Support Our Troops?

[Glassfan]

In a crisis, there's a point at which the President/Prime Minister meets with his Cabinet and Service Chiefs and a decision is made to fight - or not. We know from the histories about the former, but how many times has the choice been negative? Best-selling books are not written about decisions not to go to war. Ford in 1975? Obama more recently has apparently chosen not to attack Iran militarily. How many times did Wilson or Roosevelt's Cabinet turn down war before German submarines or Japanese divebombers decided the issue?

It's at this meeting that a national leadership can debate and decide. When objections are allowable. If there are good reason not to fight, that's where they may be expressed. After a decision is arrived at, however, it's done, and a united front must be maintained.

Going to war is a national decision, made by national leaders. Individual soldiers are seldom consulted and cannot be held accountable. They can only be held to their personal behavior and conduct. American officers and NCOs are taught not to obey illegal or immoral orders, but a declaration of war is completely beyond their pay grade.

 

[Borachio]

Absolutely.

But we must always remember that it takes two to fight. When both sides are using exactly the same logic as you've detailed above, war is the result.

 

[LegionSteve]

Perhaps relevant for the thread, some news from neo-fascist Britain:
Man arrested for burning poppy photo

Seems like the police wants to actually undermine support for the troops...

I was going to start a new thread about this, but the article on bbc.co.uk didn't have enough details to make a decent OP yet. This Communications Act thing has gone way out of control (the original intent of the law was supposedly to make it easier to prosecute people for harassment by threatening phone calls). It seems idiocy is now going to be a criminal offence in Britain - we are going to need one hell of a lot of prisons.

Edit 2: I tried to edit in a bunch of stuff that was actually on topic (honest!). But my browser crashed when I tried to save it and I can't be arsed typing it all again. Short version is, I agree with Cutlass.

 

[Camikaze]

There's a pretty crucial difference between 'support' and 'praise', and then a difference between 'praise' and 'fetishise'. We should definitely 'support' 'our' troops, just as we should support every other individual in society.

Praising is a little trickier. Putting yourself in danger is not automatically praiseworthy unless it's for some noble goal (which is why the cast of Jackass have not been awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom). However, if you're of the opinion that soldiers are putting themselves in harm's way for the greater good of society, then that is in pursuit of a noble goal. That doesn't really change even if you disagree with the government's assessment of the greater good. In reality I don't necessarily believe that applies to all soldiers, and indeed many military personnel are not put directly in harm's way, but there's no harm in praising on the basis of that noble goal, when praise is really for that goal, and not for the military as an end in itself.

Another basis of praise may be that military personnel are performing a civic function. But there are many civic functions that are performed, and many that have far more of a real benefit on people's lives. That doesn't mean such public service employees shouldn't be praised, just that there's no real reason to single soldiers out on this basis. I think this is where the danger of fetishising comes from. During the World Wars, being a soldier was a particularly important job, and there was acute danger. But that's a bygone era, and there's no reason to cling to it. No reason to glorify military personnel as being in a completely different category.

So yes, we should support our troops, and no, there's nothing wrong with praising them. But the special treatment for this particular praiseworthy group, as distinct from the lack of special treatment for other equally praiseworthy groups (e.g. when Obama campaigned on the basis that veterans should be looked after when they come home from Iraq and Afghanistan, whilst that is undoubtedly correct, the same special mention was not extended to international charity workers, and even if it had been, it's pretty obvious that it wouldn't be nearly as popular or rhetorically resonant), seems a little misplaced.

 

[GhostWriter16]

particularly important job

World War I was entirely silly and the veterans of that war do not deserve any extra recognition when compared to the ones coming home from Iraq. Both were pointless, stupid, and evil wars.

 

[Camikaze]

Silly or not, I'm fairly sure those in the occupied parts of France, for instance, would've considered the job of a French soldier particularly important. Australia's connection was far more tangential, but it was still considered a very important job (more so than garbage collector or teacher, for instance). It was still fighting on the basis of territorial integrity, even though the concept of territorial integrity was very skewed.

