What does "support the troops" mean to you?

[MobBoss]

Then by your standard, I don't support the troops. *shrug*

Fair enough.

So if we're not allowed to judge the consequences of any particular "mission", then we're not allowed to judge any presumed successes, either. No crystal balls for anyone.

I dont pretend that the issue isnt convoluted and rather complex.

So you're defending my freedom of speech, but simultaneously expecting me to not exercise it with respect to what you're doing?

No, you can exercise your free speech all you want. I'm not saying people need to shut up in vocal opposition to the war. All I am saying is at least be honest about it, and dont claim 'you oppose the mission, but not the troops'. Thats just a cop out. To me, the two are mutually inclusive. Thats all I am saying.

Be honest about how you feel. I wont judge you on that although I may disagree. Mission support does indeed affect soldiers morale, and the reverse is true as well. You cant be a negative factor on soldier morale and claim you support the troops. Thats not how it works.

Should we also apply this to domestic police work? I mean, I ardently oppose the "War on Drugs" mission; but yet highly trained and professional DEA agents are risking their lives going after drug traffickers every day, to say nothing of your average policeman. I would not want to adversely affect their morale, and would say "I support our police", but since it is an existing policy should I keep my opinion about it to myself so as not to demoralize them? And goodness knows our teachers have a difficult enough job without me opposing their union and favoring things like charter schools, can I 'support our teachers' and still support school choice, vouchers, etc?

Not being a cop (or a teacher for that matter), I cant speak to what does or does not affect their morale. I would tend to think they generally enjoy a much higher level of local support, as their presence and contact with those they protect happens far more often than it does with soldiers.

 

[SuperJay]

I dont pretend that the issue isnt convoluted and rather complex.

But you do keep pulling out your own crystal ball to refute others' points, while simultaneously telling them that they're not allowed to speculate about the future. You can't have it both ways, MB. Either we're all allowed to draw reasonable conclusions about how various situations could unfold (or could have unfolded differently) or none of us are.

No, you can exercise your free speech all you want. I'm not saying people need to shut up in vocal opposition to the war. All I am saying is at least be honest about it, and dont claim 'you oppose the mission, but not the troops'. Thats just a cop out. To me, the two are mutually inclusive. Thats all I am saying.

No, it's not a cop-out at all. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems you're saying it's a completely binary issue - that either you support the war, every mission or operation that comprise it, the politicians and Pentagon officials who order them, and the troops executing that mission 100%... or, if you oppose any aspect of that mission, you want the whole thing and everybody involved in it to fail. And the one reason you keep citing is troop morale.

By that logic, we are all bound to silence unless we want soldiers to die. If we use the freedoms those soldiers are supposedly defending, then we are victimizing those soldiers somehow. That's an odd state of affairs, isn't it? That we have our friends, neighbors, and family members dying on foreign soil to "defend freedom" but we're not supposed to actually use it?

Be honest about how you feel. I wont judge you on that although I may disagree. Mission support does indeed affect soldiers morale, and the reverse is true as well. You cant be a negative factor on soldier morale and claim you support the troops. Thats not how it works.

Yes it is, and sure I can. Unless I intentionally go out of my way to insult, disrespect, or demoralize individual soldiers, I can certainly want them to come home alive and safe after doing their jobs, but oppose the decision to use those soldiers for that job. If some soldiers take my opposition to those decisions so seriously that it actually impacts their ability to effectively do their job, I'd humbly submit that they may be in the wrong line of work and don't belong in the military.

 

[IglooDame]

No, you can exercise your free speech all you want. I'm not saying people need to shut up in vocal opposition to the war. All I am saying is at least be honest about it, and dont claim 'you oppose the mission, but not the troops'. Thats just a cop out. To me, the two are mutually inclusive. Thats all I am saying.

Be honest about how you feel. I wont judge you on that although I may disagree. Mission support does indeed affect soldiers morale, and the reverse is true as well. You cant be a negative factor on soldier morale and claim you support the troops. Thats not how it works.

You're stating an opinion as fact. Clearly (once again), we're not going to come to any agreement on this. So, /discussion.

