Supporting the Military
Offline People often say "I support the troops, not the war."
I agree, but I'm not sure why I do. In fact, and get ready for some ignorance, I'm not totally sure of exactly how to define "the war" in intelligent terms right now. I often wonder if I'm just going along with the support so that I don't get yelled at. If you don't agree with what a group of people ("our troops"
are doing, then how can you support them? Is it really possible to separate the cause a group is fighting for from the group itself?
This question is brought on by a potential (and usually overpowering...) desire to join the military and contribute in some way. When I started thinking about exactly why I feel this way, though, I couldn't (and can't) pinpoint it. I don't know if it's just me succumbing to some blind, patriotic duty I feel I have, good or bad; if it's some sort of ego thing where I feel people will look up to me because I'm protecting them; if its me trying to escape the problems I have in my current life; or if there really is a very good reason to contribute to America on the military front.
Thinking about this always leads me to another question: is joining the military ethical? I would be actively contributing not only to America but to the deaths of others, some innocent. And it's possible (probable?) that I would have to be a part of things that, on the grand scale, I don't agree with like invading a country or something.
To recap: Can you support the troops but not the war? What do you feel is a good reason to join the military (in one way or another)? Is joining the military ethically sound?
And to just make sure I'm understood, I'm in no way saying the people in the military are bad or anything like that. I'm sure I'm taking for granted privileges that have been protected with blood, and, though I'm ignorant of the specifics, I'm grateful. But I do think it's important that I have answers to these questions. I'd rather be a conscious citizen than a blind one. So please let me know what you all think!
- Login to post comments
It is another great myth of American society that young men and women join out a sense of patriotic duty. Many join because of limited job opportunities. Others because they aren't prepared for college thanks to our failed schools. Others because they can't pay for college, thanks to our failed education system. Many don't think critically about the reasons we going to war, again thanks to failed schools.
Another myth is that 'sending in the troops' is the best way to fight our wars. We're not fighting WW1 or WW2. We need to take out our enemies with high tech weapons, spies, informants and special forces. The military has been a kind of make work project. We'd actually be more effective with 1% of the personnel we have now.
I'm waiting for there to be a war on ignorance before I would support the war or the troops.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
The days of battlefield war are over.
But to say that we should not support a military is absurd. Even with the rightful statements of motivations in the response posted, while true, you cannot have a city without cops and you cant have a country without a military.
Whatever economic abuses are happening to cause the middle class and poor to join, should not be an excuse to blame those who join.
I do think the way you address these issues is by attacking the real problem, the pay gap and cost of living gap caused by the government being bought off by corporate America. We cannot continue to ship jobs overseas, and create more jobs that do not provide a livable means.
We live in an economy ruled by one class and it is causing the quality of living for the middle and poor classes to continue to decline. We will end up looking like India and China and their slave wages.
But I do not blame those who join, be it for economic reasons or "sense of duty", in the end, they are doing something I know I am not brave enough to do.
I am however in support of condemning policies that get us into needless wars like Iraq. And I do think that more often than not it is more economic and efficient to use drones and NATO and UN to go after enemies, especially ones who are not government sanctioned.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Maybe if no one supported the troops that would mean no one would want to join them. But as it stands we support the troops so by default we support whatever war they are in? Supporting the troops helps to keep the focus off the war it's self.
In reality the military is just a job and I imagine most that end up in the line of fire did not intend to do so. There was a time when joining the military just seemed like a good way to get a free college education. Now we are in all these wars and as you have noticed the military is having to ramp up advertising etc to try to get people to join.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
I never said we don't need a military. But we don't need a military to solve our social problems like unemployment and a failed education system.
What does it mean to say "I support the troops"? It's another one of these things people only pay lip service to make themselves feel they are good or holy but has no substance. If you don't support a war, then you want it defunded and the troops are no longer troops. What does it mean to say "I appreciate their service"? It is just words. If you really "support the troops", you'd want to get them out of harms way and into a good job in the civilian world.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
Well, what does it mean to “support the war” anyway?
In one sense, that might mean that you trust the leaders who are really calling the shots. Well, let's just look at Iraq on this one. There were plenty of people who did not trust the Bush jr. administration going in but I suspect that a decent portion of those people were not looking at the information presented to them so much as making the assumption that Bush could not do anything right.
OK, so what about the information which we were presented? Trust that much? Well, in this decade, we know now that the WMD thing was a bad idea. However, at the time of the run up to the war, we did not have the same insight that we do today.
Sadam had a history of trying to build nukes. He had a history of using chemical weapons on both his enemies and his own people. There were dissidents fleeing the country who, in retrospect, were willing to make shit up to discredit the Sadam government. In fact, we were hearing that he was using real torture (not the milder stuff that the Bush administration ended up being accused of) for his personal entertainment.
At the start of the war, the picture is not so clear as it is today.
