Yeah, but what about the family you have to feed, the bills you have to pay?
And this is NOT the same as Nazi Germany, so the Nuremburg comparison is mere hyperbole.
I am not a pacifist. There are times (even though I believe they are far more rare than policymakers tend to believe) when taking up arms is the least of evils in a dangerous world. I am not against war altogether, or even war right now; I believe that this is simply the wrong war for us to be fighting.
I would disagree with the OP’s belief that troops=killers. Certainly the military is trained to kill enemy troops, and destroy the enemy’s machines of war. But as DMC said, “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.”
Frequently the simple act of maintaining such a force deters violence and killing. I am blessed to have lived for nearly half a century without having seen war close up, and that has been enabled by the force of American arms, even though they have been involved in only two significant wars, Vietnam and Gulf War I, during that half-century.
I do not wish to see this war fought. I do not believe it is necessary at this time. And even more worrisome to me are those things that will go undone because we are fighting this war. But I wish only the best for our men and women in uniform, and the British and Australians and others who will fight alongside them. I hope they fight honorably and well, and that they come home safely, having achieved the goals of this war with a minimum of loss of life on either side.
My understanding is that the “Support the Troops” thing is a reaction to the hostile reception many Vietnam veterans received upon returning from serving in that war. In that sense, it is completely appropriate to me–don’t take out your opposition to the war on the soldiers who were ordered to fight it.
On the other hand, “Support the Troops” seems to have very different connotations to many pro-war people, who wield it as a cheap shot to get people opposed to the war to sit down and shut the fuck up.
Protesting for peace? “Support the troops! Do you want to see them die? Peace protests just make Saddam smile!”
Think the Security Council is the way to go? “Support the troops! The U.N. would make things worse!”
Comment about how many times in the last month the President and his administration have lied through their teeth? “He’s the commander in chief! He knows more than he can tell us! Support the troops, you stupid hippie!”
I am, needless to say, less than enamored of the latter usage, which is nothing more than a cheap attempt at rhetorical blackmail.
What AZ, said.
tc: " 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."
Perhaps, but few soldiers are likely to see the war in which they are now obligated to participate as unjust. I don’t really see this as a productive line of argument. You can’t blame people who are about to risk their lives for doing what they swore to do. A few exceptional individuals may take another line; just as the Israeli refuseniks do. But there are limits to what can be expected from ordinary people in trying times. More than half of the people living in this country have been led ot believe that there is a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Noone operating under that false belief is likely to see this war as unjust. I don’t see the point in singling the average soldier for censure: it makes more sense to me to focus on the people who are really running this show.
Interesting discussion.
I am against this war, but support the troops. As it seems inevitable that we’ll have war, I can only hope and pray that the loss of life is minimized on both sides, that Saddam gets captured, and the infrastructure is left intact.
Contrast this with some people who are now hoping that things will go badly and Bush will get a black eye. I see no point in this.
While I hope for the best, I anticipate the worst. This is essentially why I am against the war in the first place - it never sounded like a smart idea to begin with.
Free men and women pledged themselves to take up arms for the United States. That they did so, without qualifications of being compelled into service and without prior knowledge of the cirumstances under which they might be called to fight, is in my view, an honorable act.
I do not believe that the fact that they may be called upon to kill others detracts from that honorable pact. The average Joe or Jane joins the military under some degree of a patriotic notion that they will protect our country and the liberties that it guarantees.
If it comes down to two soldiers, one American and one foreign, facing off against each other, I wish it were such that neither one would have his life threatened. Barring that, I will hope for the one that signed up to defend my country and its liberties.
I think it would be a terrible idea to suggest that our troops should desert if they do not believe that the upcoming war is just. I do not believe that it will be a just war, for many reasons, and I do deplore that many Iraqis will die as a consequence.
Our government has made poor decisions that made war inevitable. But I believe that the form of our government is fundamentally just. I do not believe that the laws that require our troops to carry out the charge of the president and Congress are repressive or unfair so as to justify disobedience.
