"Support The Troops" is nonsense.
Offline We often here about the support the troops nonsense. We even hear this from people who are against the war. These people say "im against the war, but I support the troops." If your against the war, then what could possibly justify you supporting the troops? A common response is that they are just doing their jobs. This kind of reasoning, when applied in other contexts, fails. If one held to this kind of reasoning, one would have to hold that the soldiers on Nazi Germany were not really immoral people...they were just doing their job. Or take a hitman hired to kill someone. he is just doing his job...leave him alone.
If you against the war, it is irrational to to be for the very people who carry out the war. The very people one claims to be for, are the very ones murdering women and children.
"In the high school halls, in the shopping malls, conform or be cast out" ~ Rush, from Subdivisions
- Login to post comments
A degree of trust is necessary. Not absolute blind trust but atleast some trust. We can't all be politicians. When we aren't experts ourselves we have to trust the decisions of our superiors. An army relies heavily on co-operation and it is vital the superiors are both trustworthy and trusted. I think the troops were right to hold up their side. It was the government who let down in their role.
Referring to what Insidium said, once they were in there and realised for sure what a cock up it was, the most constructive thing they could do is see it through to the end.
When you guys say "bring stability" to the middle east or to Iraq I think that to you that means something completely different than it means when the US governments says it.
People in the middle east hate america because in that part of the world there exists the perception that the US government supports brutal dictatorships that thwart democracy. The reason that the US has a problem eliminating that perception is because it's true.
So when you say "bring stability" you need to understand that the US has been bringing stability to the middle east for a long time because all that implies is control by any means.
But let's say for the sake of argument that it did mean what you thought it meant. Iraq and the rest of the region are destabilized as a direct result of US actions. So to stabilize it wouldn't we need to reverse the policy that destabilized it in the first place? What sense does it make to say you’re going to stabilize the region by advancing the same policy that destabilized it?
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
I believe this is far too broad a statement for me to properly comment on. I am not under the illusion that the US has a great human rights/common decency record, and I also do not believe the war was justified. However, that "same" policy is the only reasonable and responsible thing to do. A stable Iraqi government, especially if it is subordinate to us, is a good thing. Economic and diplomatic ties with the West will surely increase foreign investment and eventually the quality of life in Iraq. Unfortunately, by invading Iraq we managed to shoot ourselves in the foot, since the majority of the population is Shiite and sympathetic to Iran. However, we are veering slightly off topic.
The military, in order to be an effective and reliable tool, must be highly disciplined and subordinate to its command structure. The soldier does not have the privileges that a citizen does: he does not have the privilege of wondering if he is just a cog in some evil machine. As I mentioned earlier, the job of a soldier is to listen to his commanding officer.* Any news stories, or op/ed pieces that he is aware of should be irrelevant: all he must do is follow orders. While this sort of thinking may strike you as terribly collectivist, remember: it's the MILITARY. It functions in a realm that is simply not comparable to that of your average civilian. Now, you may argue that the military is being terribly misused, but it is a tool of international relations, not an ethical institution. Any ethical concerns should lie not with soldiers but with those who decide to go to war in the first place.
*Of course, soldiers ought to disobey orders that clearly violate someone's human rights. Sadism, murders of innocents, etc. must be punished. Abu Ghraib is definitely not acceptable. I support the use of torture only to the degree that it yields reliable information. I believe that it is not effective, however, and thus should be avoided. The PR effect is also terrible.
An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.
You think that using military force against weaker nations that haven't attacked us, so that we can affect their political process and establish states that are subordinant to the US is reasonable and responsible?
That's something that I don't know how to properly comment on. Not only are we not on the same page we're not even in the same book.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
I think that given that we have used military force against weaker nations that haven't attacked us (as a direct result of position c, one I have explicitly stated that I do not hold) and as a result destabilized them, we are morally obligated to restore order and attempt to improve living conditions. The fact that there is a great deal of corruption and a general failure at the command level to see this objective through does not override the merit of the objective itself. If the order we restore happens to support us, all the better. I hope I have made myself clear.
If Iraq winds up with some semblence of order, then we will have succeeded from the perspective of humanism. If Iraq winds up allied to us, we will have also accomplished that which is in our interest as a world power. If, on the other hand Iraq allies with Iran against America, then we will have shot ourselves in the foot with a shotgun. The best possible outcome, and the one to hope for is that Iraq becomes stable and retains close relations to the United States.
Perhaps you do not believe that it is a viable outcome. Very well, but I disagree with that. If a significant period of time passes and we fail to rebuild Iraq as an ally, then I will unabashedly admit that I was wrong.
An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.
I agree. Especially since all official parties have accepted it's illegality and immorality. Not to mention it's tactical stupidity.
I never suggested anyone punish themselves or hope that Iraq is never stabalized. Fact of the matter is that the same people who lied to go to war in the first place are the ones being trusted to fix their grievous "error". Why? Where's the lynch mob demanding Bush's resignation and/or impeachment? How the hell does anyone with any brains at all think that the problem can be fixed by throwing more weapons and troops into the area? The US fucked up horribly, and now it's compounding it's error. Supporting stupid actions is stupid. Every soldier in the military who participates holds as much responsibility as anyone else, with the sole exceptions of those who made the descision to war in the first place. Should they be thrown in jail? Of course not. The US needs a military to defend itself and it's allies against real threats. But it certainly raises major questions about the morality of the United States military and it's military training.
Not supporting the troops is significantly different from hoping for a failure. Don't put words in my mouth.
