Do you support the troops?

[Berzerker]

"Support the troops" is fascist claptrap thrown out by some people who get mad when you dont agree with their argument for war

 

[GamezRule]

You can support the troops themselves while opposing the actions they are ordered to take, you know. Always support the individuals fighting the war, but the war itself you can always oppose.

 

[Berzerker]

thats fine and all, I just dont respect people who use the troops as an argument for sending them to their deaths

 

[Singularity]

So, the argument boils down to whether or not you're a pacifist. I can't see anyone not supporting the troops of their country or coalition and not being a pacifist. Which is fine! Being a pacifist is a moral and ethical conviction which have been around since we started hitting each other over our heads with clubs.

But like GamezRule writes above me. Supporting the troops does not mean you're a reactionary fascist bastard who wants to suppress dissent. Or any other exotic interpretation of extremists views. I'm no pacifist, I'm very much a pragmatical and realistic person who acknowledges that the world can be a very dangerous place and that if you're not prepared and have some brave souls willing to fight for your independence, rights and security you will be dictated by other peoples violent notions.

 

[Rashiminos]

You can support the troops themselves while opposing the actions they are ordered to take, you know. Always support the individuals fighting the war, but the war itself you can always oppose.

Those individuals support the war.

 

[GamezRule]

So it is now impossible for a soldier to be opposed to the actions they take?

 

[downtown]

I don't really know what this phrase means, to be honest. I support my countries troops insomuch as I want them to live (I have several friends in Afghanistan), and if we're going to send them somewhere, i want them to have every possible tool they need to succeed (the best armor money can buy, top of the line health care and counseling when they return).

I don't always support their missions though, and I won't be bullied into doing so out of misguided patriotism. I also chafe at the "thank you for defending our freedom" bit. Quite frankly, a lot lot of military missions have nothing to do with my freedom. I appreciate the work that they do, but not more than I would for say, a cop, or a judge, or an inner city public school teacher

 

[Rashiminos]

So it is now impossible for a soldier to be opposed to the actions they take?

They're taking them, so I fail to see the opposition.

 

[Singularity]

They're taking them, so I fail to see the opposition.

Orders have been refused and objections have been served all the time during a conflict. They're not very visible obviously, and as a soldier you have limited options to oppose an order or a mandate due to fundamental military rule sets which any advanced military has in any modern democracy to preserve the competence and safety of the military unit.

And politically speaking a lot of soldiers voted for the other guy obviously, so they've given their constitutional option to oppose it via their vote. I think you're confusing their limited scope of dissenting an executive order during an operation with not opposing the reason why they're there.

 

[Gustave5436]

So it is now impossible for a soldier to be opposed to the actions they take?

It is irrelevant. "I was just following orders" does not absolve you of guilt for the crimes you committed. You may either obey, or disobey. Those courageous souls who disobey, and either mutiny against their commanders, desert, or are struck down by them, are deserving of our support. Those who realize that their orders are immoral, but obey them anyway for fear of reprisal, are just as guilty as any other. Perhaps they may be more worthy of forgiveness, but their criminal actions are still to be opposed.

 

[Rashiminos]

Orders have been refused and objections have been served all the time during a conflict. They're not very visible obviously, and as a soldier you have limited options to oppose an order or a mandate due to fundamental military rule sets which any advanced military has in any modern democracy to preserve the competence and safety of the military unit.

And politically speaking a lot of soldiers voted for the other guy obviously, so they've given their constitutional option to oppose it via their vote. I think you're confusing their limited scope of dissenting an executive order during an operation with not opposing the reason why they're there.

Repeat that to yourself.

 

[Singularity]

Repeat that to yourself.

What do you mean? Is it a linguistic weakness you're referring to? I meant to move from an operational context to a political context to highlight that that there's multiple ways to show opposition if you're serving in the military.

 

[Rashiminos]

What do you mean? Is it a linguistic weakness you're referring to? I meant to move from an operational context to a political context to highlight that that there's multiple ways to show opposition if you're serving in the military.

There's some cognitive dissonance going on if you're trying to make a connection between voting hawkish politicians and dissent against a war.

