A while back, I posted a thread asking about what non-bigoted ‘conservative values’ exist that aren’t contradicted by conservative/Republican support for Trump, and one of the biggest ones was ‘support for the military’ and especially ‘support our troops’. But in recent news, the Trump administration fired the captain of the USS Theodore Roosevelt for asking for support when his ship discovered Covid-19 infections among its crew.
If someone genuinely supports general military effectiveness and especially ‘support our troops’ defense of individuals in the military, I would expect them to be up in arms about this. Yet I don’t see any significant amount of conservatives or Republicans defying this firing, and Trump’s support has not wavered. Does anyone who’s ‘conservative values’ includes ‘strong military’ or ‘support our troops’ want to explain how they can square this firing with their values?
Going back to the start of his campaign, Trump has disparaged, dishonored and otherwise showed his contempt for the military. The GOP responded by crowding around The Orange Anus in ever increasing numbers.
“Meh, just another Deep State Obama holdover. Most of his Navy career has been under Democrat Presidents! I like the troops who DON’T get coronavirus!”
That is probably not a good issue to judge your question on. From the military pages I frequent the opinions seem to be 60-40 or 70-30 against what Capt Crozier did and that’s from current military and veterans. It’s not as clear cut as “supporting the troops.” He used unsecured means to go around the chain of command and the readiness level of a carrier was leaked to the press. You can support the troops and still think he did things the wrong way. Capt Crozier most likely knew he was going to get fired for it when he did it and decided to anyway.
It could be argued that it would be hypocritical for Trump voters to lambast Hillary for her use of private-server emails as SecState but give Crozier a free pass for his use of unsecured emails. But…I’m pretty sure that, if Trump himself used unsecure emails, his voters would find a way to defend it.
Republicans have long supported the military. In my experience they are lax in supporting the troops except to have rah-rah parades. Their treatment of troops after they are out of the military is quite poor.
Of course they don’t. Active duty soldiers often quality for food stamps because their pay is low, so when Republicans cut food stamps, they are cutting support for the troops. When they start needless wars, they show they don’t support the troops. When they strip money from the VA to fund private doctors, they show their lack of support.
This is all before Trump disparaged that military family, disparaged John McCain, pardoned that lunatic military criminal and tried to get him back in his position, and pushed to deport immigrants who served in the military.
Plus, how many of our recent Republican politicians dodged the draft or, in the case of Bush, got a sweet assignment? All of them, except McCain?
ETA: Yes, they support a strong military, or at least a lot of money flowing to military contractors.
They don’t support anything but their own self-interest. They think it’s good politics to gush over the troops, they love those hyper-patriotic flourishes added to sports events, they love those diabetic coma-inducing military family reunions. When it comes time to not sending their beloved troops into the meat grinder, or for getting their pay up to a livable standard- not so much. They don’t love the military, they use if as a political prop.
The big “Support the Troops” issue here isn’t what happened to Capt Crozier. As you say, he almost certainly knew he was trashing his career with his actions, and that this would likely have happened no matter who was President.
The big issue is why he decided that it was worth trashing his career. With their apparently lackadaisical response to the problems on this ship, they weren’t supporting the troops. They’re in full-on spin mode now, trying to claim they were doing everything they needed to do, but if that were true, why did Crozier act when he did?
That’s the real problem here. And if it’s a problem on this one ship, it’s a safe bet that it is or will be a problem in other commands.
I think you are conflating two issues. Supporting a strong US military does not necessarily mean supporting our troops. We just saw the perfect example with the U.S.S. Theodore Roosevelt - the captain put troops’ lives before military strength (or posturing), and got punished by Trump for it.
Reddit, which skews much younger obviously, is about 99 to 1 in favor of Capt Crozier. I think what this is showing us is that partisanship trumps pretty much anything else, including loyalty to the military. If Capt Crozier had sent a letter to Fox News about the deplorable conditions on the T-R under a Democratic president and a Democratic SecNav, I’m fairly certain the opinions would be very different. He would be a conservative hero and there would be calls for impeachment. After Trump stepped in to upend the chain of command in the Gallagher case, it’s odd that conservatives suddenly find the chain of command so sacrosanct.
Anyone who gave a damn about the welfare of our troops wouldn’t have committed them to an unnecessary, unjustified war in Iraq.
Of course, I’ve long viewed the US’s excessive military spending - both on troops and equipment/tech, as largely individual and corporate welfare/subsidized income. Would be nice if we would shift the focus and instead pay people/firms to accomplish something desirable, like social service.
Yes, he knew he was going to get fired for trying to protect the military readiness of his command and the lives of the troops under his command. If you ‘support our troops’, you should support not exposing your troops to a dangerous disease outside of necessity. If you support a strong military, you should support containing disease outbreaks before they render your ships ineffective for combat. It is a very, very clear cut issue, and I note that no one is even making a coherent argument for why handling a contagious disease in a way which ends up rendering the entire carrier not combat ready supports either philosophy.
Going around the chain of command to increase military readiness and protect soldiers in the military is EXACTLY the kind of action that people who really support either the troops or a strong military should support.
I’m not ‘conflating’ them, they’re just related issues. Supporting a strong US military includes having military vessels and formations in good order for fighting, and having a ship unready to fight because the crew is sick because of a disease is a prime example of failing both on ‘strong military’ and ‘support our troops’. Even if someone’s philosophy was ‘fuck the troops, but we need a strong military’, they should not be in favor of having a major warship taken out of action by a virus - having one of nine carrier task forces out of action is a huge blow to military strength and makes the military look pathetically ineffective.