I oppose this war. I support our troops. I hope that the suffering of Iraqis is minimized once fighting begins. I see no reason to qualify or condition any of those statements.
I’m with Minty et al. I think the “support our troops” idea comes out of a reaction against what the peace movement did to the veterans during Vietnam. Many vets returned home only to find themselves unwanted, and as the son of a Vietnam vet, I know that it was difficult for my mother to have her husband overseas fighting in a war and see people protesting and calling the soldiers baby killers. So, I think the idea is, protesters should be against the policy, but not personally against the men and women who are there.
Yes, tclouie, please clarify your comments that Guinastasia quoted. Are you implying that American soldiers in GW1 committed atrocities similiar to those prosecuted at Nuremberg?
The basis of the analogy is that soldiers are being given orders in a war that–for the sake of argument–is considered wrong. What differences are there that are not extraneous to the analogy?
If that’s the ONLY consideration, then I could feed my family and pay my bills by becoming a drug dealer, which is just as immoral as war making.
It takes moral fiber, guts and determination to make a living without committing evil. It’s a conscious choice, and not an easy one.
It doesn’t have to be Nazi Germany for the Nuremburg principle to apply. (Don’t throw Godwin at me, Patriot II hasn’t passed yet and so we still have quite a ways to go before we get to fascism. 
)
The Nuremburg principle means, those who receive and carry out orders are also morally responsible for their actions. CMIIW, but I believe US soldiers are obliged to disobey illegal orders. In practice, that probably means a private must refuse his sergeant’s order to loot and rape civilians. Ideally, it should mean he must even refuse an illegal order from the President of the United States.
This war is unnecessary, will kill a $#!+load of civilians, including women and children, and is illegal under international law. (Cite: the UN Charter.) To me, that means Bush will soon be a war criminal and should be sent to the Hague.
I wouldn’t send a private to the Hague, but I would send the Pentagon war planners, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Colin Powell and Tommy Franks. Why excuse the men in uniform if you’re not excusing the men in suits?
Those on the Republican right who claim that we need to “support the troops” are really saying “support the President” and that is not remotely the same thing. When Senator Daschle had the nerve to criticize the obvious diplomatic failures of the Bush administration that have led up to this war, House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Moron) claimed that Dsachle should be quiet because we all need to support the troops right now. Obviously, Daschle said nothing that was remotely non-supportive of the troops, just the president that is sending many of those troops to their deaths. That is what we get for discourse when a former wrestling coach ends up as Speaker of the House.
I oppose the war, and I support the troops.
The way I see it, the military forces are a bunch of G.I. Joes and Janes who have a job to do, which is whatever their commander tells 'em to. I may not like this unquestioning behavior, but I understand why it’s necessary – in a crisis, second-guessing orders can be deadly. I’m not sure how much of that “unquestioning” attitude goes with the soldier off the battlefield, but that’s a different matter.
In that vein, just because Bush and Cheney have been cooking up bogus excuses for an immoral war does not mean my disdain gets transferred to the lowly grunts who are on the receiving end of those orders. My complaint is with the folks in charge, not with the folks below them; it’s like the difference between getting angry at a store’s customer-service policy, and not taking it out on the $7/hour clerk who’s stuck behind the desk that day.
(Of course, these are just general guidelines. A soldier who takes malicious joy out of killing helpless prisoners can’t use “I was just following orders”, IMO)
It also take moral fiber, guts, and determination to agree to defend one’s country, risking injury or death in doing so. Would you not agree? Or do you think this is an easy choice? Easier, perhaps, than laying down their guns?
Our soldiers will likely be facing a situation that I’ve never had to face, that I hope never to face, that I probably cannot even imagine adequately. I can’t imagine how you can say that their choice doesn’t require all of the things you mention above.
That said, I agree with Frostillicus and others here that the partisan use of “support our troops” to mean “support the President” is its own brand of pungent fertilizer. I can respect our troops and speak out against the people that led us to war at the same time. They are not mutually exclusive.