Not being a cop (or a teacher for that matter), I cant speak to what does or does not affect their morale. I would tend to think they generally enjoy a much higher level of local support, as their presence and contact with those they protect happens far more often than it does with soldiers.

Speaking of "that's just a cop out"...

 

[MobBoss]

But you do keep pulling out your own crystal ball to refute others' points, while simultaneously telling them that they're not allowed to speculate about the future. You can't have it both ways, MB. Either we're all allowed to draw reasonable conclusions about how various situations could unfold (or could have unfolded differently) or none of us are.

By all means, point out where I do this.

No, it's not a cop-out at all. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems you're saying it's a completely binary issue - that either you support the war, every mission or operation that comprise it, the politicians and Pentagon officials who order them, and the troops executing that mission 100%... or, if you oppose any aspect of that mission, you want the whole thing and everybody involved in it to fail. And the one reason you keep citing is troop morale.

All this objection to my opinion.

Does it bother you that someone doesnt support the troops?

I fully recognize that there are indeed different levels of what is considered 'support'. I also recognize that not all military operations are seen to be 'justifiable' or 'worth it' to different people at different times. One could certainly be not supportive of the troops for one conflict, but supportive in another.

By that logic, we are all bound to silence unless we want soldiers to die. If we use the freedoms those soldiers are supposedly defending, then we are victimizing those soldiers somehow. That's an odd state of affairs, isn't it? That we have our friends, neighbors, and family members dying on foreign soil to "defend freedom" but we're not supposed to actually use it?

Or course you should use it. But who the hell ever said there were not ramifications, sometimes negative ones, in using free speech?

If some soldiers take my opposition to those decisions so seriously that it actually impacts their ability to effectively do their job, I'd humbly submit that they may be in the wrong line of work and don't belong in the military.

And I would in turn say you have no appreciation for a soldiers morale then.

You're stating an opinion as fact. Clearly (once again), we're not going to come to any agreement on this. So, /discussion.

Not true, as I have repeatedly mentioned that this is my opinion and mine alone as a soldier. I expect other soldiers would probably even disagee with me. You, as a veteran certainly do.

Speaking of "that's just a cop out"...

Pun intended of course.

 

[SuperJay]

By all means, point out where I do this.

Could of times in the last few pages, as Igloo mentioned previously:

If we hadnt taken Saddam out this time and just left per your desire, I gurantee you we would have fought a third war down the line sometime to remove him again. In fact, I will say that if we had done this right in the first Gulf War and killed/removed him then, we wouldnt have realized the current War in Iraq now with all its commensurate deaths.

Or would pulling out of Vietnam that early encourage communist nations even more so, thus leading to other wars costing even more than 50k soldiers lives? What if our pulling out of Asia like that encouraged a renewal of the Korean War under the belief that we would cut and run there as well? Possible invasion of Japan or further as a result?

Now, I know speculation is of limited value, but at least be consistent in your standards for yourself versus your standards for everyone else.

RE: Your opinion - I don't "object" to your opinion; you're welcome to it, whatever it may be, and obviously we're not going to change each others' minds. I'm not even trying to change yours; I'm trying to learn about the basis of your perspective on this issue. We don't need to arrive at agreement for a discussion to have value, IMO.

RE: appreciation for soldiers' morale - well, you're one soldier. You have an opinion about my use of free speech and its impact on the morale of tens of thousands. Frankly, I don't think my personal opinion matters to them in the least. Like I said, I'm not so rude or inconsiderate that I'd approach a man or woman in uniform and harass them purely because I opposed the invasion of Iraq, for example.

 

[illram]

Extending the idea of "supporting the troops" to the idea of unflinching support for foreign policy and/or conflicts in which they are fighting is exactly the type of nefarious propaganda that this useless slogan encourages, intended or not.

 

[MobBoss]

Could of times in the last few pages, as Igloo mentioned previously:

Well, I gauge my first comment by pointing out that is exactly what occurred historically. We didnt take Saddam out in the first gulf war and ended up right back in Iraq a decade or so later. So the comment itself has at least some historical precedence to it.