What about our new leaders? We elected an administration which was supposed to have ended the war and unmade the prison at Gitmo well over a year ago. I really don't know what is up with that but it seems to me that the president must have found out that there is something which represents a sobering reality on that front or he would have done a good bit more on that promise.
So what does it mean to support the troops?
OK, they are in harm's way and some of them have come back maimed or dead. Then too, they did swear an oath to do what they were told to do. Whether they agreed with what they are told to do is not really relevant. They are out in front of our national policy doing what they agreed to do.
The fact that many of them joined in order to get free schooling, well, that might have been important to each individual soldier at the time. That doesn't change the fact that they agreed to do what they are doing. Joining the military is not like trying to get out from under a cell phone contract that is questionable either. Sprint is not asking you to pick up a gun and nobody could argue differently. If you walk into a recruitment office, you know what you are risking and if you follow the process right up to swearing the soldier's oath, then you are a soldier.
Really, nobody has to like the fact that there are wars. Actually, I think that a healthy society should realize that wars are to be avoided. Against that, they can't always be avoided and once they are there, we have to deal with them. We are now in Iraq for reasons that ultimately did not pan out but we are still there despite having a president who was supposed to make us not be there in a time frame which is now well in the past. That really sucks.
=
I think the whole "I support the troops but not the war" is simply a rhetorical response brought on by the hyper-patriotism of some on the right. Sure it is possible and I think most Americans do support the troops in that they are thankful for the soldier making great personal sacrifices even if they might not agree with the orders being issued from DC. There are a handful of lefties that literally hate members of the US military, they will spit on you, call you names etc, but that is an extreme minority.
There can be several good reasons to join the military. It is an invaluable and life changing experience. Not only do you get to play with some cool toys and learn a variety of useful skills- you also really learn to appreciate the freedoms taken for granted by most Americans. I joined mostly because I wanted to see more of the world. I know others who joined simply to break out of the situations their lives were in. The pay sucks but the military will completely remove you from your current circle and provide you the opportunity to try something different. If you don't like where your life is now, it might be a viable option to change things.
As far as ethics is concerned, I have never had a problem with the idea of killing a person. Our military goes above and beyond to avoid killing civilians- of course it still happens but joining the US military isn't the equivalent of agreeing to slaughter innocents. The question is, can you be at peace with the idea of killing some random guy who is ultimately like you, just some guy who is fighting for his country/family? Most people in a war zone are not radical extremists. They are simply people doing what they think is best for them and their family. If you think killing them will cause you psychological problems, the military might not be for you.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
A war on ignorance sounds wonderful at first, but I would like to know more of what you mean. For example, is someone ignorant because that person disagrees with you or because they simply don't know enough? I think I'm likely to label someone as ignorant because they disagree with me which is completely wrong but totally satisfying when I say it. I am assuming they don't have the insight I have when in fact, it might be the other way around.
I feel as though a "war on ignorance" could turn out much scarier than the war on drugs or terror have. If the person(s) leading this "war" happened to disagree with you, you would be labeled as the enemy and forced to change your mind, even if you felt strongly for your position. Take, for example, a theist telling you that you are ignorant because you don't believe in a god. Or the other way around (atheist telling a theist he's ignorant because he does). That's all fine and good in normal, somewhat bitter and passionate conversation, but if you look at it as a war between what beliefs are ignorant and what aren't, then ... well that scares me a bit.
So it's sort of a sad reality? Like "It's a dirty job, but someone's gotta do it" type thing? I see. I think I agree, though a previous comment brought up the notion that we don't need actual troops but instead just enhanced technology plus spies and informants and such. That we have too many people fighting. Do you think that's true? And if you do, is it a waste to send bodies into harm's way?
Thanks for you direct response!
I like the individualistic idea you have about joining for bettering your own life. That sounds like a really good idea - to be removed from my current comfort zone in such a radical way. But then I get wary when I read your third answer. Not that I disagree, but like you warned, I worry about how I would feel killing someone. I wouldn't have a problem killing someone in self-defense today since it would be totally unexpected, but if I were to kill someone in self-defense because of a situation that I put myself in (joining the military), I don't know how I could take it. The question calls into question the value I place on human life, and it's something I need to think about more before I make the decision. I'd be curious to see how people feel when they kill someone for the first time. I would imagine it would cause the person to think about how they view life in general, but I don't know. Maybe I'm putting too much thought into it.
Is it possible to separate a service member from the war? Oh yes, all too easily. You have the effect that (prolonged) engagements has on the quality of recruits, you have the top-notch support services they receive post-service (Veteran's Affairs), the response they get from the Gov't post-service (amounts to "you're somebody else's problem" ), certain fundamental right(s) dissolved if you get psychiatric services and are honest enough to admit that in court, and the all-too-loving response you'll get from certain civilians in an unpopular war. Of all of these, getting the guaranteed lawful minimum by the Gov after HD is a certainty.
Pretty damned easy, I say. Is it ethical to join? Well... the shape things are in right now, I'd say it's pretty damned ethical, but that doesn't mean everyone's cut out for it.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)