Do you support the troops?

[Jabarto]

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.

And it annoys me when people literally cannot conceive of anyone disagreeing with them in good faith. It's intellectually lazy to assume that everyone who disagrees with you is just a pacifist wingnut.

 

[Aleenik]

First of all, I recommended you look at my post again, just to see what I edited. I edited it some. I didn't change much, but added a few things in.

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



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'....

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

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

That is why I continued on to talk about future conflicts as well in my post.



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.

Of course, this is my opinion. That is why I say I don't support the troops in certain situations, instead of saying something like it is illegal under law to support the troops. As for illegal invasions though, I believe the invasion of Iraq was illegal under international law. I realize not all hold that view though, and thus, it is my opinion.



Actually, the article does precisely that.

If you mean the first paragraph, it says nothing about why they joined the military.



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. See my response 2 above.



fwiw means 'for what its worth'.
Merci



So you would break and oath to God and go to prison by refusing a perfectly legal order?
I don't believe in God. If I was being asked to carry out what I felt was an illegal war, well, I guess I would end up in prison then.

Responses in bold.

 

[MobBoss]

And it annoys me when people literally cannot conceive of anyone disagreeing with them in good faith. It's intellectually lazy to assume that everyone who disagrees with you is just a pacifist wingnut.

If you parse my comments, you'll see thats not what I said. However, in this particular case, I am pretty sure the writer of the opinion piece in the OP qualifies for that label. Do you disagree?

 

[Jabarto]

If you parse my comments, you'll see thats not what I said. However, in this particular case, I am pretty sure the writer of the opinion piece in the OP qualifies for that label. Do you disagree?

That depends. Which part of it are you disputing, exactly?

 

[IglooDame]

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?

It does clarify, thanks.

 

[MobBoss]

That depends. Which part of it are you disputing, exactly?

Pretty much all of it. I mean from the very first sentence...'you will be....evil'....

Seriously, is there any doubt of the writers thought on the topic?

This part, in particular is extremely false:

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.

 

[Aleenik]

Pretty much all of it. I mean from the very first sentence...'you will be....evil'....

Seriously, is there any doubt of the writers thought on the topic?

This part, in particular is extremely false:

I agree that the "There will be no questioning of the purpose or morality of an order" isn't entirely accurate, but I included it as it is part of that paragraph. People will, of course, question things, but they will still be expected to follow the orders. Which, I believe, is the point of it really.

 

[SuperJay]

"Support the troops" is such a vague and loaded phrase that I tend to cringe every time I hear it. Define what you mean by "supporting the troops" for the purposes of this discussion and you might get better replies.

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.

This is largely where I'm coming from. I have a lot of respect for most of our men and women in the armed services who are performing their duties honorably. That doesn't mean I'm always 100% behind every armed conflict that the USA gets itself into.

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.

Just out of curiosity (this is a sincere question, take off your partisan hat for a second) - what do you feel is an appropriate and positive recognition of your service? A smile and a quick "thanks for your service?" I typically don't want to intrude or dwell on it to an embarassing (for the serviceperson) extent, but I'd like that individual to know that I value their service to our country.

...anti-war, lefty wing-nut

It'd be great if you could lend us your expertise and knowledge without these barbed comments, Mobby. Indulging in them is a discredit to your intellect.

 

[Jabarto]

Pretty much all of it. I mean from the very first sentence...'you will be....evil'....

Seriously, is there any doubt of the writers thought on the topic?

This part, in particular is extremely false:

Okay, let me be more direct; do you dispute that we have military presence in 150 countries, that we have systemically meddled in foreign governments for the last 50 years, and that that meddling has had enormous consequences for the US? Because all of that is factually correct, and it doesn't make you a wingnut to point it out.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on the second part, though. I'm not in the military and I don't know as well as you how it operates.

 

[warpus]

Do I support the troops?

The ones that I know personally, sure. The rest? I have no idea what they're up to - I'm not going to support them.. who knows what I end up supporting? Better play it safe.

