This keeps getting thrown back and forth as some kind of litmus test of patriotism, and I confess I don’t get what everybody means. And I’m starting to wonder if everybody else has any idea what it means.
As I think about it, it occurs to me that perhaps it has everything to do with the post-Vietnam experience, and the shameful way so many anti-war people treated the returning soldiers. Could that be it? Are we all promising not to spit in their eyes when they return?
Having an excellent memory of that time, perhaps I’m just taking for granted the idea that we have learned our lessons, and of course we don’t blame those who have been sent to do the fighting.
So can we just stop with the “You are anti-war, therefore you don’t care if our soldiers die!” rhetoric? There can be a legitimate difference of opinion about whether speaking out against the war has a negative effect on the waging of it, but that still does not mean that people who do are “not supporting” our troops.
I believe what I said above is true: we have learned our lessons, and I have yet to read or hear ONE anti-war voice that has extended their disapproval of the war to cover the actual men and woman being made to fight it. And until someone DOES hear/read anyone saying that, I think it should be an automatic lose in these fora to conflate anti-war with anti-troops.
To be entirely forthright, one tiny molecule of my brain says “Hey, they volunteered to be in the military, so one can only assume that they support the general idea of going to war, so why not expect them to take some of the blame?” (Unlike Vietnam, where so many were drafted against their will.) But then all the other molecules of my entire body rush inand say, “Hey! Hold on there… yeah, maybe you don’t agree with THIS war, but thank heaven there are people who are willing to serve in the military just in case there should ever be a real need to defend your sorry ass and the country you love, cuz we all know that ** you ** sure as shit wouldn’t be doing it, so just shut the fuck up!” And then I make myself go sit in a corner and don’t give myself any supper, young lady.
It quite obviously means that if their nutsacks or breasts are swinging loose in the wind, we are here to provide extra lift and comfort.
—and I have yet to read or hear ONE anti-war voice that has extended their disapproval of the war to cover the actual men and woman being made to fight it.—
What about the protestors who paraded around the sign that said that they support our troops in fragging their officiers (who are also “our troops”)?
What does say to our troops when anti-war demonstartors say they support our troops but violently oppose the idiot that our troops gave a solemn oath to obey? Kinda makes their job kinda meaningless doesnt it?
Apos, you know that those idiots are not representative of the anti-war movement. I flamed those guys myself on these boards, and I’m as anti-war/ anti-Bush as it gets.
You can find pro-war people who are way over the top as well. I’ve heard people say we should nuke Bahgdad for instance. There’s been a healthy bit of anti-Muslim bigotry mixed in with some of the hawks, but I don’t automatically say that everyone who is for the war is a racist.
I think it’s fair to say that the majority of anti-war sentiment expressed in the media and on this board has not included hostility towards the troops or a wish for them to get hurt.
The way I see it, Bush is misusing his power as CiC, and is exploiting the troops for political purposes.
I don’t support Bush’s mission with this, but I hope that the troops come through it with as little harm as possible. I also hope that they don’t have to inflict any more harm than is absolutely necessary. I reject, outright, any suggestion that criticizing Bush or or opposing the decision to invade Iraq amounts to any sort of bad will towards American soldiers. I’m from a military family. My father, my grandfathers, my uncles, one of my brothers, and I, myself have all been in the military. My dad served in Southeast Asia during Vietnam and he’s very much against this war.
Stoid, this was a great idea for an OP, thanks.
One thing about any implied culpability for an all volunteer military:
When people enlist in the military, they are doing so with a tacit faith that their leaders, particularly their CiC, will make responsible decisions and will put them in harm’s way only as a last resort. GWB (IMO) has betrayed that trust.
Diogenes, while I completely agree that someone holding a sign essentially urging a soldier to kill a commanding officer fits into the extreme side of things, Apos was simply pointing out a perfect example that answers the following challenge Stoid put forth:
A picture of the sign in question can be found here.
Do you have a cite? Not that I think you’re mistaken, but I haven’t seen that myself. I assume you are correct, and I’m not surprised. There are always going to be a few wackos who will carry an otherwise legitimate disagreement with goverrnment policy to insane conclusions.
I’m inclinced to agree with Stoid that a kind of shame over the treatment of Viet Nam era vets has a lot to do with the attitude of at least some of the older war dissenters now. They over-reacted in the sixties, blaming the soldiers for the policies of their leaders, and now they are over-compensating.
It’s difficult to define “support” for the troops, particularly if you believe, as I do, that the war itself is a great wrong. Speaking for myself, I think the use of force except in self-defense is always unjustified. Nevertheless I wish the troops well, individually and as a group. To me that is support. They protect all of us in war or in peace and they deserve our respect and our gratitude. That, to me, is support.
Taking issue with their civilian leaders in no way blames them for the war they are fighting, nor, in my mind, deprives them of support. I’m against the war. I deplore the actions of the President. But I am for the troops.
My wholehearted best wishes to Airman Doors and any other Dopers who may be in Iraq right now. No doubt there are others. Be careful, stay safe, and come home soon.
My litmus test for support is in relation to POWs.
