There is a common belief that it is necessary to support the troops. This is mistaken. If the troops are doing something that you do not agree with, or consider illegal, there is no more reason to support them than there is to support the “other side,” who you feel is being wronged. The American soldier, while simply carrying out orders, is the end part of a machine that can be abused horribly.
The life of an American soldier is worth no more and no less than the life of an Iraqi insurgent or civilian. Saying that you want the American soldier to come home safely is to say that you value his or her life more than the life of another person in a similar (or worse) position. It is akin to rooting for your favorite sporting team, or the hometown kid who makes it big. You care more for someone and value their life more because they happen to have the same nationality as you?
We don’t have a draft going. Everyone in the military is there because they wanted to be there, whatever their reason. There is no need to feel sorry for the soldier who disagrees with the war and doesn’t want to be there, as there was during the Viet Nam draft.
I am not advocating hostility towards the troops. I am saying that blind devotion to their welfare is misplaced, and more thought should be given to the large, relative picture.
I do value somebody’s life more because they come from the same country as me, yes, the same way that I value my family’s life more than that of a stranger.
Whilst I agree this response it quite typical and totally uncontroversial, to continue the devils advocate idea:
Say, for example, you are from Texas; would you value the life of an American citizen from Hawaii over that of a Mexican citizen from, say Monterrey? Does the almost arbitrary distinction of shared nationality still stretch to any considered citizen of the US and is completely unaffected by geographical proximity? If so, why do you believe this is so? Not meaning to be argumentative, just curious.
I mean, while you may have a idea of what it is to be American, you may perceive a connections and some level of shared ideal in the concept of America or being American; but can you* truly * believe that the idea you cherish is shared or accepted or expected by all who live within the same boundaries?
It depends on what you mean exactly by the troops doing something you don’t like. Are you saying individuals doing something (like the recent marine shooting of a wounded insurgent)? Or are you talking about the troops in general (like the troops in Iraq overall)? Either way your premise is flawed. If its just a few troops doing something you don’t like, then certainly you can disagree with what they have done…even criticize what they have done (from your nice safe chair). How does this translate though to ALL the troops that a few of them have acted out of bounds? If its the troops in general, well…OUR government sent them there. They didn’t have any choice in the matter after all…they are following orders that ultimately get their legitimacy from…us. So, they are doing whatever they are doing (i.e. invade Iraq) at the collective ‘our’ behest. No?
In an abstract sort of way I suppose you have a point…each human life is worth the same as any other. However, if its YOUR life, or the life of those you love I’d say you value it more than someone else who you don’t know at all…no? Now, expand that small group to the PEOPLE you know (i.e. friends and neighbors) and you are more likely to value their lives more than people you don’t know. Now expand again to your fellow citizens in a state…in a nation. Its human nature Zag. Simply put, I DO value our soldiers lives more than I value the insurgents. Obviously we value our soldiers lives (collectively) LESS than we value the average Iraqi civilians though because we are willing to risk them to attempt to avoid unnecessary casualties…as opposed to, say, carpet bombing Falluja and REALLY razing the city.
Well, I don’t know that the soldiers need for you to feel sorry for them…merely to respect the sacrifice they are giving for you and me and the rest of the country. Certainly they (and I in my time) volunteered for service to our country…how does that lessen the sacrifice in your eyes? They are still doing it FOR the country…its still not a decision THEY made as far as going where our government tells them to go. Thats a function of the civilian government…the civilian government, I’ll remind you again, that derives its power and legitimacy from US. That acts at OUR collective behest. If you have a problem with the war, with the behavior of our troops, well and good. Take it out on the ultimate target of your ire though, not at the tool…i.e. the government that sent them where they are today.
In short, your premise is wrong headed IMO. I’m sure you (and others) will disagree.
What is “supporting” the troops, anyway? Wishing them well? Thinking good thoughts? Buying a yellow ribbon bumper sticker? Wouldn’t truly “supporting” the troops require sending them supplies, such as snack cakes and suntan lotion, or taking up collections to buy them body armor?
How does one person’s (or for that matter thousands or millions of persons’) favorable opinion(s) or happy thoughts constitute “support”? Conversely, how does the opinion suggested by Zagadka cause any harm whatsoever to those troops? It’s not as if he’s throwing eggs at returning soldiers or sending them hate mail. How would they know his opinion, and if they did, why should they care? It’s not as if “bad thoughts” call down the wrath of the Gods, putting them in further danger. Nor would I imagine a soldier thinking, “Woe is me! Since Zagadka doesn’t support me, I might as well just let myself get shot.”
We do not have to all agree with or “support” the government’s actions. Disagreement does not, nor ever has, constitute “un-patriotic” behavior. The propogandists would say so, but to my knowledge, America has never been about forcing everyone to think the same way.
I believe the catch phrase “Support our Troops” Is a mea culpa knee jerk reaction to what was done to the troops who fought in vietnam, (special thanks in part to Mr Kerry and the rabid liberal media at that time) People (at that time)had this mistaken notion that US troops were killing babies, shooting civilians, burning villages, taking drugs and sending dispropotinate amounts of blacks to the front. Soldiers came home from a grueling stint of warfare and people at the airports picketed them, spat in their faces and called them names. Much as you said, the soldiers were only doing their jobs and the one incident of atrocity in My Lai was blown all out of proportion.