I love it when people trot out Nuremburg as this great day for law and order. What Nuremburg established was that the winners make the rules, nothing more. Nuremburg had nothing to do with law, it was vengence. Well deserved vengence, to be sure, but don’t confuse it with law.
While we may object (I certainly do) to the war actually happening, this is a political decision, for which politicians are to blame. I make no secret of my opinion, and come the next election, I’ll be casting my vote against those responsible. And, in the meantime, if there are any chances to shorten this ill-conceived and idiotic military action, I will urge that they be taken.
Having said all that; the troops themselves are not to blame, and they deserve, at the least, our best wishes for their safe passage through this thing. The talk about Nuremburg and so forth is misleading; troops in action in Iraq will be obeying lawful orders, lawfully (if misguidedly) given by their lawful superiors. The prosecutions at Nuremburg were based on the principle that soldiers are not obliged to obey unlawful orders (“kill civilians”, “torture prisoners”, that sort of thing). Our military forces are trained in these matters and are aware of what is and is not permitted under the rules of engagement and the international laws of war, and I have every confidence that they will carry out their duty in accordance with those laws.
And having said that … they signed up to obey all lawful orders. It would be wrong if they didn’t. But the moral responsibility for those orders doesn’t lie with the troops, it lies with the politicians - and that’s where I intend to place the blame.
I’ve got no problem at all with supporting the troops, in the sense of “hoping they’ll be okay and won’t have to fight unjust wars.” Heck, I even mail in those “Any Soldier” cards that the USO sends out, without any aggressively antiwar propaganda on them either—just a little note like “thank you for your courage, I hope all goes well with you and that we’ll be able to bring you home safely soon”.
(Has anybody else noticed that the latest crop of the USO’s “Any Soldier” cards, in addition to the usual “we support you” boilerplate on the back, has a picture of a peace dove on the front? I kind of liked that, suggesting as it does that just because soldiers are fighting a war doesn’t mean they don’t love and desire peace, but I admit I did not expect to see it from the USO. Could that be just a special printing to soften the hearts of those of us who are fingered by our junk-mail record as social-justice-peace-‘n’-love hippie types, 
or is it standard issue?)
Uh, not to be pedantic or anything here, but Nuremburg was a series of criminal trials, not just an expression of moral condemnation. (Bad, bad Nazis!) The actual point of Nuremburg is that individual soldiers can be held accoutable for illegal actions that they are ordered to commit.
Quite true. Where is the illegal order here? What international criminal laws does it violate? It has NEVER been illegal just to fight a war, even an unjust war. Nuremburg is entirely inapposite thus far, though of course, particular war crimes may or may not be committed by either side during the course of the pending conflict.
If the war itself is illegal, then only the suits are responsible, and only the suits should be held accountable (but in this case, would not). If the tactics represent crimes against humanity, then those in uniform should be held accountable, whether following orders or not.
Front line German soldiers whom shot at and killed American soldiers were not charged at Nuremberg… The comparison reeks.
tclouie:
I never said it was wrong to start, but right to continue. I said that even though I do not think we should invade Iraq, I hope that if it does happen we eliminate Saddam’s regime with minimum loss of life. Making the best of a bad situation does not mean you support the bad situation.
I have a problem with this line of thought, which I’ve heard several times lately (so I’m not trying to single you both out).
They signed up. They got benefits. They were aware that they could be called up at any time, and sent to kill others in a conflict that they may or may not agree with. They are responsible for the situation they are in. Nobody made them take the benefits and nobody hid from them the fact that they may be called up. Bed. Made. Lie. IMO
As far as the “support the troops” call, I feel it is mainly being made to try and head off a repeat of the returning Viet Vets treatment, and while I do not support this war and do not support those who choose to participate in this (IMO, unjust) war, I will not spit on or harrass another human being and resent the implication that I would.