The overall mission has never changed(remove Saddamn, force democracy, take oil). I have never supported it. I never will. Every individual mission is done for the cause of the overall. You fail to understand military and political implications and tactics to suggest what you suggest.
I don't recall saying you did.
There's no perhaps about it. It should never have happened. But Bush wanted his oil.
Bull. Any in such a position was there from willful ignorance. The fact that 90% of the world condemned the actions of the US is more than enough evidence of it's wrongness. The fact that noone in the administration could demonstrate their claims was further evidence. And most damning of all, it's own intelligence service was saying the government was wrong. They had EVERY reason to suspect the illegitimacy of the war.
They were aware, they are culpable.
I disagree. The military itself tells it's soldiers to disobey orders that are immoral. I know of at least a few soldiers who went awol from the military and left the country in protest of the war. Those are the ones to look up to.
And when the attempted repair goes as well as the original war in the first place? You're supposed to support actions that are as brainless as the original scenario in the first place? I don't think so.
Actually, most of their targets are military. The US has killed more civillians in Iraq than insurgents have. Like the Israelis, the US is creating more enemies than it is destroying. Blindly supporting them will merely allow it to continue. Rising in protest is the only way to stop it.
You don't know that the insurgent would kill the citizen. And what about the insurgents family? His or her friends? Would the American citizen kill him? I can assure you that some would. Just like some Iraqi's are doing to Americans. The fact is that they'd have no Americans to kill if the Americans weren't illegally in their home overthrowing their legitimate government in the first place. These people want the same things everyone wants. To live a normal life with friends and family. Patriotism isn't going to fix anything here.
It is an outcome I hope for as much as you. Unfortunately, it is not an outcome that seems likely the way things have been going from step one. Afghanistan is in even worse shape. It seems the Taliban were right when they said they could stand against the American might. They're still there. Iraq is the next Vietnam? Nope, that was Afghanistan, and still is. It's just hiding beneath the shadow of the third Vietnam, which also isn't going anywhere. Now a fourth is being contemplated. How many wars does the US want to get into here? It can't and won't win any of them. I've been saying as much for 6 years now. If Bin Ladens intentions are to spread the US military so thin that he can rip them apart with ease, his plans are bearing fruit. Obviously things aren't working. In science, when something doesn't work, you give up and try something else. Here, the same attempt is being made over and over and over, with one slight modification each time around: Higher numbers. Even if it ever does work(I don't think it can, but I'm not omniscient), it'll have wasted so many lives and so much money in the process that it will be a hollow victory.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
I think you were making yourself clear before. I just don't agree with you. There is no restoring order in this situation the time for that has come and gone. You can't just occupy a country for years fighting the civilian populace, killing tens of thousands of them and think that they wont keep fighting you until you leave. You have to just leave and let whoever is going to take control do that and then try to deal with them on a diplomatic level.
But our government wont allow that because they are using our military to protect the financial interests of US investors at the expense of american taxpayers, and soldiers who don't even get decent medical treatment when they come back here with brain damage.
So in my opinion b) is bullshit. It doesn't help the troops at all it just keeps them there longer so more of them can die over some idiotic wet dream about world domination.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
Bullshit. No degree of trust is necessary in the American government. The American government lies so pathologically that it puts Bill O'Reilly to shame. I would trust a creationist with regard to biology before I would trust the American government.
Which means most of us are actually decent human beings.
What are politicians experts at? Jamming the big red, white and blue dick up every Americans asshole?
"In the high school halls, in the shopping malls, conform or be cast out" ~ Rush, from Subdivisions
Hmmmm...
I meant that a degree of trust is required for an armed force to work. If the US Government are that untrustworthy then that's quite appalling. I trust my government to a degree but not enough to join the armed forces. Ironically it's because of Blair's inability to oppose Bush's crazy ideas!
Lol! I meant that we couldn't all be experts at politics, understand what exactly what is going on. I'm very naive at politics so I have to mostly borrow my opinions from elsewhere - sources I trust. Many people aren't intellectuals, let alone merely outside of their expertise. We have to trust what we perceive as experts on situations that we aren't clued in personally. In turn, the experts have to be trustworthy.
I think that the 'experts' failed and they are the ones accountable. Trusting an authority is normally the right thing to do, it's just that the troops were let down on this occasion.
Wow... this is some serious cynicism!
Having said that though, you probably know a lot more about this than I do. I'm ready to admit that I'm very politically naive.
I disapprove of the war. I sort of support the troops. What *I* mean by that is this ... if someone is young and naive enough to buy the bullshit that this is a justified war, and goes overseas thinking they're saving freedom, and they find out they're wrong ... I hope they survive, grow, learn, and come back in one piece.
My mom is a quiltmaker. She makes quilts to donate to the injured troops coming home in pieces. These guys are shattered, physically and emotionally. And instead of coming home to threats, protests and hatred, they come home to people who hope they'll heal, and who give them a sign of hope and comfort.
In my opinion, the best way for us to become an anti-war nation is to build more peaceful people. Again in my opinion, we don't do that through hatred. We do it by saying, I'm sorry you got hurt, I'm sorry you have to live with your nightmares, please tell us how horrible it was, and how can we prevent this from ever happening again.
I think hatred never is a solution for hatred. I think that we don't build peace at the point of a gun. So, do I support the troops who are over there pillaging and raping and abusing their power? No. Absolutely not. But most soldiers, it seems to me, are young people thinking they'll be heroes. And, at least for them, I'd like them to grow old enough to know better.
Karen and her hounds
creating art ~ creating a new life