First off, let me say that I was involved in the early ('65-'68) years of the war in Vietnam. So I was a civilian and a vet for the remainder of the war and afterward, and had a lot of contact with loved ones of the military still over there.
There was a pervasive belief among many of the families and friends that to complain or object about the war could somehow jinx the Soldiers and Marines still in combat areas. At the very least a “better not to risk it” feeling.
I get the familiar feeling sometimes when I see interviews of f&f of the people stationed in Iraq defending the war.
Do some families share this feeling?
BTW; This was one of the superstitions also held by some of the military in Vietnam. There were plenty.
Again, I am profoundly agonized by what’s happening, and have quit watching such tributes and interviews for now.
Peace,
mangeorge
Of course any family will be emotional when their loved ones are in combat.
However there is no evidence for this superstition.
There is evidence that it matters who you vote for.
I didn’t vote for Bush, if that’s what you mean. I’ve heard there’s some animosity abroad toward those who did, but that’s another thread.
I don’t know any family of combat troups in Iraq. There aren’t many in England, are there?
Jinxes don’t exist.
I’ve never heard of it as a “jinx” per se, but stated as “if you protest the war, the troops will find out and get demoralized, and that’ll hurt them in combat.” (This is when the “protest the war but support the troops” arguments come out, typically.)
And when has there been a major effort to protest the war and demean the troops?
All the anti-war folks I know have nothing against the troops, just the chimp giving them the damn fool orders.
Voting for Blair also meant troops got sent, but I just meant that although the jinx is not verified, it does matter which politician gets elected.
‘45,000 troops from all three (UK) armed services were in Iraq at height of conflict’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3082702.stm
‘There have been 1,469 coalition troop deaths, 1,319 Americans, 75 Britons, seven Bulgarians, one Dane, two Dutch, two Estonians, one Hungarian, 19 Italians, one Latvian, 16 Poles, one Salvadoran, three Slovaks, 11 Spaniards, two Thai and nine Ukrainians in the war in Iraq as of December 22, 2004.’
http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/
That’s not the thrust of the OP, I think. I think what he’s asking is:
-
Do the friends and families of troops (and the troops themselves) today share the same BELIEF that folks did back in the Vietnam era, namely that objecting to the war will jinx said troops and lead to their deaths?
-
[by extension] is this a reason why we see so few objections by such people today? Do they really object, but are saying nothing to avoid the perceived jinx? Or are they as fully supportive of the war and its aims as they seem to be?
And I think Ferret Herder has nailed it insofar as civilians, esp., are concerned: if we dare to criticize, we are Tokyo Rose.
I think that pretty nails my question/concern. The statements in support don’t seem to me to always be very enthusiastic, or heartfelt, and that’s exactly what I saw as Vietnam wore on.
Loved ones of casualties seem to be a little more outspoken, as do veterns who have returned. Both injured and healhy.
I use the term “healthy” with some trepidation.
The only jinx I’ve heard of is when it’s boldly announced “The troops will be home by Christmas!”