Do you support the troops?

Aleenik · May 5, 2011

I don't think I support the ones that are carrying out missions I'm against. I realize that is a fairly unpopular viewpoint, but it's the way I feel. How can I support people who willingly join a military that does things I'm against? We invaded Iraq, and people willingly went and fought there. If people were already in the military, they could have refused duty, as some have done in the past. Besides Iraq, there are of course other examples of the American military doing horrible things in the past, but I am using a recent example. One older example I suppose, would be the troops who willingly carried out the Balangiga massacre in the Philippines. Anyways, I just don't see how I could say, or how anyone really can say, "I support the troops, but not their mission." Even though the troops are willingly carrying out that mission. The military expects obedience, and that is given by the vast majority of soldiers in the US military it would seem. As one article puts it, talking about the military (Note that this is just an excerpt from the article, as the entire thing is fairly long).

Laurence M. Vance said:
Joining the military means that you will be helping to carry out an evil, reckless, and interventionist U.S. foreign policy. For many, many years now, U.S. foreign policy has resulted in the destabilization and overthrow of governments, the assassination of leaders, the destruction of industry and infrastructure, the backing of military coups, death squads, and drug traffickers, imperialism under the guise of humanitarianism, support for corrupt and tyrannical governments, interference in the elections of other countries, taking sides or intervening in civil wars, engaging in provocative naval actions under the guise of protecting freedom of navigation, thousands of dubious covert actions, the dismissal of civilian casualties as collateral damage, the United States being the arms dealer to the world, and the United States bribing and bullying itself around the world as the world's policeman, fireman, social worker, and busybody.

Joining the military means that you will be expected to unconditionally follow orders. There will be no questioning of the purpose or morality of an order. You will often times not be in a position to know whether an order is in fact dubious or immoral. You will be expected to, without reservation, drop that bomb, fire that weapon, launch that missile, and throw that grenade, as well as kill people and destroy their property. Do you question whether that prisoner should be transported to some secret CIA prison to undergo "enhanced interrogation techniques"? Too bad. Do you question whether the United States should have troops in 150 different places around the globe? Sorry. Do you question whether the United States should launch a preemptive strike? Banish the thought. Do you question whether the United States should effect a regime change? Keep your mouth shut. But wouldn't military effectiveness unravel if the troops didn't obey orders? Let's hope so. Every act of American military intervention was made possible because the troops blindly followed the orders of their superiors. If they had refused to do anything that was not related to actually defending the country, then there would not have been any overseas deployments, land mines buried, bombs dropped, preemptive strikes, or missiles launched. The result of this would have been not only less anti-American sentiment, but fewer terrorists, fewer dead foreign civilians, and fewer dead American soldiers.

Zelig · May 5, 2011

I support the troops with my taxes.

Aleenik · May 5, 2011

Zelig said:
I support the troops with my taxes.

Hehe, well, ya, but you know what I meant lol.

Disgustipated · May 5, 2011

I've been thinking about this lately. Is it morally right to support the troops if you are a pacifist who believes in peace?

What about if you are a isolationist (as I am)? Is it right to support the troops?

I'm not saying to mistreat the troops as they were in Vietnam. But we have to let people know that we don't want more wars started.

Yes I support the troops for defensive measures. And it's important they know we give that support. Because we need to treat the military with respect so they sign up for a dangerous job most Americans are unwilling to do. This is why we give a lot of respect to firefighters, police, and the military. Because none of us want that kind of job, and we want to reward those who do take that kind of job. But the troops need to know I will not support offensive wars, or indiscriminate killing (like what happened recently with the death squads)

GhostWriter16 · May 5, 2011

The majority of troops have no choice in what they do. I mean, they could disobey and get court martialed, but unless things are pretty darn bad (Just invading Iraq and overthrowing their dictatoral tyrant isn't enough, sorry) you have to follow orders.

The military IS about defending the country, and killing and destroying its threats.

I support our troops for the most part. I don't support our leadership...

Aleenik · May 5, 2011

Disgustipated said:
Yes I support the troops for defensive measures.

I do as well. Maybe a better question would have been "Do you support the troops who are in Iraq and Afghanistan?" And then I could have given multiple choices.

Domination3000 said:
The majority of troops have no choice in what they do. I mean, they could disobey and get court martialed, but unless things are pretty darn bad (Just invading Iraq and overthrowing their dictatoral tyrant isn't enough, sorry) you have to follow orders.

"just invading Iraq"... "just"? As for getting rid of a dictatorial tyrant, that is just an excuse to help justify our violation of international law, the invasion of Iraq. Why isn't the US removing the tyrant in Syria from power? Oh wait, I know, because it isn't in US interest currently.