 

[Aleenik]

"Support the troops" is such a vague and loaded phrase that I tend to cringe every time I hear it. Define what you mean by "supporting the troops" for the purposes of this discussion and you might get better replies.

I agree that is is fairly vague. In a post I went on to say maybe the question would have been better asking do you support the troops in Afghanistan & Iraq, and have multiple choices as answers.

Or maybe just say do you always support the troops?

Or maybe even did you support the troops who were involved in the invasion of Iraq? Since I was using that as an example.

But, unfortunately, I can't change the poll now. Ah well. I think I'd rather just have the poll removed.

 

[.Shane.]

The majority of troops have no choice in what they do.

They 100% have choice: Don't join in the first place.

TBH, I wish we had a national service draft or a mandatory 1 year of service, something like that.

 

[MobBoss]

I agree that the "There will be no questioning of the purpose or morality of an order" isn't entirely accurate, but I included it as it is part of that paragraph. People will, of course, question things, but they will still be expected to follow the orders. Which, I believe, is the point of it really.

Soldiers are expected to follow legal orders, not illegal orders, and they are drilled constantly on the difference to the point where 'I didnt know' is simply unable to be claimed by any soldier what-so-ever.

"Support the troops" is such a vague and loaded phrase that I tend to cringe every time I hear it. Define what you mean by "supporting the troops" for the purposes of this discussion and you might get better replies.

Well, I think at a minimum it simply means the absence of negative comments, and allowing the soldiers to do their job, complete it, and then return home. No soldier over in a foreign land likes hearing how negative public opinion is about what he is doing. Its distracting, and like I said, such distraction can get soldiers killed.

This is largely where I'm coming from. I have a lot of respect for most of our men and women in the armed services who are performing their duties honorably. That doesn't mean I'm always 100% behind every armed conflict that the USA gets itself into.

However, once engaged in said conflict, wouldnt you think it better for the USA in general to be successful in accomplishing its mission and goals in that conflict?

Just out of curiosity (this is a sincere question, take off your partisan hat for a second) - what do you feel is an appropriate and positive recognition of your service? A smile and a quick "thanks for your service?" I typically don't want to intrude or dwell on it to an embarassing (for the serviceperson) extent, but I'd like that individual to know that I value their service to our country.

The smile, handshake and a quick thank you is by far the most common, absolutely, but i've had people buy me lunch and/or dinner because of it. The anonymous 'its on the house' isnt exactly that uncommon either. It just depends. Some people can get quite vocal and animated about it.

It'd be great if you could lend us your expertise and knowledge without these barbed comments, Mobby. Indulging in them is a discredit to your intellect.

I dont regard some of the extreme opinions as even valid, and have no desire in legitimizing them. I am fully willing to engage in 'barbless' discussion, but reserve that for people who are indeed capable of it themselves.

Okay, let me be more direct; do you dispute that we have military presence in 150 countries, that we have systemically meddled in foreign governments for the last 50 years, and that that meddling has had enormous consequences for the US? Because all of that is factually correct, and it doesn't make you a wingnut to point it out.

No, but I dispute the default labeling of all that as 'evil' by said wingnuts like the opinion piece in the OP does. It may come as a surprise to you that some countries actually like our presence there due to the economic boost it gives those places. And unless one is a total isolationist, the USA should be engaging with foreign governments to ensure our interests internationally are at least considered. There is nothing wrong with that, and its not 'evil' or 'imperialist' or any of the other catchwords such types use to describe that.

 

[illram]

On the "choice" issue, I think a lot of young people join the army without an adequate understanding of what they're getting into, or they were subject to high pressure salesman tactics of less than scrupulous recruiters. I am of the assumption that the vast majority of new recruits are very young. So while we have a "volunteer force" I do believe that the armed forces are "sold" to people as something they are not. Television and movie portrayals of war contribute to this, the military is not the only one complicit in glorifying what it is that they do.

