Somebody did not ‘have to do it’. The world would be a much better place if ‘no-one had done it’.
Sure looks like you say “troops” right there in the second word of your first sentence.
Also jeopardize is misspelled.
Look at it this way.
Ask yourself two questions:
a. Should your country have a military?
b. And if so, should the military obey the orders of the executive branch?
If you say “yes” to both, then you don’t really have grounds to complain. Or would you prefer that soldiers decide when they want to fight or not fight? I can only speak for myself, but If I’m going to hand some guys several billion dollars worth of weapons, they damn well better do exactly what my elected representatives say.
Yes, I want you to do your job, but not to take pleasure in humiliating, degrading, or needlessly harming people. Or puppies, for that matter. But mostly people. It’s one thing to do what you have to do. It’s another to “express joy” at the suffering of others, particularly when the others are civilian bystanders.
Here is a good example of what I mean. A few years back I read an article about Soldiers cheering after they defeated the enemy. The journalist describes feeling revulsion at this notion. I didn’t really understand his criticism, because in my mind killing the enemy was the entire point of sending us there to begin with.
The same writer revisited the idea in a more recent article:
While I agree with the above interpretation, I’m still struggling to understand the author’s statement, “I didn’t want them to be like that.” From my perspective, the Soldiers did the job that you, the taxpayer, paid them to do. They got sent to fight, but the audience expected the fighting to be nice and pretty and conducted with great dignity… and is upset that the “performance” did not meet their expectations. This confuses me.
The author continues:
Now, for the record I agree that both of these ideas are reprehensible. I think torture is immoral and ineffective, and I also think desecration of corpses are vile. But the point of my OP is not whether I think the public likes me (although your support is greatly appreciated), nor my personal motives.
Try these:
So why are you paying me to do it? Why did you elect representatives who support these things?
In an intellectual, cognitive way I understand that we are pluralistic society rather than a monolith. The best a democracy can hope for is to execute the will of the majority rather than the whole. Sure.
But here’s a stastistic that illustrates what I mean: A poll in 2012 indicated only 34% supported the war in Afghanistan. This is down from 46% in 2010. (http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/1181-policy-and-strategy/226321-poll-support-for-afghan-war-hits-new-low) Which means that over the course of two years, 12% of the population changed their mind.
Hey, it’s a free country, that’s fine.
But I’d like to ask that 12% why they supported something as irrevocable as war then later changed their mind. I want to say to those 12%, “You asked me to do something we can’t un-do, and now you realize it might be a bad idea. So why did you ask me (through your elected Representatives) to do it to begin with?”
I’m sure there are plenty of people who might say, “It sounded like a good idea at the time.” But war is a terrifyingly irrevocable thing.
I hope those people who got into it and then changed their mind after it was already started remember that next time America is faced with a decision like this.
Thoughts?
Sorry, one more thought:
At least Wal-Mart gives you your money back if the product doesn’t do what you thought it would.
Little joke.
I cannot recall even Der Trihs saying the latter, and I’m pretty sure he’s the only Doper who would.
That might just mean 12%of people thought we’d accomplished our military objective.
When the Afghan War started, who knew that we’d still be there 11 years later? Sure, we wanted to get the Taliban. But no, we didn’t sign on to the notion that we’d be rebuilding their country. Years and years of “training” the Afghans to secure their own nation and still much of the land will never be controlled by Kabul. How much training do they need? Shouldn’t they all have Ph.D.s in security by now?
If we had gone in, did the job, and got the hell out I’d be saying “jolly good job”. But after waging this war for over a decade, I’ve changed my mind. We aren’t going to defeat this enemy on the battlefield because there isn’t any battlefield. We’re just playing Whack-a-mole. So I’m sorry if you feel abandoned by the citizenry, but we don’t want to see any more of you being asked to risk their lives for a mistake.
I fully agree, we should think this out more carefully the next time. Of course next time, we can only hope we don’t have the misfortune of a neocon president.
Knock it off or take it to The BBQ Pit.
This goes for everyone who feels the need to demonize either opponents or supporters of military actions or the troops who carry them out.
[ /Moderating ]
See, here’s one of the sticking points. We need a military in case we need to defend our liberty. But that doesn’t mean that every single action taken by the military constitutes defending our liberty. In my entire lifetime, there have been very few military actions that actually defended my liberty or security. Indeed, most of the time, defense of our liberty and security is accomplished by law enforcement, not military, agencies. If you categorize every single act by the military as something that needs to be held up as noble, then you lose any rational or moral sense.
Sam, what does this have to do with your claim that there is “anti-military hate” on the SDMB? This isn’t from the SDMB. Perhaps more importantly, it’s not hate. You’ve shown no examples of hatred.
Criticism of the military, or members of it, is not “hatred.” Supporting the troops does not require blind hero worship. I’m not going to get into the details of the story and your reaction to it, but where’s the hatred?
I think you will find the people who expressed those opinions probably not NOT vote for the people who chose to, say, invade Iraq. It’s the nature of a democracy that a person is allowed to disagree with the actions of their elected representatives, but they don’t have to stop disagreeing if their candidate loses the election, do they?
Well, it might also mean the polls aren’t perfect. But let’s assume they perfectly mirror public opinion.
If I go to a party at 8 PM and leave at 11, am I somehow stupid or illogical because I wanted to be at the party one moment, and then three hours later didn’t want to be there? If I have chicken for lunch but pork for dinner, am I stupid for wanting something I didn’t want this afternoon?