Anyways, they of course have a choice in the matter. They willingly join today's military and beyond that if they are already in the military they could refuse duty. I'd rather refuse duty than help to carry out violations of international law, American imperialism, and in some cases, war crimes.

MobBoss · May 5, 2011

One can support the troops without liking or disliking the missions they are ordered to do. Remember, soldiers dont get to pick and choose such missions, they get ordered to do them.

You (and your source) make it sound like people join the military purposefully in the hopes of doing 'evil missions' that you wouldnt agree with. That couldnt be further from the truth, and no one joins the military with any foreknowledge of the type of conflict they could eventually be involved in.

Its easy for civvies to make such assumptions about soldiers, but what they fail to realize, NEVER seem to realize, is that if soldiers dont do their job, dont follow orders....their friends die. Its not about questioning the big picture, its about keeping focus on the mission...and not making a mistake that gets people killed. Its easy for self-righteous anti-war to say this and that about the troops, but they've never really walked in their shoes, and had to put their life on the line where a mistake can cost a friends life.

Also, fwiw, I find such comments that call for soldiers to disobey their orders - which the soldiers swear an oath to obey - to be tantamount to insurrection.

Your article also gets it very wrong. Soldiers arent automatons, they fully grasp what they are doing and often ask such questions as are mentioned. Sure, we ask 'why' as well as 'how' but generally that is table talk at the mess hall to be handled by the First Sergeant and other first line leaders.

French Civ Fan - you do realize that refusing to obey an order is a court martial offense and a felony?

And fwiw, I have gotten more 'thank you for your service' compliments in the last decade than I ever did prior to 9/11. In fact, if I stop somewhere in uniform while on my way home, its a virtual gurantee that at least one person will say something positive. To me, thats far, far, far more important and shows me that the vast majority honor me for keeping the oath I swore and doing my duty. I would much rather obey the orders of those appointed over me, and honor my oath, and have good decent people support me for it, rather than break my oath and disobey my orders, just so some anti-war, lefty wing-nut can feel better about it.

GhostWriter16 · May 5, 2011

"just invading Iraq"... "just"? As for getting rid of a dictatorial tyrant, that is just an excuse to help justify our violation of international law, the invasion of Iraq. Why isn't the US removing the tyrant in Syria from power? Oh wait, I know, because it isn't in US interest currently.

Anyways, they of course have a choice in the matter. They willingly join today's military and beyond that if they are already in the military they could refuse duty. I'd rather refuse duty than help to carry out violations of international law, American imperialism, and in some cases, war crimes.

I wasn't supporting it, but the US did go to war (Not officially but whatever) and you are called upon to defend your country in the military. I agree that it was not the best decision to invade, seeing the tremendous cost in money and lives, and there wasn't really much of a reason to go to war, but you can't really defend Iraq and Saddam and say fighting them is inherently immoral.

Also, fwiw, I find such comments that call for soldiers to disobey their orders - which the soldiers swear an oath to obey - to be tantamount to insurrection.

Are you suggesting soldiers should obey their orders, regardless of what they are?

I agree that America has not given any orders (That I know of) that are so grossly immoral as to not be followed, at least, not recently, but are you claiming such an order cannot exist?

And besides, advocating treachery isn't inherently against the law either, unless there is imminent danger, and some guy on an internet messaging board is NOT causing imminent danger.

French Civ Fan - you do realize that refusing to obey an order is a court martial offense and a felony?

I would never look down on someone who followed orders, since it is only human to want to preserve oneself. But I think there are cases (Iraq is not one of them) that it would be more justified to break the Law than to follow it. The government isn't God you know...

Aleenik · May 5, 2011

MobBoss said:
One can support the troops without liking or disliking the missions they are ordered to do. Remember, soldiers dont get to pick and choose such missions, they get ordered to do them.

1. You (and your source) make it sound like people join the military purposefully in the hopes of doing 'evil missions' that you wouldnt agree with. That couldnt be further from the truth, and no one joins the military with any foreknowledge of the type of conflict they could eventually be involved in.

2. Its easy for civvies to make such assumptions about soldiers, but what they fail to realize, NEVER seem to realize, is that if soldiers dont do their job, dont follow orders....their friends die. Its not about questioning the big picture, its about keeping focus on the mission...and not making a mistake that gets people killed. Its easy for self-righteous anti-war to say this and that about the troops, but they've never really walked in their shoes, and had to put their life on the line where a mistake can cost a friends life.

3. Also, fwiw, I find such comments that call for soldiers to disobey their orders - which the soldiers swear an oath to obey - to be tantamount to insurrection.

4. Your article also gets it very wrong. Soldiers arent automatons, they fully grasp what they are doing and often ask such questions as are mentioned. Sure, we ask 'why' as well as 'how' but generally that is table talk at the mess hall to be handled by the First Sergeant and other first line leaders.

