It’s ignored because people feel like they’re owed something without realizing that everything has a cost. That’s the ultimate end result of our entitlement society.
And the reason why you shouldn’t condemn the military is because they’re the reason you’re not speaking French, Spanish, King’s English, Japanese, German, or Russian. Just because you don’t think this war (or any of the other more recent wars) is just doesn’t mean that the people in the military are immoral or deplorable. In fact, the military is the sole reason why you aren’t a piece of radioactive dust.
You should thank military members and respect them for protecting your lifestyle with their lives.
I would agree that ultimately, a soldier choose his career, knowing that he will have to kill people and risk his own life for a cause he won’t choose and won’t necessarily approve (excepted drafted people…and even then some choose prison or the firing squad rather than accept to fight…a recent example which made the headlines was the Israelis “refuzniks” who refused to serve in the occupied territories).
So he has some kind of responsability when he’s involved in a war which is fought on a poor or even evil ground. That’s the kind of things which made me a conscientious objector and that I had to ponder also when the possibility appeared that I could work for the french ministery of defense.
But of course, I know it’s quite theorical and also know that there are many reasons and circumstances which make someone choose a military career without necessarily thinking a lot about the ultimate meanings of this choice (however, I would cut no slack to an officer, generally speaking).
Also :
Not necessarily inconsistent, but it might be. It depends how opposed you are to the war. If you’re just midly opposed to it, you might hope it will be over as soon as possible and that the soldiers will come back safe. But, if you’re strongly opposed to it, thinking that this war is unjust, you shouldn’t support your troops in any way. Since they’re fighting on the “bad” side, it would mean that you hope the “good” guys will be killed while fighthing for a just cause. In the worst cases, you should, in conscience, try to undermine their action, or help the opposite camp killing them.
Beside, I too am wondering what exactly “supporting the troops” mean. Though I can see some ways to actually support them for a civilian, in most case, saying “I support the troops” is only an empty statement.
While I appreciate and respect your position, Airman, one must sound a couple of cautionary notes.
Not all men join the military for noble motives, as surely you must know by now. A direct parallel is possible with policemen: some men really do want to protect and serve, some others want to carry a gun and boss people around. But no man ever honored his country by assisting it in an ignoble cause. The soldiers of the Wehrmacht suffered and died to protect thier nation, as surely as any other soldier. Are they owed a debt of gratitude? Are they to be considered morally innocent simply because they took an oath of service?
The “support our troops” slogan is too often used as a device to silence dissent, to portray opposition as being unpatriotic and treasonous. I submit to you that this misuse of your service is repugnant and treacherous, as it perverts the protection of freedom to the oppression of freedom. You cannot save freedom by supressing it, any more than you can save a village by burning it.
(Upon preview: I am tempted to retract my respectful attitude. That last post was reprehensible, Airman, and I trust you will be ashamed of it upon reflection.)
Strawman much? I did not call people in the military immoral or deplorable. clairobscur did a pretty good job of saying what I’m thinking, but I’ll give it a try in my own words. When you signed up for the military, whatever your reasons, you signed up for the whole Kit’n Kaboodle. If a war is generally a Good Thing (let’s just say WWII to make this more tangible), then you signed up for the training, the transport, the preparation, the anxiety, the combat, the fatigue, the fear, the relief, the comraderie, the triumphant return home, the heroism… I could go on, but my point is that you get it ALL.
This does not change just because a war is less than a Good Thing (Vietnam, Gulf War II, whatever). You’re trying to have it both ways – if a war is just, you want to be a hero, but if a war is repugnant, you want to be absolved of any association with it because now, you magically “have” to be there (due to an oath that nobody forced you to swear, conscription being the exception).
Surely you knew, when you signed up, what you were getting into. You knew that you could be considered a hero if you were commanded to act heroically… why do you expect to be relinquished of the very same responsibility if you’re suddenly commanded to act in a malignant fashion?
Pick: either you’re part of the military 100%, and are subject to the same criticisms that the entire military is… or you’re not part of the military, in which case I’ve gotta wonder why you signed up in the first place.
**
Well, being that I grew up in a Navy household, I’ve been following this advice for two and a half decades now. But thanks for your patronizing attitude anyway.
clairobscur:But, if you’re strongly opposed to it, thinking that this war is unjust, you shouldn’t support your troops in any way.Since they’re fighting on the “bad” side, it would mean that you hope the “good” guys will be killed while fighthing for a just cause.
It’s often even more complicated than that: you can believe that your government has started an unjust war and also that the opposing army is fighting unjustly or for unjust reasons. It is perfectly possible, alas, to have a war with two “bad” sides, where nobody really is the “good guys”.
Which is just one more reason not to start wars except as a very last resort and with very clearly defined objectives.
The “support our troops” slogan is too often used as a device to silence dissent, to portray opposition as being unpatriotic and treasonous.