Now if you had mentioned a third guy. I would withdraw that particular objection.

 

[MobBoss]

I've become quite sick of this phrase to be honest. It reeks of cultist military worship, and I'll have none of it.

I know plenty of folks in the armed services and hold no ill will towards them personally but I the military is another thing altogether. It's been nothing more than a tool for the rich and well connected for generations now, much like Ike feared. In recent years this trend has only become more and more blatant. Why anyone would willingly submit to such an odious system is beyond me, but good luck if you choose to do so.

Cultist military worship? WTH?

Being appreciative of what our soldiers do and the sacrifices they make is now 'cultist military worship'?

Really?

Wow.

Your right, but that wasn't the question. The question was "Doesn't a moral agent have a duty to act morally?"

If the answer is yes, then either it's the morality of the actions, not the legality of the actions needs to be questioned or a soldier must be shown to lose their moral agency.

Sure, as long as you accept the caveat that your morality may well change dependent upon your conditions. Legality generally doesnt.

Does that mean that morality is irrelevant for soldiers, as long as their orders are legal? Or do you want to say that soldiers should still be punished if they, say, disobey immoral orders? If so, isn't that a hint of flaws in these kind of laws?

Soldiers dont get to decide whats moral or immoral, they have to adhere to whats legal. If they envision some moral quandry, i.e. con. objector, or something like that, then they are better off not joining the service in the first place.

On topic: While I don't support most military operations, even among the few that Germany is involved with, I actually do support our troops.

Now, see, this makes no sense to me. How can one 'support the troops' but not support the operation? Do you desire to see the operation fail? With the understanding that if the operation fails then soldiers pay the price? Ergo, if you dont support the mission you simply are not supporting the troops as well....

This is what Igloodude was referring to earlier in the thread. How can you wish failure upon what the soldiers are actually trying to accomplish and claim you are supporting the troops?

As a soldier, I cant justify that line of thinking logically.

That doesn't mean I go cheering to some parades which are non-existant here anyway, just that I wish them to carry out their job successfully and without incidents.

Carrying out their job successfully means accomplishing the mission. Ergo, you support the mission.

Well said.

I support a strong defense and that's about it. I certainly don't support most of the US foreign policy decisions since the end of WWII, the way the US military has been used to implement those decisions, nor do I like the way much of it has now become dominated by evangelical Christians.

Because if them evangelical christians are involved its gotta be bad.

After the end of the Vietnam War, I used to recommend to people to join the military as a way to escape economic hardship. But I no longer do so. The pluses no longer outweigh the minuses, and you may very well be assigned to the next conflict that generates even more blowback.

Well, thats too bad, because the military has more benefits for young people and far more technical training than every before. I strongly disagree that the cons outweigh the pros, but I realize that no amount of logic proving that will sway your opinion.

"Support the troops" is fascist claptrap thrown out by some people who get mad when you dont agree with their argument for war

I didnt know only fascists supported the troops. Next time some elderly couple thanks me for my service should I say 'thank you, Mr. and Mrs Fascist?'

And fwiw, I was actually thinking the opposite...that those who dont like supporting the troops mainly do so because people dont agree with their anti-war arguments.

I don't really know what this phrase means, to be honest. I support my countries troops insomuch as I want them to live (I have several friends in Afghanistan), and if we're going to send them somewhere, i want them to have every possible tool they need to succeed (the best armor money can buy, top of the line health care and counseling when they return).

I don't always support their missions though, and I won't be bullied into doing so out of misguided patriotism. I also chafe at the "thank you for defending our freedom" bit. Quite frankly, a lot lot of military missions have nothing to do with my freedom. I appreciate the work that they do, but not more than I would for say, a cop, or a judge, or an inner city public school teacher

Again, how can one claim to support the troops, but not support their mission?

And if you think what they do has nothing to do with your freedom, do you think military action that concerns your freedom begins and ends at the nations borders?

 

[Uncle Anton]

Tried to quote direct, but getting Java Errors so...

Rashiminos - Those individuals support the war.