5.French Civ Fan - you do realize that refusing to obey an order is a court martial offense and a felony?

1. Actually, yes, soldiers can pick and choose... for one mission at least. They can refuse duty. Not sure how you can say "no one joins the military with any foreknowledge of the type of conflict they could eventually be involved in." All they have to do is look at the current conflict and then come to the conclusion that there is a possibility that they could end up there. As for future conflicts, well, again, they could refuse duty if they are being asked to do illegal things, or help carry out illegal things, such as the Iraq war. I'm not claiming people join the military to do bad things and neither is the article. I feel bad for people who join the military in hopes of defending America, yet get sent on imperialistic missions.

2. You are right I've never walked in their shoes, but I still can form opinions on the matter.

3. Not sure what fwiw is, but I am just stating my opinions. Is that against the law somehow? What, the police gonna arrest me for stating my opinion when they could be doing far more useful things that actually make sense? Oh nozor! Someone said soldiers are able to refuse duty! Call 911! He must be arrested!

4. Don't know where the article claims soldier's don't grasp what they are doing. The article does, say "There will be no questioning of the purpose or morality of an order." Which I take to mean at the time the order is given, it is expected to be followed without questioning the purpose or morality of it.

5. Yes, I realize refusing to obey an order is a punishable offense.

MobBoss · May 5, 2011

Domination3000 said:
I
Are you suggesting soldiers should obey their orders, regardless of what they are?

EVERY soldier is taught and reminded of continously, the difference in a legal order and an illegal order. We dont obey illegal orders and in fact, its a crime to do so.

The problem with that is you cant convince anti-war nutjobs of what is and what is not an illegal order.

An illegal order would be 'kill that prisoner' or 'blow up that mosque' when there is no good reason to. Now, 'blow up that mosque' could be a legal order...IF said Mosque were being used by the enemy to attack from. That would make what would normally be a protected place into a legitimate target.

I agree that America has not given any orders (That I know of) that are so grossly immoral as to not be followed, at least, not recently, but are you claiming such an order cannot exist?

Nope. But again, soldiers are indeed taught what illegal orders are, and to disobey them should they occur.

And besides, advocating treachery isn't inherently against the law either, unless there is imminent danger, and some guy on an internet messaging board is NOT causing imminent danger.

And thats simply incorrect.

I would never look down on someone who followed orders, since it is only human to want to preserve oneself. But I think there are cases (Iraq is not one of them) that it would be more justified to break the Law than to follow it. The government isn't God you know...

No, but soldiers swear an Oath by God to obey the orders of the President and those leaders appointed over them.

GhostWriter16 · May 5, 2011

Yes, I realize refusing to obey an order is a punishable offense.

If an order was truly in violation of the law, I would admire the man who took the punishment. But that is usually not the case.

I'm gonna bow out now and let Mobboss and French Civ Fan duke it out, it will be fun to watch.

I'd be willing to bet that within 48 hours Formaldehyde will be all over this thread

GhostWriter16 · May 5, 2011

EVERY soldier is taught and reminded of continously, the difference in a legal order and an illegal order. We dont obey illegal orders and in fact, its a crime to do so.

The problem with that is you cant convince anti-war nutjobs of what is and what is not an illegal order.

An illegal order would be 'kill that prisoner' or 'blow up that mosque' when there is no good reason to. Now, 'blow up that mosque' could be a legal order...IF said Mosque were being used by the enemy to attack from. That would make what would normally be a protected place into a legitimate target.

Being anti-war does not necessarily make you a nutjob. But yeah, I agree with your post.

But what if the law was changed to make killing civilians a legal order? That doesn't mean you should obey it...

Nope. But again, soldiers are indeed taught what illegal orders are, and to disobey them should they occur.

See above.

And thats simply incorrect.

I'm pretty sure French Civ Fan's post did not break the law. And if it were, then I would change my position to his, that this country and what our men fight for (Freedom) is indeed hopeless. Luckily, the Law makes more sense than that (If only by a little.)

No, but soldiers swear an Oath by God to obey the orders of the President and those leaders appointed over them.

As you said, assuming those orders are legal...

MobBoss · May 5, 2011

french civ fan said:
Actually, yes, soldiers can pick and choose... for one mission at least. They can refuse duty.

No, not without it being a felony offense they cant. Not without breaking their oath they cant.

Not sure how you can say "no one joins the military with any foreknowledge of the type of conflict they could eventually be involved in."

How can you not grasp this? Do you think I knew Iraq would invade Kuwait when I joined the Army in 1987? Or that 9/11 would occur?