 

[GamezRule]

I think perhaps the most notable recent decision not to go to war was Kennedy's during the Cuban Missile Crisis. He was practically the only one in the White House against bombing Cuba.

World War I was entirely silly and the veterans of that war do not deserve any extra recognition when compared to the ones coming home from Iraq. Both were pointless, stupid, and evil wars.

How much do you actually know about World War One?

 

[civver_764]

^ There's not much good to say about it...it's the textbook definition of an imperialist war.

Continued from the other thread:

Well now, Mr Civver. That looks like a trick question.

But I do respect them yes. But only for having the conviction to put their lives on the line. Not for killing other people.

But they were the people, the foot soldiers if you like, who carried it out. Those who organized the attack and persuaded them to do it - like Osama bin Laden - must bear the ultimate responsibility.

Isn't this fair?

I realize of course that the Universal Soldier bears responsibility for his acts. Without him nothing of this kind would be possible.

But it's expecting a lot for a man in his early twenties to ignore all the propaganda he is subject to. Though of course some, a very few, do exactly that.

Again, I'm not trying to play the blame game, but there's a difference between blaming them for their actions and respecting them for those same actions. I feel sorry that they were convinced/coerced into military service, but I don't feel that it warrants any respect. And sure I might admire their bravery to an extent, but I don't think that makes them more respectable as a whole.

 

[warpus]

I respect people on a case-by-case basis. As such their occupation doesn't really matter, unless they are a serial murderer or rapist or something.

You are a soldier? That doesn't impact my respect of you at all. Tell me what sorts of things you have done - that's what's going to impact how much I do or don't respect you.

I support Canadian troops in that I hope aren't put in harms way. I support them with my tax dollars. I support them in that I hope that they continue representing this country with the honour and respect it deserves, using values that we as a country are supposed to embody.

On an individual basis though? For as long as an individual is just a face and name to me, I can't dish or take away respect. Tell me a bit more about what things this soldier has done to deserve my respect, or why he doesn't.

 

[GhostWriter16]

^ There's not much good to say about it...it's the textbook definition of an imperialist war.

Continued from the other thread:

Even if some of our actions weren't the best, I do think we were on the right side of the Second World War (Yeah, I get that Stalin does somewhat limit our ability to describe ourselves as the "Good Guys" but I still think we took the better side) but the first world war is something America should have had nothing at all to do with.

 

[Takhisis]

OK, I'll bite this one - at what point does it become unacceptable to fail to say 'Mr President, this is wrong' when you are part of a chain of command? Clearly an individual private soldier or subaltern can't refuse to go to war because he disagrees with it, but equally clearly it must be the duty of somebody to refuse to carry out a decision against his conscience. Do note that I mean to resign, rather than to lead a coup.

I was chatting to a falklands vet royal marine about how I couldn't in good faith claim to be a concious objector but that I simply did not trust the gov to fix the pot holes let alone tell me who to kill. Perhaps three or four people I trust so far and Phil Hammond's not amongst them.

His reply "fair enough but thats not really a problem. They [the RM recruits] are pretty much up for it anyway".

The one's who give their bodies as the weapons of the war are to some extent informed participants in divesting themselves of responsibility for who's to live and who's to die. Heroic, murderous or foolish they are up for it.

Well I've met some of the people on the other side… how does all this apply to conscripts? Does a conscript have a right to rebel?

 

[Mosher]

World War I was entirely silly and the veterans of that war do not deserve any extra recognition when compared to the ones coming home from Iraq. Both were pointless, stupid, and evil wars.

Tell that to the Serbs, Germans, Russians, French, British, Austrians, Turks, colonial troops, and Americans who all died in mud-filled trenches.

Tell that to the Kurds and people of Iraq that the bringing down of Hussein was evil, stupid, and pointless.

Even if some of our actions weren't the best, I do think we were on the right side of the Second World War (Yeah, I get that Stalin does somewhat limit our ability to describe ourselves as the "Good Guys" but I still think we took the better side) but the first world war is something America should have had nothing at all to do with.