But you are absolutely correct that I dont have a crystal ball, and nothing is given where the future is concerned. In fact, I have said this several times now, so of course it should apply to my own comments as well.

The 2nd comment is merely me pointing that very thing out to IG in that we have no real idea what the ramifications could have been for not going to Vietnam. Sheer speculation with no basis in fact what-so-ever, but merely done so to make the point that we have no idea what 'would have been'.

Now, I know speculation is of limited value, but at least be consistent in your standards for yourself versus your standards for everyone else.

I belive that I absolutely am. The fact that no one knows the future applies to me just as it does to anyone esle.

What, you expected me to deny this?

RE: appreciation for soldiers' morale - well, you're one soldier.

You also need to understand that although I am one soldier, I also play an instrumental role in preparing/screening soldiers that are going to deploy and those that return from deployment as well. I listen to their comments. I think you would frankly be shocked at how important home support is to them. It matters far more than you know, and is often the singular lifeline they cling to outside of the immensly stressful job they are doing. For you to dismiss what these men and women go though so callously and say they need to just find another line of work if they cant deal with such opposition smacks of a true lack of understanding of their plight.

You have an opinion about my use of free speech and its impact on the morale of tens of thousands. Frankly, I don't think my personal opinion matters to them in the least.

Honestly, I have probably screened far, far more than just tens of thousands during my career. You are also correct in that your personal opinion doesnt matter (except maybe to soldiers that know you personally), but I am referring to the aggregate opinion here, not individuals per se.

Like I said, I'm not so rude or inconsiderate that I'd approach a man or woman in uniform and harass them purely because I opposed the invasion of Iraq, for example.

Thats nice, but lets not forget there are indeed those that would.

 

[SuperJay]

You also need to understand that although I am one soldier, I also play an instrumental role in preparing/screening soldiers that are going to deploy and those that return from deployment as well. I listen to their comments. I think you would frankly be shocked at how important home support is to them. It matters far more than you know, and is often the singular lifeline they cling to outside of the immensly stressful job they are doing.

See, this is interesting and useful! You're right, I do need to understand that - but until you tell me that you have a specific background in that area and that your job routinely deals with those things, how am I to know? Can you comment further on this? What is your role, exactly, in this process? How are these screenings arranged or conducted? What sort of comments, concerns, and fears do you hear from soldiers during those screenings? Can you share some particularly noteworthy examples? (I am honestly interested in those experiences, no ulterior motives here. I hope you can tell us more.)

For you to dismiss what these men and women go though so callously and say they need to just find another line of work if they cant deal with such opposition smacks of a true lack of understanding of their plight.

Of course I lack a "true understanding," why would I be asking you about it otherwise? That said, I never dismissed anything anyone goes through, callously or otherwise. You're not going to "win" the thread by extrapolating my comments to portray me as some sort of uncaring monstrous person. I'd like to learn from your expertise and experience here, so let's leave the "gotcha" posting for your romantic intrigues with Form, k?

Honestly, I have probably screened far, far more than just tens of thousands during my career. You are also correct in that your personal opinion doesnt matter (except maybe to soldiers that know you personally), but I am referring to the aggregate opinion here, not individuals per se.

Right, of course.

Thats nice, but lets not forget there are indeed those that would.

And they're jerks that few people would bother defending, and until they post here they're irrelevant to this discussion.

 

[MobBoss]

See, this is interesting and useful! You're right, I do need to understand that - but until you tell me that you have a specific background in that area and that your job routinely deals with those things, how am I to know? Can you comment further on this? What is your role, exactly, in this process? How are these screenings arranged or conducted? What sort of comments, concerns, and fears do you hear from soldiers during those screenings? Can you share some particularly noteworthy examples? (I am honestly interested in those experiences, no ulterior motives here. I hope you can tell us more.)

A good portion of my job is involved in providing legal assistance operations to deploying or returning troops. I routinely talk to them one on one to help determine their legal needs, and to inform them of the type of legal services we can offer them. Often, I am as much counselor as I am paralegal. Over the last decade I have probably notarized somewhere in the ballpart of 30k to 40k legal documents - I couldnt even begin to guess how many soldiers i've talked to along the way.