No one has a crystal ball when the join up. You might end up in Panama ....or you might not. No one joins up knowing, 'hey, i'm in because theres going to be this totally illegal war in a few years and I want in on the action'.... :rolleyes:

And yet, thats precisely how you and that opinion piece make it sound. Its not like that at all.

All they have to do is look at the current conflict and then come to the conclusion that there is a possibility that they could end up there.

Simply not that easy, and there are no gurantees in life, ever.

As for future conflicts, well, again, they could refuse duty if they are being asked to do illegal things.

And this is what you dont understand either. Soldiers dont get to decide if a war is illegal or not. Its certainly NOT illegal if the President orders them into action, and then congress approves it. We protect the Constitution, and obey the orders or the President and our leaders - not what French Civ Fan thinks is illegal.

For a soldier to refuse an order that order has to meet very specific criteria to be illegal. Afghanistan and Iraq are not illegal as pertains to a soldiers orders to deploy there. And if you think it is, and you refuse to take the word of someone that actually knows better, then there really isnt anymore to discuss on this topic.

I'm not claiming people join the military to do bad things and neither is the article.

Actually, the article does precisely that.

I feel bad for people who join the military in hopes of defending America, yet get sent on imperialistic missions.

But those missions being 'imperialistic' is merely your opinion and has totally no basis for the legality of those missions. That is determined by the President and Congress, not you, or the soldiers for that matter.

Not sure what fwiw is, but I am just stating my opinions.

fwiw means 'for what its worth'.

Yes, I realize refusing to obey an order is a punishable offense.

So you would break and oath to God and go to prison by refusing a perfectly legal order?

MobBoss · May 5, 2011

Domination3000 said:
If an order was truly in violation of the law, I would admire the man who took the punishment. But that is usually not the case.

If the order were truly illegal, the soldier disobeying it wouldnt be punished.

But what if the law was changed to make killing civilians a legal order? That doesn't mean you should obey it...

If the law were changed it would no longer be illegal now wouldnt it? But lets be serious, thats not going to happen unless we have a situation so bad that a return to total unrestricted warfare is called for. If something like that occurs, then all bets are off.

Jabarto · May 5, 2011

MobBoss said:
civvies...self-righteous anti-war...anti-war, lefty wing-nut.

Come now, say what you really mean. :rolleyes:

IglooDame · May 5, 2011

MobBoss said:
No, but soldiers swear an Oath by God to obey the orders of the President and those leaders appointed over them.

Minor point (by someone who has issued the oath hundreds of times) - the oath of enlistment isn't necessarily "by God".

In case anyone else is interested:

Oath of Enlistment said:
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God. (the last line omitted if it is an affirmation)"

But I'm quibbling; by and large I agree with what you've said in this thread, although I seem to recall long ago that you did not think that one could support the troops while disagreeing with their mission/the war. If I've misremembered please feel free to correct me or clarify.

illram · May 5, 2011

I want them to come home and stop being sent off to unnecessary wars to die unnecessary deaths. So in that sense I support them, yes.

MobBoss · May 5, 2011

Jabarto said:
Come now, say what you really mean.

As a career soldier, it rankles when someone, who is utterly clueless, talks about 'illegal orders' when they dont have any remote idea as to what an illegal order really is or is not.

SG-17 · May 5, 2011

MobBoss said:
No, but soldiers swear an Oath by God to obey the orders of the President and those leaders appointed over them.

Not every soldier swears an oath by god. I know many who affirmed (which removes the "So help me god" portion) their duty to obey the orders of the President etc.

Edit: Whoops, crosspost.

MobBoss · May 5, 2011

IglooDude said:
Minor point (by someone who has issued the oath hundreds of times) - the oath of enlistment isn't necessarily "by God".

Fair enough IG.

But I'm quibbling; by and large I agree with what you've said in this thread, although I seem to recall long ago that you did not think that one could support the troops while disagreeing with their mission/the war. If I've misremembered please feel free to correct me or clarify.

No, your not mis-remembering. Part of that was also about perceived success of the mission. My question was how can you hope for mission failure, but claim to be supportive of the troops? That sort of thing would far exceed just mere disagreement with the war. But there is also the mindset that such disgreement and argument should be made prior to the decision to engage in that conflict....once that decision is made, we need to be all-in and get the mission completed. Naysayers at that point only lead to bad morale, and bad morale gets people killed.

Does that help clarify?

Do you support the troops?

Do you support the troops?

Yes

No

Deity

Beep Boop

Deity

Deity

Deity

Deity

Off-Topic Overlord

Deity

Deity

Off-Topic Overlord

Deity

Deity

Off-Topic Overlord

Off-Topic Overlord

Emperor

Enforcing Rule 34

Deity

Off-Topic Overlord

Deity

Off-Topic Overlord

Similar threads