So now, we have everyone feeling REAL guilty about all of that and they know (supposedly) that the US military follow orders and ultimately the man in charge is responsible…
So what is this growing brouhaha about this one marine who shoots an insurgent who turns out to be dying and unarmed? I can see the tide turning from “We support our troops” to “Oh no, theyre doing it again”
I support our US miltary in Iraq. That soldier probably did what everyone (safe here in front of their warm glowing monitors) thought he should have done to wounded insurgents *2 days prior * to the incident and had his face nearly shot off.
We here cant say what soldiers, who are in constant threat of death, should or shouldnt do after a replay of a video feed. If you support them, try seeing things thru thier eyes. If you support them, help them do their jobs so they can do it right, do it fast and get right back home safe and literally in one piece. You dont help them by throwing a red flag at the entire force for one incident localized to one marine.
The marines over there came to the support of soldier in question by letting people know what the situation there is like. Something the media does very little of. We should support the troops by understanding their situation and wait for facts, and not penalize every US soldier for the actions of a singualr marine who may not have done anything beyond the scope of being at war with an enemy that uses white flags to snipe, wears civilian clothes and hides among women and children, use their own holy places as supply depots and headquarters. People willing to commit suicide are capable of anything. Taking out one last marine before going to hell is not outside an insurgents list of atrocities.
Indeed. As I wrote frequently on this board, depending on the circumstances, not only it can be justified not to support the troops, but it can be a moral duty not to support them, or even to actively oppose them or support the ennemy.
I beleive in a huge difference between supporting our troops, and supporting our Generals. The troops deserve support for the tough job they do, and the dangers the face. Any and all troop that do their duty without breaking the law deserve respect for this. The Generals on the other hand get to make decisions, and they should be supported or decried on the quality of those decisions. The British military action in India several decades ago was disspicable, but the troop who did their job without becoming murderers and rapists still should be respected. The Generals and their political leaders are the ones to blame for the horrors of that conflict.
Not supporting the troop, would be like blaming a junior programmer at Microsoft for the agressive marketing and sometimes poor quality of the Microsoft company. In fact you could at least blame the junior programmer for not leaving the company to work for a better company, not something that is an option for a soldier to do.
I don’t think it’s an apt comparison. I value more my family because I know them and love them. I don’t know nor love soldiers from my country anymore than any random person on this planet. I’ve emotionnal ties with my friends. I don’t have such ties with a stranger, regardless of his citizenship.
You can’t compare bonds within a family, that are real, emotionnal bonds, with bonds with an abstract “fellow american”.
Besides, do you value more an American serial killer or a Canadian good-doer? If you value more the later, then your point about supporting the troops even when they’re on the bad side just because they’re from the same country isn’t consistent.
Because the morale of our troops is so fragile, if they hear a single discouraging word from the homefront, their will to continue will be shattered, and the cause of World Democracy will be lost.
It just seems to me as arbitrary as supporting the local football team over a better, more distant team.
When you look at things like, say, in F9/11, Moore has footage of the troops playing that song “we don’t need no water, let the mother f*er burn” an saying some disturbing things. I don’t support that at all. I don’t see why I should be socially expected to support that.
In fact, as a dissenter against this war, I don’t see why I shouldn’t support the insurgents. Then there is that question, “what is supporting them, bumper stickers and good thoughts?” Maybe I cna best support them by trying to put someone sane into leadership of this country. Well, lost that chance for another 4 years.
Doesn’t sound that much different from my great-uncle singing “you’re a sap, Mr. Jap” in WWII or my great-grandpa talking about “destroying the Hun brute” in WWI.
Soldiers have this totally bizarre habit of hating the guys on the other side that are shooting at them. I wonder why?
Iraqis have this totally bizarre habit of hating hte guys who came into their country with a lot of tanks and guns and started making new laws, and shelling them. I wonder why?
I don’t think anyone should. You can still “support the troops” without accepting every action they do - rather, I think that’s the best way.
Unfortunately “insurgents” is pretty broad, so you could jumping from the pan into the fryer in this one, because you’d be “supporting” all those executions.
But in another, loose sense, you’d be supporting war and killing in general if you supported the insurgency in this case, because it’s not as though the insurgency can win easily (i.e. with a minimum of death). Being underpowered, they have little else but to take on tactics and strategies that produce good cost/benefit ratios, and with forces so mismatched, you’d see a lot of bloodshed on the U.S. side for the insurgency to win - probably more than on the insurgency end if the U.S. were to win. (In the details, however, it’s important to note collateral damage.)
I personally “support the troops” because they’re ours. No, I’m not talking about some rather arbitrary loyalty here; we, collectively, are responsible for their deployment and their safe return, and this -ideally- should be a deliberate thing, meaning that -ideally- they should always be in a position where we want to support them.
Of course, this isn’t always the case. And, supporting our troops can mean “get them the hell out of there” - whether for their benefit or for who they’re being used against. That’s more of how I support the troops.