Any activity that can be used against American POWs to humiliate and demoralize their resolve is not supporting the troops. Any activity that would cause POWs to believe that the majority of their countrymen are not behind them and their actions is not supporting the troops. Any activity that can be used against POWs to break their will and devulge sensitive information is not supporting the troops. Want to do all these things? Show them films of the protests in the US, holding up signs about concern for Iraqi troops, of people lieing in the streets to protest Iraqi deaths, of throngs of people holding signs about blood for oil and calling Bush a war criminal. Supporting the troops means refraining from these things while they are in battle, putting their lives on the line and being held captive by the enemy.
I believe that people have the right to protest (LEGAL protest). However, just because one has the right to do it doesn’t mean they should.
Fred Phelps has the right to picket funerals of gay people. He has the right to call everyone walking in a “fag” and tell them they are all going to hell. He has the right to hold up signs telling the family members that their deceased son is a sinner and burning in Hell. Just because he has the right doesn’t mean he is in the right. He’s too blinded by his hatred and stupidity to realize this. I fear the same of most of the protesters out there. They are too blinded for their hatred of all things Bush and too stupid (although stupid is too strong a word) to realize that even though they say they support the troops that is not what they are actually doing.
Thank you, Stoid. I’ve been thinking the same thing. It’s BAD to pick on soldiers who are doing their job. It’s GOOD to speak out against the Iraqi war if you believe it’s wrong. All of this “supporting the troops” crap is sounding emptier all the time.
Personally, I find the “I’m against the war but I support the troops” position fundamentally flawed.
Ok, you can be against the war but not be totally against the troops, but you can’t say you support them because, well, you don’t. If you’re against the war then you don’t support what they are doing. And considering that the US military is all volunteer and that morale for this campaign seems to be universally high amongst the US troops and especially considering that they are risking their lives every single minute they’re doing it it’s particularly wrong to sit here in the safe, prosperous USA and not support them, let alone be against them.
Put it this way: if when asked about your position you say that you think this war is wrong and you can give intelligent, reasonable reasons why, then that’s worth respecting (and disagreeing with).
But if you go so far as to actually go out and participate in an anti-war demonstration then there is absolutely no way you can claim that you’re supportive of the troops just not the war. In fact there’s no way you can claim that you’re not simutaneously protesting against the troops as well.
During an actual, ongoing campaign the two are inexorably linked. And if you are so strongly against this war that you feel you have to go out and protest against it you must accept the FACT that that means protesting US soldiers in actual combat as well.
X~Slayer(ALE), if I said that I think the Enron execs were fuckwits, would you think that I opposed all employees of the company as well? If not, how come that “chain of command”-argument doesn’t apply there?
Nice selective quoting there X-Slayer… read up a couple paragraphs in your article:
Not all the troops agree that “anti-war equals anti-troops”. This backs up my own personal experience with soldiers in the town where I live (a navy town). Those that I’ve spoken to know that I appreciate, respect, and support them, and they can separate my feelings about the politicians behind this war from my feelings about them, the fighting men and women who have been told to do their duty.
I find opinions such as Hail Ants’ somewhat myopic in comparison. We can be against the war while supporting the troops… the two are simply not mutually exclusive.
To the OP, to me “supporting the war” and “supporting the troops” are two different things. Supporting the troops means letting the soldiers overseas, as well as those still in the States who might be going, know that you respect them and you appreciate the sacrifice they’re making. This can be done by writing letters, sending gifts, or just by talking to them. I’ve done all of the above, so I feel that I do indeed support our troops, even if I maintain my stance against the war.
To me it’s about separating politics from personal feelings. I hate the politics of this war, but I certainly do not hate the people who are doing their duty by fighting it. I hope that they come home safely, and soon.
BTW, how about the eight years of Clinton bashing? Were those who criticized BC while he had troops in Somalia and Kosovo also hurting the troops, or does that only apply to Republican CiC’s?
This whole “support our troops” thing is the most inane litmus test possible. Quite frankly, supporting the troops is a non-issue.
To a man and woman, my military friends see themselves as neutral enforcers of whatever policy is determined by the political leadership. And that’s the way it should be.
IMO, if you:
[ul]
[li]Don’t advocate the killing or capture of servicemen and women;[/li][li]Don’t spit on or attack servicemen; and[/li][li]Don’t advocate for the abandonment of the troops in the field without supplies[/li][/ul]
you are “supporting the troops.”
Of course, people who advocate that the troops refuse to follow orders are idiots, plain and simple. What we do not want, and what in particular paranoid lefties should not want, is troops deciding for themselves what (legal) orders they will and won’t follow. A military that decides for itself what it will do is an extremely dangerous thing.
I’m kind of confused by your post so please tell me if I’m creating a straw man.
a) you can’t support the troops if you’re against the war, because if you don’t support what they’re doing then you don’t support them
b) you should support the troops (using the definition of “support” from (a)) because they’re risking their lives voluntarily
Is that accurate?
By the same logic, do you support the human shields that have gone to Iraq? Do you support the republican guard? It’s very wrong for you to sit in the prosperous USA and not support them (read: agree with everything they do), you know.