True, which is why I think it’s so smart of the anti-war movement to have co-opted that slogan (e.g., “Support the Troops—Bring Them Home”). If we’re all agreed that we respect and care about our servicepeople and we don’t want them dying or killing others in unnecessary and unjust wars, then we can move away from pointless partisan sniping about who’s an unpatriotic traitor, and focus on the much more important issue of deciding which wars are necessary and just.
I think when people toss out the slogan “Support Our Troops” what they are REALLY saying is “Support The War”. That’s why hot-tempered disagreement remains even after both sides (pro-war and anti-war) have both stated their support for the actual fighting men and women.
Speak plainly people. If you mean “support the war” then say what you mean. “Support the Troops” has almost no meaning because almost no one actually wishes harm on our troops.
I didn’t sign up to be a hero. There are lots of reasons why I did, but that is not one of them. That thought never even entered my mind. And further, war by definition is repugnant. Ultimately, your opinion depends entirely upon your personal political slant. You don’t like the fact that the war was fought for what you think was a lie. I’m not happy about what’s happened in the aftermath either. But holding me responsible for the way it turned out when I was performing my job in good faith isn’t right. I don’t make the decisions, I don’t compile the intelligence. What I do do, though, is fulfill my obligations, and that was one of them.
While I was typing that post I was thinking about exactly what I meant to say.
I’d love to retract it, really I would, since it was genuinely cold-hearted. However, I am unable to, due to this:
[sub]My underlining[/sub]
In other words, he is not advocating stopping the troop trains. He is advocating killing everyone aboard the troop trains. He is not saying that he is against the war, he is saying that he would like to be an active participant in the war, only against his own countrymen.
This is not Jane Fonda making speeches. She never truly undermined the actual war effort, nor did she actually help the North Vietnamese.
No, this is Benedict Arnold. This is Vidkun Quisling. This is a clear cut case of treason being discussed here. And I was wondering if his ideals would allow him to actively participate in the death of his own son if he were against the war and his son were in the military, if his treason were worth the life of one of his children.
Now, that may not be fair, but if he’s being so cavalier about my life, I was wondering how far his principles extended.
By the way, supporting the troops does not mean supporting the war. It means that you cheer when they return home. It means that you don’t call them murderers (which happened to me after I got home, by the way). It means that you help the families in any way possible. It means that you do the little things that keep up the morale of the troops. It means that you wish them well and send letters and news from home.
It does not mean that you support the purpose of the fighting, nor does it mean that you are showing approval of the people who send soldiers to fight.
I understand that, but you are also suggesting, perhaps unthinkingly, that national loyalty is the highest loyalty. Not to Godwin, but would you consider a German who opposed the Nazi regime a “traitor”? Is there nothing that might call for a higher set of loyalties? Consider the “White Rose” conspirators (as inept a group as ever plotted, but nevermind…).
If I accept, and I do, that one might be forced to violence in order to oppose evil, then I accept that I would have been willing to take up arms against the Wehrmacht, even to kill soldiers whose only real crime was unthinking loyalty to the defense of thier Fatherland, to kill those whose only crime is patriotism. And I do accept that.
Then, by that very same token, if I were a German I would have to be willing to kill German soldiers. It necessarily follows.
We have testimony from men who were at My Lai that many of the victims were saved from certain death by a couple of helicopoter pilots (if memory serves) who were willing to open fire upon thier own in order to prevent further slaughter.
At least we can agree upon this. I’d question why you’d volunteer to potentially participate in something so repugnant, but it’s your life, not mine.
**
No, you don’t make the decisions. But you did make the original decision to join up. You’re in the partnership. You knew going in that you might have to participate in a war, and surely you knew that it was possible that you wouldn’t agree 100% with the rationale given for a war. But you signed up anyway. Just because you’re not the Commander in Chief doesn’t mean you’re absolved from the consequences of your initial decision.
quix, while it’s a different job, and one you clearly don’t approve of, in that sense it’s no different than the underlings at, say, Enron not being held responsible for everything that the higher ups were responsible for.
Now, if an individual commits a crime, then there will be mad charges. The UCMJ is not forgiving. But collectively the soldiers should be held to be acting in good faith.
I can… kind of see what you’re saying. Ostensibly, an accountant who joined up with Enron did not know that it was such a shady company. Similarly, you joined up feeling that the US Military is generally the Good Guy. Certainly, an Enron employee did not forsee the scandal they’d become embroiled in. Similarly, you probably didn’t envision yourself attacking a country on the basis of lies from your superiors. An Enron employee, upon seeing the naughty stuff going on, could resign with little muss and no fuss. I won’t hold you to that standard, as there are much graver consequences if you want to get out of the military.