So we should ignore the hundreds of American and British citizens who died to German submarine warfare in the first world war?

Being on "the right side" is completely objective. To a private in the Wehrmacht, they were fighting for the greater, national socialist good and there was nothing better than a German dying for their fatherland and nothing more vile than a Russian murdering a German for their motherland.
To a Russian infantrymen, they were fighting for the greater good, defending their motherland and driving the Germans back to Berlin.
To an American, firebombing Tokyo and killing hundreds of thousands of civilians was towards the greater good of protecting 'Merikka.

 

[Borachio]

I think this can be a little tricky. I think that anyone who joins up or is conscripted and serves honorably deserves to be respected for that. I don't, for example, think that the fact that they may have to kill should be a mark against them.

That said, not every soldier joins for good motives. And not every soldier serves honorably. You say "what of the atrocities?" And I have to ask: who is responsible? The horrors of war overwhelm men, and they do things that on sober reflection they never should. And they should be held accountable to that. But the men that put them there should be held accountable as well. And so should the men that failed to train and discipline the soldiers well enough to prevent those actions.

So while I say that the service people by default should be respected and treated with honor, that does not apply to every soldier by default, but only to those who maintained their honor through their conduct. Or, perhaps I should say, that each individual should be approached as if they deserve honor unless they personally demonstrate otherwise.

Let me take a random example:

Imagine I've been fighting across Eastern Europe for the past two years, seen plenty people die in nasty conditions, killed plenty of people myself and I finally reach Berlin. Am I going to behave like a reasonable human being? What honour would I have left?

I think the brutalizing effects of warfare are very often ignored and swept under the carpet. We like to distance ourselves from the actual process of killing each other, it seems to me.

Appreciation for "the troops" is going to depend on the appreciation for each war they're involved in. It was always so, it will always be so.

That's nice. If you can determine which wars are the "good" "justifiable" ones, and which aren't.

World War I was entirely silly and the veterans of that war do not deserve any extra recognition when compared to the ones coming home from Iraq. Both were pointless, stupid, and evil wars.

This kind of denigrates the sacrifices that a great many people have made. So you could look down at a veteran in his wheel chair, and tell him it was entirely silly?

I think all wars are tragic.

^ There's not much good to say about it...it's the textbook definition of an imperialist war.

Continued from the other thread:

Again, I'm not trying to play the blame game, but there's a difference between blaming them for their actions and respecting them for those same actions. I feel sorry that they were convinced/coerced into military service, but I don't feel that it warrants any respect. And sure I might admire their bravery to an extent, but I don't think that makes them more respectable as a whole.

I'm not sure how to take this.

I'm inclined to try and recognize the humanity in people. Unless we can respect someone's bravery for a self-sacrificing action, how else could you characterize them?

Are they simply evil?

 

[Bugfatty300]

.Perhaps relevant for the thread, some news from neo-fascist Britain:Man arrested for burning poppy photo

I can't believe that man would disrespect the lads who fought and died for his political rights...oh wait a tic.

 

[azzaman333]

There's a pretty crucial difference between 'support' and 'praise', and then a difference between 'praise' and 'fetishise'. We shouldn't definitely 'support' 'our' troops, just as we should support every other individual in society.

Praising is a little trickier. Putting yourself in danger is not automatically praiseworthy unless it's for some noble goal (which is why the cast of Jackass have not been awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom). However, if you're of the opinion that soldiers are putting themselves in harm's way for the greater good of society, then that is in pursuit of a noble goal. That doesn't really change even if you disagree with the government's assessment of the greater good. In reality I don't necessarily believe that applies to all soldiers, and indeed many military personnel are not put directly in harm's way, but there's no harm in praising on the basis of that noble goal, when praise is really for that goal, and not for the military as an end in itself.