The facts on the ground in Afghanistan have changed since 2010, as in fact they have changed as the war has continued. I strongly supported the war myself (granted, I’m Canadian, so the issues are a bit different, but it’s now the longest war in Canadian history) when it started, but wanted us out years ago. The facts had changed, the nature of the mission had changed, and the risk/reward balance had changed. Why shouldn’t I change my mind?
But perhaps more to the point… what is your point? None of this is, in your words, “anti-military hate”? You repeatedly bring up the idea that it’s irrational or hypocritical to “Pay me” (meaning you) to go to war and then criticize the war or manner in which it’s fought. Well, that’s just preposterous. They get to criticize, they’re the ones paying for it. Americans have a long and proud tradition of criticizing wars. The people paying you have a right to demand the job be done a certain way. If I screw up at work, I don’t get to tell my boss “You shouldn’t criticize me, you paid me to do it.” Being paid to do something does not absolve you, or your organization, of being criticized for the manner in which the task is performed. Quite the opposite; it gives the payer the RIGHT to criticize you. He who pays the piper calls the tune.
How is war irrevocable? The United States has ended every war it’s ever been in, has it not? World War II’s over. The Korean War is over (yeah, yeah, cease fire, blah blah blah, I know.) Vietnam’s over. The Spanish-American War is over. Those seemed quite endable. Nobody has asked that history be changed, they’ve asked the war be ended now. Are you saying that wars should never end?
Ok I will dive in
My middle sister’s first love KIA in Afghanistan 12/2001, they were not still together but devastated is too small a word
Me waiting last year for Marine SGTs Louis and Matthew to come home from their 4th/5th deployments. Hoping it is not in a body bag because they are my friends. They did come home aok.
I was on tour in the Midwest in 2004 and stopped at a small grocery/gas station. This is a small farming community. In the doorway is a posterboard with the pictures of all the servicemembers from the area, 15 or so. I remember those faces well because it occurred to me that this small town would would suffer severe damage if even one was lost.
We as a Nation send you into War, but the ends have to balance the costs
In 2010 OBL was free and alive, in 2012…
Afghanistan has been the meatgrinder of Armies for centuries, ask the British or the Russians or Ghengis Khan. Our objective,OBL, is done and there is no foreseeable way we are going to turn Afghanistan into a peaceable, modern country by force. We can go now IMHO
I believe that this is the reason for the change in support for the War there
Capt
Because I’m not? 
I didn’t elect my government to invade Iraq or Afghanistan. It didn’t run on a platform of ‘attacking whoever Bush points at’. My government ignored the largest public protest in British history, when something like 1 in 60 of every man, woman and child went to the capital and protested.
Public opinion polls were completely and overwhelmingly against invading Iraq. Short of physically dragging our Dear Leader out into the street and hanging him from a lamppost there’s not much more that could be done.
And even if I did support the Iraq invasion I would have imagined its Occupation being done with some semblance of competence and I would have imagined it being done without the insane brutalities of Fallujah etc.
Just like I fondly imagined we might refrain from repeatedly bombing wedding parties in Afghanistan. Just like I fondly imagined by ‘democracy’ we didn’t mean ‘handing the country and the keys to to piggy bank back to the same, murdering, raping, drug-dealing thugs the country were so glad to get rid of first time round.’
Bomb the shit out the place, get rid of Al-Q and get out. That was my Afghan policy. I didn’t care what particular bunch of savages were left looting the ruins after.
If The Soviet Army, not in any way known for its warm and cuddly approach, could not win we sure as hell weren’t going to. Anyone with even a passing knowledge of the place knew for a stone-cold certain fact that they would hate and fight a Christian army. Anyone with any knowledge of the place knew it was a waste of time pouring in aid.
We achieved all that could be achieved in the first few weeks and when we eventually leave the savages will start fighting over the Afghan carcass. So long as the place isn’t a hideout for terrorists they can kill each other for all I care.
You can’t drop democracy on a country from 30,000 feet and you can’t drag a backward society totally in the thrall of a primitive, extreme version of their religion from the 13th century to the 21st.
I’m sorry the you and the rest of the ‘poor bloody infantry’ went through whatever you went through for nothing but that’s what you signed up to.
What if my answer to the first is “No”?
Then I strongly disagree with you - but you’re not a hypocrite.
How enlightened of you.
It works for Costa Rica - and Central America is hardly the most peaceful part of the world - it’s not quite as bad as your neck of the woods, but we all know the clichés of endless coups and juntas are based on reality - yet Costa Rica does OK.
Buddy, you don’t try to change my beliefs, and I won’t try to change yours. Both of us have roughly the same chance of success, anyway - which is to say none.
I’m enlightened enough to know when I’m wasting other people’s lives, limbs and sanity on an impossible mission.
Afghanistan has always been a brutal, backward place that is absolutely resistant to any outside influence. That’s their problem, not mine. The civil war between loosly ethnic based shifting alliances of warlords will continue when we’ve gone and there’s nothing we can do about that.
The army and police will not-so-slowly disintegrate along ethnic and clan loyalty lines and Karzai and his family will pack the last dregs of the treasury into their swiss bank accounts and retreat to one of their many villa’s in Dubai or wherever.
(He’s currently residing in the £6000 a day penthouse suite in Claridge’s on a ‘visit.’ You sure get a great salary as Mayor of Kabul it seems.).
We don’t live in Never-Never Land. Wishes aren’t horses and Afghanistan remains a brutal country in name only.