Still, and I’m entirely going on my opinion here, I feel that because a “Get Out of the Military Free” card does not present itself, your initial decision to join the Air Force carried a lot more weight than did Joe Schmoe’s decision to join Enron. You both knew what you were getting into, but Joe Schmoe knew that he had the option to bail at any time. You, lacking that option, still made the option to commit to Uncle Sam. I certainly don’t envy your decision, and I can respect the moral quandry in which you’ve placed yourself, but I cannot fully exculpate you. After all, it WAS your decision.
But you’ve got me thinking, at least. Clearly, it’s not as cut-and-dried as I had previously supposed.
Exactly. And you might have a moral duty to betray your country if it’s acting in an “evil” way. Patriotism has, in my book zero intrisic moral value. If your country is in the wrong and the other country is in the right, there’s no way you should assist/support your country. Sorry for Godwining, but assuming you’re a german citizen in the 30’s-40’s and happen to be aware of the evil deeds going on in your country. What should be your moral duty (not necessarilly what you would actually do, given the circumstances)? Faithfully support your country, or betray it?
Irrelevant. We’re talking from a theorical point of view. Or else : what would you do if your son happens to betray and fight for the other side. He’s right at the point of your gun. Do you shot him dead? Would someone supporting the death penalty be very eager to see his own son being fried on an electric chair? If you thing that no ransom should be ever given in case of kidnapping/hostage taking and your son happens to be the hostage, would you refuse to pay the ransom? Etc…ad nauseam. With this kind of argument, pretty much everybody apart from a totally brainwashed fanatics, would change his mind immediatly, whatever would be his previous position, and whatever the issue.
You might cheer when your son, as you put it, return home. Now, if you see, say fellow serbian soldiers not related to you coming back home and know that they belong to an unit which was involved in murders, rapes, and other war crimes, maybe you could think it would have been better if they had all been KIA early in the war.
Actually, to some extent, it does. If you provide comfort and moral support to soldiers, you’re, to some extent helping them win the war. If you think your country is on the wrong side, you obviously shouldn’t help it win the war. In other words, if “supporting” troops is actually of any use, then it must be done only when you’re supporting the war going on. Sure, supporting the ennemy could indirectly cause the death of soldiers from your country. But similarily, providing support to your troops might indirectly cause the death of soldiers from the opposite side. And we’re considering the case when your side is in the wrong.
In this situation, since anyway someone is going to die, it should the guy fighting on the “bad” side rather than the guy fighting on the “good” side. Whether or not they’re fellow countrymen is irrelevant (and in case you’re wondering, if your son is involved, whether on the “good” or on the “evil” side, whether fighting with your country’s troops or with the ennemy’s troops for some reason, you’re unlikely to wish him dead anyway. It’s a non-argument)
Now, of course, you might want to provide comfort to soldiers coming back from a war if for some reason they need it, whether or not they were fighting for a good cause, because it’s just the humane thing to do. But once again, that would apply in the same way to ennemy soldiers (though you’re more unlikely to meet one). Once again : zero difference. The question which matters is : “what is the moral thing to do?”. Not “Did I happen to be born in the same piece of land than this guy or not?”
My expression (“if memory serves”) refers to being uncertain as to whether the two men referred to were helicopter pilots or some other. My memory certainly serves as to the essential facts, indeed, they were eventually honored with medals for heroism and thier stories displayed on 60 Minutes. If memory serves, it might have been some other national news show.
Of course, I take offense at your needlessly snotty attitude. The only question that remains is whether it is worth my time to go a-Googling for the trivial pleasure of serving you a well deserved portion of crow.
I think not. Please consider this a heart-felt invitation to go pound burdocks.
“The chopper took off again. A few hundreds yards away, the crew saw U.S. soldiers firing into another ditch filled with Vietnamese. Thompson became enraged. He couldn’t believe what he was seeing. As he swept over the village, he saw about a dozen civilians splashing through the rice paddies. They were running for their lives from Charlie Company. Thompson landed his chopper between the civilians and the Americans. Calley showed up a minute later and had heated words with Thompson who was consumed with rage. He ordered his crew to turn their machine guns on the Americans and if the soldiers intervened, to fire on the young lieutenant. Thompson herded the terrified Vietnamese onto other gunships that offered assistance and flew them to safety to Quang Ngai City.”
From a lengthy account of My Lai and the trial here
Any particular sauce you’d like with that crow, Read?
(And thanx and a tip of the E. hat to Publius and Eolbo. Admittedly, one should do one’s own dirty work, and you have permitted me to preserve what few scraps of dignity remain after 20 years of fatherhood.)
Actually,since this is GD,I would think when making a post most people would have a cite handy. I asked for it because I missed the last of the "60"s and the first half of the "70"s so I’m not familiar with the particulars of My Lai… As to my observation on your posting style. It was just that,but now that I know you’re a little “thin skinned” I’ll take it into consideration.
As to the crow. Medium-well over an open fire with plenty of Tobasco will do just fine.