Another basis of praise may be that military personnel are performing a civic function. But there are many civic functions that are performed, and many that have far more of a real benefit on people's lives. That doesn't mean such public service employees shouldn't be praised, just that there's no real reason to single soldiers out on this basis. I think this is where the danger of fetishising comes from. During the World Wars, being a soldier was a particularly important job, and there was acute danger. But that's a bygone era, and there's no reason to cling to it. No reason to glorify military personnel as being in a completely different category.

So yes, we should support our troops, and no, there's nothing wrong with praising them. But the special treatment for this particular praiseworthy group, as distinct from the lack of special treatment for other equally praiseworthy groups (e.g. when Obama campaigned on the basis that veterans should be looked after when they come home from Iraq and Afghanistan, whilst that is undoubtedly correct, the same special mention was not extended to international charity workers, and even if it had been, it's pretty obvious that it wouldn't be nearly as popular or rhetorically resonant).

Quoted because it's a pretty damn good post IMO.

 

[Leoreth]

I've thought about this. I've seen some people use this as an argument that we plain out and out SHOULDN'T support our troops, because if they were worth supporting they'd commit civil disobedience. I think this is overly simplistic.

Oh, sure. I was reacting to Celticempire's blanket statement that all the responsibility for what the military does lies with the government or military leadership, not individual soldiers. When they join the military voluntarily, they do so in full knowledge of what might be asked of them, and therefore they share some of the responsibility for it. The degree is obviously debatable, and you're right that things are different when drafting is involved.

For my actual views on supporting the troops, I entirely agree with Camikaze.

 

[Hygro]

Our democracy demands war and deterrence. Our democracy demands war for private enterprise, war against outside injustice, war for protection, war for acquisition of territory, war for pride, war for revenge, war for ideological struggle.

Our democracy demands the surrender-or-death of our enemies.

And we have people who believe in our decisions, our collective nation so much, that they are willing to die, to go against their human instinct of never impersonally killing another human, to see their friends die, to be maimed, broken, traumatized, and even unsupported as veterans back home as they can see already happens with 1 in four homeless being veterans.

And they still do it.

For us.

Because we demand war. And they believe in us.
We owe them our deepest respect.

 

[Grendeldef]

I'm quite supportive to defensive forces in general one reason being that if a country must have an army let it be of own troops. No way I could've skipped the 11 months of conscription either.
Charity organizations for WW2 veterans are the only ones I'm happy to give money regularly and I'm extremely happy that we had men like White Death back in '39. For soldiers on the other side I don't have respect even thought they mostly didn't have much of a choice.

Somehow I seem to have more base respect for those who serve in smaller armies very unlikely to cross a border even during a war than those that do the defensive work outside their borders, too. That, however, doesn't say that those shouldn't get respect but the baseline of respect is zero rather than positive and yet it doesn't say anything about the motive of a single soldier why (s)he did enlist.

G

 

[civver_764]

I'm not sure how to take this.

I'm inclined to try and recognize the humanity in people. Unless we can respect someone's bravery for a self-sacrificing action, how else could you characterize them?

Are they simply evil?

No of course they aren't evil. Why the dichotomy?

I just feel like simply being willing to risk your life doesn't make you any more or less respectable(terrorists, gangbangers, mercenaries, career criminals, etc. all share this trait as well).

 

[Borachio]

No of course they aren't evil. Why the dichotomy?

I just feel like simply being willing to risk your life doesn't make you any more or less respectable(terrorists, gangbangers, mercenaries, career criminals, etc. all share this trait as well).

So doesn't it then depend on what you're willing to risk your life for?

Jihaddists/terrorists sacrifice their lives for causes they do believe in. I can't see how this could be denied.

I'm not sure how gangbangers risk their lives. Perhaps the word means something different in American English. (In English English a gangbanger is someone who indulges in many-on-one group sex.)

Mercenaries risk their lives solely for money, as do career criminals - I wouldn't accord them much respect beyond the bare fact of their humanity.

People with dangerous occupations also risk their lives for money - but also for other reasons too. Some of them surely do deserve respect, like fire-fighters and paramedics. And fishermen. And possibly soldiers?

I'm not sure where this is getting us.