This is quite possibly the most pig-ignorant, erroneous and factually untenable statement I've read so far in a thread full of such statements, mind you given the loaded nature of the question (TROLOLOLOLOL) what can you expect? MB has (as usual when commenting on such matters) hit the nail on the head, however for all you other Civvie CFCer's out there, I'll again attempt to summarise...

1) The concern that soldiers are not often educated in what is legal is unfounded. Soldiers are given (at least where I'm from), from the very first week of "Basic Training" (insert representative acronym of relevant countries' military training course here) very specific education on military law, the differences between military law and civil law in the nation of the military they've joined, as well as other complimentary laws, such as the International Laws of Armed Conflict, relevant portions of the Geneva Conventions, what Rules of Engagement are and what Orders For the Use of Force are (although specific ROE and OFUF are obviously only handed out prior to a particular deployment as they will differ from deployment to deployment). If soldiers commit crimes, they should be held accountable, period. Soldiers who do breach these laws usually breach multiple levels and depths of regulation to commit whatever stupid, unnecessary and inexplicable act that they commit. So the idea that there's not plenty of law for soldiers to negotiate to ensure they do the right thing is just unmitigated crap spouted by people who don't have the intellectual authority to make the comments they're making. It's that simple.

2) The concern that soldiers are not given opportunity to challenge the lawfulness of an order (see Point 1) is also unfounded. I'll quote the fourth clause of the Australian Defence Force Disciplinary Act - "Failure to comply with a lawful general command." Kiddies, this means that if the soldier has any doubt that the order is lawful, it is their duty, not their option or choice, but their duty, to not comply with that order until evidence is suitably presented to them that the order is within military law, their ROE, etc.

3) Are soldiers moral agents? As a soldier, when discharging my duty, I tend to think of myself as Moral according to my own moral values, of which I'm not prepared to debate or argue with anyone (and have said so on this forum multiple times). However, I also accept the fact that my sworn duty is not to uphold someone else's moral code (I don't BTW believe in Moral Absolutism - Make of that what you will). It's my duty to, within the law, protect the interests of the Queen of Australia and her appointed government and legal subjects. That means hypothetically if any of you reading this are in the wrong place, at the wrong time, doing what my government says is the wrong thing, and my ROE/OFUF says I should, and my chain of command says I should, and the international LOAC says I can, then I'd snuff out your life without a second thought. Sorry about that. It's the body politik which decides where I go or don't, who I protect or don't, and who I kill or don't - unless you want a military running your government (and Democracies generally don't function in those cases), it means it's your nation's politicians which will ultimately say where your military is going, and what moral/immoral things they will do there.

4) But how can soldiers be anything but babykillers/rapists/pure evil etc *insert obscene close-fist hand gesture in response* by signing up to the military if they know that they may be called upon to perform taskings contrary to their own individual morality? Good question. And I can't answer for anyone's motivation but my own, EDIT: Bearing in mind MobBoss is absolutely correct when he points to just how patently absurd the notion is that you have any idea what's in store when you sign up.... I enlisted in August 2001. I had no idea I'd be a week through Basic when some morons decided ploughing fully laden passenger jets into various bits of the US was a good idea. (END EDIT) History shows us that when nation states want something bad enough, they'll do whatever it takes (occasionally to their own people) to protect it's own political interests. Conscription is amongst the bad, but not amongst the worst of things it can do. History has also shown us that if the government can fill the meat locker by volunteerism alone, it'll generally hold off on forced military service until it really needs to. I'd much rather be sent to some hellhole, get shot at, have to shoot people myself, have my mates killed in front of me, see women and children get raped, come home to an unfaithful wife and broken home and overdue bills from service providers who thought I was using my Pay TV service whilst I was a few thousand kilometres away, and have to explain why I'm not baby-killing scum and/or filth *insert frothing insult as needed* to some clowns on the internet than say, my younger brother or in future, my nephew have to do so.

I signed up because at the time, it was being very publicly highlighted how neglected my country's armed forces were, and the government of the day was making noises about re-instituting military national service if volunteerism couldn't do the job. That, and I thought on the balance of averages, I'd actually get a chance to do some good. And I don't regret the decision for a second.