As to comments, concerns, examples. You name it, i've probably seen it, from the extreme to the banal. I often tell people i've been doing this so long, sometimes its like watching salmon swim up the fish ladder. Unless their issue is truely exceptional, they all kind of blend in together after a while due to the uniformity of it all.

 

[Narz]

Narz, there's not a single thing in your post that I disagree with, and I heartily wish more people, soldiers and civilian alike, thought the way you do. Except maybe the WW2 bit, Korea was probably pretty necessary in my view, but that's likely up for personal opinion and debate. I'll shut up now.

Thanks! Nice to debate with someone who's so polite & willing to give others credit where credit it due, thats the way I try to be. Kudos!

While I'm here, just out of curiosity, why do you think Korea was necessary (I don't know a whole lot about the Korean war)?

 

[Hygro]

Then you have very little knowledge of how troop morale works and how it can affect a soldiers readiness and performance. Even highly trained and professional soldiers are still humans, and still people just like anyone else. Now compound that by being in a dangerous job in which you can see some truly horrible things occur.

I agree with this point more than more liberals, because I realized support the troops/oppose the war can by some logic be akin to love gays/hate homosexuality. Since I think the latter is impossible, it helped me understand that in fact if the troops are being committed to battle, to know, say, half of their countrymen oppose their taking the hardest most brutal actions a person can take, is incredibly demoralizing and unsupportive. This is why, again, I make the argument that to support the troops is to make them feel supported. I think it's possible to oppose the war and still do this, but it's categorically difficult.

 

[galdre]

I agree with this point more than more liberals, because I realized support the troops/oppose the war can by some logic be akin to love gays/hate homosexuality. Since I think the latter is impossible, it helped me understand that in fact if the troops are being committed to battle, to know, say, half of their countrymen oppose their taking the hardest most brutal actions a person can take, is incredibly demoralizing and unsupportive. This is why, again, I make the argument that to support the troops is to make them feel supported. I think it's possible to oppose the war and still do this, but it's categorically difficult.

sorry, but I don't consider asking the troops to do things we shouldn't be doing as supporting them. If any soldier finds my non-support for actions I consider immoral demoralizing, then I feel sorry for them that they've been deluded into supporting those actions. IMO supporting the troops is putting them in harm's way only when absolutely necessary, and then adequately rewarding them for being willing to go into danger.

It is nothing like "love gays/hate homosexuality", that's a horrible analogy.

 

[civver_764]

I agree with this point more than more liberals, because I realized support the troops/oppose the war can by some logic be akin to love gays/hate homosexuality. Since I think the latter is impossible, it helped me understand that in fact if the troops are being committed to battle, to know, say, half of their countrymen oppose their taking the hardest most brutal actions a person can take, is incredibly demoralizing and unsupportive. This is why, again, I make the argument that to support the troops is to make them feel supported. I think it's possible to oppose the war and still do this, but it's categorically difficult.

Uh, no. Jesus christ if you're not entirely sure why you're killing people stop killing people and quit. You will gladly gain my respect then.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Uh, no. Jesus christ if you're not entirely sure why you're killing people stop killing people and quit. You will gladly gain my respect then.

Perhaps the US military should give soldiers the right to simply not go to any country where they don't feel like killing Muslims for a living. Back in the days of real wars between countries this was obviously not an option. But nowadays, it would be similar to a cop simply deciding he didn't want to work in a bad neighborhood in Newark due to the greater threat to his own life.

Perhaps this way US soldiers can once again regain their supposed lack of self-esteem. They can simply refuse to serve in the more unpopular conflicts.

 

[Hygro]

sorry, but I don't consider asking the troops to do things we shouldn't be doing as supporting them. If any soldier finds my non-support for actions I consider immoral demoralizing, then I feel sorry for them that they've been deluded into supporting those actions. IMO supporting the troops is putting them in harm's way only when absolutely necessary, and then adequately rewarding them for being willing to go into danger.

