the “diplomacy” towards Iraq has been mishandled and polarized to the point where its irreparable, and I think that part of the reason for that rests on the heads of the Bush Administration.

But none of this has anything to do with the conduct of our soldiers.

To refine my earlier statement, I’ll say that if a soldier’s conduct in time of war becomes dishonorable, then I don’t support them – meaning that soldier, individually. However, I don’t see that happening very often. American soldiers, while far from perfect historically, seem to want to do the right thing. Whether I agree with them or not, it is their methods I will actually object to.

I have nothing but respect for an honorable soldier. A part of the picture that you seem to be missing is that they put their lives at risk, not only for themselves, but for all of us. You may feel that the war we are fighting is an unjust war, and I may agree with you. However, our troops put their politics aside when their country calls and they stand to defend it, with their life as sacrifice, simply because they have said they would do so. There is something very brave about that. I’m not sure I could do the same. I admire our troops, even if I disagree with this war.

I sympathize with what you’re saying, because I share some of those feelings. The only difference between us is that, for me, is that I don’t place as much responsibility on the troops who are going to do the fighting. They signed up to fulfill a duty, and they are holding true to their word. No, the people that I blame are the politicians and the tyrants (Hussein, in this case) who led our countries to this point. The task of stopping this war before it started was their responsibility, and they failed. Now, indeed, lives will be wasted. It is a tragic thing, but I can’t find a reason to blame our troops for it.

16

And in the meantime, they’re out a job and they have families to support, perhaps.

17

During the first Gulf War, a friend told me that it was OK to protest before the war started, but once it started we had to quiet down and support the troops. Some of the Labor MPs who voted against Tony Blair yesterday said much the same thing.

I can’t accept that. If it was wrong before it started, it was also wrong after it started. Wrong to start, wrong to continue.

18

I would rather be unemployed than have a job killing people in an unjust cause. Some American soldiers have made that choice in the past, including in the first Gulf War.

I think there have even been cases of people who applied for and received Conscientious Objector status while actively serving – although that would probably be harder in wartime.

Wrong is wrong, whether you’re giving the orders or just carrying them out. Nuremburg established that.

19

Just changed my sig, minutes prior to reading this thread. To wit:

20

Failure to make your strong convictions known in a democracy (or a democratic republic…) is a failure to participate in the process. It is the responsibility of the citizens to inform themselves of the issues, and then participate. Apathy and ignorance are the biggest threats to freedom.

No, it is not wrong to protest the war once the war starts. But protesting war and supporting the troops are two different dimensions. IMHO, directing responsibility of the war on the troops is a failure to put accountability where it belongs.

From our Vietnam experience, I cannot fathom the logic that leads one to spit on a returning soldier, no matter how strongly one might feel against the war.

I can hate the war, and respect the soldier. I fail to see any inconsistency the position.