Sacrifice is usually something trounced out by someone trying to drum up support for political purposes. Guys, the reality of it is that sacrifice from military service takes many forms, be it sacrificing your time sitting out in a mud-filled gunpit while wet cold and hungry (your civvie mates are at the pub somewhere), sacrificing time with your wife or family who're constantly wondering if you're coming home in one piece, or sacrificing seeing your first child take their first steps or say their first word.

5) US/NATO/Western Soldiers commit war crimes in illegal wars - If you're referring to Iraq, there was and is no internationally recognised ruling citing that war as illegal, regardless of what you or I may think of it morally. Afghanistan and Libya are UN-backed operations, so suck it up. And for the record, not one country in existence, or that has previously existed which has participated in a war before, is immune from having committed war crimes on some individual level. Not one. So it would seem that we agree that soldiers commit war crimes. What's your point?

Soldiers are there to protect the agenda of the government of the day. They are a-political. And yes, in some cases, probably from your individual perspective, a-moral. Suck it up. Like it or not, you live in a society where you can complain about it because of that scenario. If that makes you feel ill, that's your damned problem. More importantly Mr/Mrs Moral, what are you as a moral person going to do about it? Typing away at your keyboard will achieve nothing, and giving more money away to World Vision or Medicines San Frontieres will do only as much good as the local warlord allows it to. Welcome to Planet Earth. Like I said, Suck it Up.

 

[MobBoss]

Thanks Uncle Anton. Very well stated.

As for all the morality gobblegook. Let me put it this way.

Do you find killing another person to be a moral thing only under certain circumstances? If no, then never join the military (or you could join and be in a job where you never get issued a weapon - like a medic). Which circumstances? If only in self- defense, again, perhaps you should rethink being a soldier or select a method of service in which you arent really expected to use a weapon (again, medic or maybe a Chaplains assistant). If you find the killing of another person during war or conflict to be moral because you swore an oath to protect the constitution and whatever our leaders decide that entails, then feel free to join up.

 

[Camikaze]

I don't agree with the phrase, but I agree with the sentiment. That is, the phrase invokes support for the actions the troops take, not just support for them as people doing a dangerous job.

 

[Berzerker]

I didnt know only fascists supported the troops. Next time some elderly couple thanks me for my service should I say 'thank you, Mr. and Mrs Fascist?'

I didn't know that either, who said only fascists support the troops (that would make me a fascist )?

I said fascists use (hide behind) "support the troops" as an argument for war when their other arguments dont work. Go back and re-read what you quoted before responding again, thank you.

And fwiw, I was actually thinking the opposite...that those who dont like supporting the troops mainly do so because people dont agree with their anti-war arguments.

But the opponents of war aint using "support the troops" as an argument to send the troops into war. How is not supporting the troops fascism? Maybe you can rephrase that...

 

[Maniacal]

So, just as an example of this, you would be ok with being over-run (or killed) by Nazi German forces led by Hitler and living under that regime?

(and yes, I fully realize the Godwin moment there....feel free to insert evil bogeyman of your choice if needed)

I mean I get that people 'say' they dont support war for any reason, but its generally my experience that its said without regard to every eventuality that they could face. A person saying that will usually have a 'yeah, but' moment if presented with an evil enough example or a justifiable enough reason to engage in said war.

You're entitled to your opinion, but you should bear in mind that ultimately the reason you're able to express that opinion is because there is a military protecting you.

Next time, maybe you guys should read more than the first sentence of my post. And no I am not going to explain it to you if you don't understand it.

 

[MobBoss]

I didn't know that either, who said only fascists support the troops (that would make me a fascist )?

I said fascists use (hide behind) "support the troops" as an argument for war when their other arguments dont work. Go back and re-read what you quoted before responding again, thank you.

Well, you did say ""Support the troops" is fascist claptrap...."

I read it fine thank you, and that was what it implied to me, and I thank you for your clarification.

Next time, maybe you guys should read more than the first sentence of my post. And no I am not going to explain it to you if you don't understand it.

I recognize your inability or unwillingness to answer the simple question asked of you. So if you stand by your first sentence, then I guess you wouldnt object physically to Nazis ruling the world and to you, there is no such thing as a 'just' war, regardless of whatever action began it.

Moderator Action: Trolling.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889