It is nothing like "love gays/hate homosexuality", that's a horrible analogy.

Uh, no. Jesus christ if you're not entirely sure why you're killing people stop killing people and quit. You will gladly gain my respect then.

You are both creating a bizarre definition of supporting the troops to mean the troops only get your support when they win your respect and admiration, which is kind of backward Look I think these wars suck as much as anyone, but if you are asking people who are asked to kill those they aren't interpersonally upset with (enemy soldiers etc)--the most psychologically harmful thing a non-sociopath can do--then you had better do what you can to make sure they don't come home total wrecks having not ONLY betrayed their human nature but also betrayed the wishes of who they thought they were killing on the behalf of.

If you want to support the troops, you can't turn them into PTSD casualties by in any way criticizing what they are doing. You can on a most strategic level criticize the war, but in any way once you criticize the actions taken in that war, or suggest that fighting within the war is wrong, you are hurting our troops.

Sometimes a war can be so unjust that it is better to hurt our troops than continue to hurt our entire country fighting that war. But you are still not supporting the troops.

But philosophically if we are going to have a military, we need to make the commitment upfront that those who volunteer on our behalf that we will have their backs emotionally if our elected government orders them into battle.

 

[Uncle Anton]

DAMMIT - I still can't Quote properly....

Otago - Upper class Australians ? care to state the definition of working,middle, and Upper class Australians ?
I'm middle class because I CHOOSE when I want to work but the income from my business keeps coming in regardless if I am at work or not.

I have five rellies in the Aus Army, only one would reach the so called middle class ranking in my eyes because he has a private income.

Mate, from memory it was based around the income level of the combined household at the time from all sources, not the individual's salary in isolation. In any case, to be honest, the information as far as specifics go is probably irrelevant as a new Census is about due for circulation anyway.

The point I was making with that data remains the same though regardless. onedreamer was erroneously implying that one only serves in the military because they're too poor or ill-educated to get a job elsewhere. Having 5 rellies in the our Army, you'd know as I do that that's just not true as a universal rule.

I'm not sure I agree with MB here when it comes to his definition of troop support, but as he's said it's a matter of personal opinion, and I know when I'm working I tend to focus on the job and my mates... I don't think too much about whether someone thinks I should be there or not, although I can more than understand how it would have an adverse effect on morale for some.

My notion of "supporting the troops" is that you treat us with the same common courtesy and respect that you would treat a cop, firey, ambo or anyone else for that matter. That means if you have prejudices, stow 'em - that s##t's not welcome, or necessary. If you're going to judge any individual soldier (or an individual's role in any occupation for that matter), have the decency, civility and moral courage to wait until you're familiar with that individual's conduct in that role. If you can't do that, bite your tongue until that person is out of earshot. If you can't do either of the aforementioned, that's your call, just remember that someone someday may choose to enter into a serious disagreement with you, and I'm not necessarily talking about the type where you end up with a bruised ego.

If you're unhappy with your government's foreign policies, hold those political leaders accountable and exercise your obligation to society by voting them in or out, accordingly. At the risk of hijacking this thread, the second you choose not to Vote, you forfeit your moral right to whinge or about anything going on in your country - foreign policy included.

@ Narz - No worries, glad to talk to you and again, thankyou for your consideration and support.

 

[Formaldehyde]

If you want to support the troops, you can't turn them into PTSD casualties by in any way criticizing what they are doing. You can on a most strategic level criticize the war, but in any way once you criticize the actions taken in that war, or suggest that fighting within the war is wrong, you are hurting our troops.

If they are getting PTSD in an environment with so few US casualties while acting primarily like cops in countries they shouldn't even be in in the first place, perhaps being a combat soldier in this day and age isn't the proper occupation for them. Not everybody is cut out for indiscriminately killing Muslims, or even being nearby while it occurs. There are apparently no lack of soldiers anymore, so they should just find something else to do with their lives.

But I don't buy it. I don't think there really is any such widespead combat stress problem which is typically created out of fear of their own deaths, not their victims. It is just an excuse to try to make people stop protesting the continual warmongering by the far-right. Apparently, none of the senior officers are complaining about this supposed problem which is allegedly so widespread.