Not to take away from the positives of the armed forces, I have many family members serving or who have served. But I won't fault a soldier who is serving in Iraq, for example, for their simple presence there on the basis that they chose to join the army/navy/air force. (@Shane, I don't think that was your point, but you made me think of this.) I will fault them for doing something wrong, to an extent, but of course then you also have to take into account all the psychological trauma and other issues swirling around serving in a war and what that does to your mind, as well as the military's responsibility to put people in the field who are capable of doing their job competently. E.g., not putting people who are apt to crack and do something horrible out in a war zone, or properly monitoring mental health and warning signs.

 

[MobBoss]

Illram, the reasons vary, but its usually for steady pay and benefits, repayment of student loans, specific job/skill training they normally couldnt get, large initial cash bonus, GI Bill and money for college. Some join simply for the personal challenges such service presents, and some of course join because they think its their duty to support their country during a time of conflict.

And while sure those recruits are indeed young, they are no more younger than people attending college at those same ages.

 

[illram]

I am under the assumption that in college you are less likely to be shot or blown up.

 

[MobBoss]

I am under the assumption that in college you are less likely to be shot or blown up.

Guess what....the odds of that happening, even while in the military, are fairly low too, and fluctuate even more dependent upon what jobskill you have. Regardless of what some have alleged here in the OT, Iraq isnt Vietnam, and isnt the 'meatgrinder' as has been alleged so many times. In comparison to other conflicts historically, its actually been quite casualty light. What has occurred, is that far less fatalities have been experienced, but far more serious wounds have been had - due to the increases in personal soldier protection (i.e. kevlar body armor) and the type of attacks commonly used by the enemy (IEDs).

Every soldier faces risk, and it is a dangerous job, but we dont all face the same level of risk, every day.

 

[SuperJay]

Well, I think at a minimum it simply means the absence of negative comments, and allowing the soldiers to do their job, complete it, and then return home. No soldier over in a foreign land likes hearing how negative public opinion is about what he is doing. Its distracting, and like I said, such distraction can get soldiers killed.

I'd certainly never accost an individual soldier and express any anti-war views I had about a specific conflict. But voicing those opinions here at home in more appropriate channels is part of my responsibility as an American citizen. I'd never want those opinions to interfere with or prevent our men and women in uniform from doing their jobs safely and effectively, and I would hope that my opinions wouldn't be demoralizing, but I don't think it's reasonable to expect the civilian populace to stay quiet and complacent if our politicians are putting our family members in harm's way without a very good reason.

However, once engaged in said conflict, wouldnt you think it better for the USA in general to be successful in accomplishing its mission and goals in that conflict?

That's a hard question to answer, even in a very general sense. On the one hand, being unsuccessful may mean more lives lost, both American and otherwise. On the other hand, being successful may cause more harm than good in the long run even if it allows us to bring our men and women home safe that much sooner.

The smile, handshake and a quick thank you is by far the most common, absolutely, but i've had people buy me lunch and/or dinner because of it. The anonymous 'its on the house' isnt exactly that uncommon either. It just depends. Some people can get quite vocal and animated about it.

Interesting. I usually just smile and nod, maybe just say "thanks" or "I appreciate what you do" and leave it at that. Even approaching someone for a handshake seems potentially intrusive.

I dont regard some of the extreme opinions as even valid, and have no desire in legitimizing them. I am fully willing to engage in 'barbless' discussion, but reserve that for people who are indeed capable of it themselves.

I don't think you're legitimizing anyone's opinions by not sinking to the level of petty insults. In fact, you may even validate a certain perception of conservatives or members of the military by engaging in that sort of behavior. I don't know if those comments you wrote initially were directed at the member who wrote the OP or the article he linked, but they're a deterrant to civil discussion either way. FWIW, I appreciate you avoiding that tone in your responses to me.

 

[MobBoss]

Superjay: just for the record and to clarify, it was directed at the writer of the article.

 

[Maniacal]

Mostly no because I do not support war for any reason. At best it is a massive waste that is necessary to stop an even more horrific waste of life, resources and history. Although as many wars have shown that doesn't seem to work out to actually save very much.

However, the vast majority of soldiers on both sides are more or less normal people and I do not feel any personal ill will towards them unless they willingly commit crimes.