But there are obviously now a lot of soldiers who simply don't want to be assigned to another Iraq. Who can possibly blame them after having their tours of duty extended over and over again by an uncaring administration? If you want to blame someone for causing morale problems in the US military, blame GWB and his incompetent advisors for keeping them in an unnecessary war for so many years literally against their will.

 

[Abegweit]

Hate the game, not the players.

QFT

10 chars.

 

[MobBoss]

Perhaps the US military should give soldiers the right to simply not go to any country where they don't feel like killing Muslims for a living.

If you start doing silly things like that you wont have a very effective military due to the lack of unit cohesion you would experience. Not a good idea at all.

Back in the days of real wars between countries this was obviously not an option. But nowadays, it would be similar to a cop simply deciding he didn't want to work in a bad neighborhood in Newark due to the greater threat to his own life.

I am unaware that cops get such options....

Perhaps this way US soldiers can once again regain their supposed lack of self-esteem. They can simply refuse to serve in the more unpopular conflicts.

Worst idea ever for a modern day army.

If they are getting PTSD in an environment with so few US casualties while acting primarily like cops in countries they shouldn't even be in in the first place, perhaps being a combat soldier in this day and age isn't the proper occupation for them.

Fairly few fatalities in comparison, but still lots of wounded. How do you think you would handle it if you lost a limb, or disfigured due to burns on your body? Or had to experience a close friend having to go through that?

Before you starting taking soldiers to task for suffering from PTSD, perhaps you should walk a mile in their shoes first? Do you think you would do better?

Not everybody is cut out for indiscriminately killing Muslims

Luckily and factually, thats not what soldiers do. Oh, I know you think thats what we do....but thats simply not the truth. You simply have no clue as regards military Rules of Engagement (RoE) and how that works.

But I don't buy it. I don't think there really is any such widespead combat stress problem which is typically created out of fear of their own deaths, not their victims.

It doesnt come from fear of their own deaths, but rather what they have seen, heard and experienced in combat. In many cases, it comes from Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) due to close proximity to large explosions and not from any particular fear at all.

It is just an excuse to try to make people stop protesting the continual warmongering by the far-right. Apparently, none of the senior officers are complaining about this supposed problem which is allegedly so widespread.

You talk in regards to something you have no real knowledge of. At all. You do realize that the military is experiencing record levels of suicides in recent years. Do you think thats just an excuse as well? You really have no clue at all for what is ongoing in the military, and what supposed knowledge you do have simply comes from the editorial pages of propaganda sites like the huffingtonpost, which indeed has its own spin and agenda.

But there are obviously now a lot of soldiers who simply don't want to be assigned to another Iraq. Who can possibly blame them after having their tours of duty extended over and over again by an uncaring administration? If you want to blame someone for causing morale problems in the US military, blame GWB and his incompetent advisors for keeping them in an unnecessary war for so many years literally against their will.

Blame GWB for all of it although he has been out of office for two years now and its still ongoing? Should we blame him for Libya as well?

Actually, I would really appreciate it if you would just cease talking about stuff in the military when its obvious you are simply clueless to anything regarding the military at all. I find how you talk down about soldiers, and call into question the serious problems and issues they face these days, simply uncaring and quite callous. I really dont know any other way to describe such rhetoric.

 

[Arwon]

No, you can exercise your free speech all you want. I'm not saying people need to shut up in vocal opposition to the war. All I am saying is at least be honest about it, and dont claim 'you oppose the mission, but not the troops'. Thats just a cop out. To me, the two are mutually inclusive. Thats all I am saying.

Dude, by that logic, my own father, an officer in the Australian Defence Force, doesn't "support the troops". I remember the day we invaded Iraq he said "well, it's a stupid idea but let's hope they somehow pull it off" (he still thinks it was a stupid idea and has no hope of success. He's more ambivalent about Afghanistan. But still, he voted for an explicitly anti-war party at the last Federal election). He was over there in a job he volunteered for about a year later.