What does this mean? And why should we?
If you think the war in Iraq (abd/or the one in Afghanistan) is adventuristic, uncalled-for, needlessly brutal, immoral, unethical, unfortunate, ill-advised, fucked-up, bad news, uncool, just plain wrong, and/or sucky, why on earth would you qualify that position with the absurd (and probably meaningless) statement that you "support the troops"? That seems to be what the majority of people who oppose the war do, however; certainly it is de rigeur for a politician or public figure.
Saying you oppose the war but "support the troops" is basically saying that it is a wise, ethically justifiable, or honorable thing to consider yourself a piece of meat at the disposal of the US government, who will enforce any decision the politicians make without questioning it. This shit didn't fly at Nuremberg, so why should it fly now? If you believe that US servicepeople are responsible for their own decisions, like anyone else, and if you believe that the war in Iraq was a bad decision, then it is idiotic to say that you "support the troops."
I think a position of principled opposition to the war is incoherent unless it includes a position of explicitly NOT supporting the troops. It is true that many low-income people who feel they are without options wind up in the military. It is true that many very well-intentioned people wind up in the military. It is true that the military has a larger proportion of racial minorities than society at large, and this is probably the result of the aforementioned economic factors.
Fine. One can sympathize or even empathize with soldiers without giving them "support" qua troops, which gives them the message that you are behind them, right or wrong. It would be absurd to say "I am against rape, but I support the rapist. He is a minority and poor, and never had a proper education. That's not his fault, it's the fault of the politicians in Washington, etc. So I will not discourage him from raping you; instead, I'll write to my congressman."
This isn't to say that the primary blame for war should be directed at the soldiers; certainly, the above is an imperfect analogy. But "support the troops"?? Fuck the troops.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Well, the phrase "support the troops" is pretty nebulous. One guy I talked to said, "I support the troops, but what I mean by that is that I'm in favor of them not getting killed." He was the first person to actually clarify what he meant.
I guess I could say that I "support" them in such a manner, but to be honest, I'm rather indifferent. They volunteered for this mission -- there is no draft. I don't feel especially sympathetic towards those who don't make deliberative and informed decisions when it comes to such matters, nor do I think that people should be shielded from the consequences of of their own unwillingness to do so.
Further, I don't really view the Iraq war as my conflict, any more than I view the Israeli/Palestinian conflict as mine, even though one of the factions in the Iraq war as composed predominately of Americans. I don't identify with or sympathize with "our" faction any more than I do the various native or regional factions. To be honest, I might be a little bit less sympathetic with "our" faction given that they're sponging of the taxes that working stiffs like me pay, which *could* be used in a manner that might actually be beneficial to those who pay them. I am not taking anybody's side, but sometimes, I notice myself thinking, "Well, every detonated IED brings us closer to a point of time in the future when our tax dollars won't be so brazenly wasted."
Of course, I'm not on political crusade like the anti-war activists are, and don't even discuss this issue with people who aren't already on the same page as I (and not very often with even them). They're trying to win over the patriotic types to their side, whereas I'm not trying to win over anybody. I don't expect we'll leave until the coffers are empty.
There's a weird thing going on up here (in Edmonton) where all city vehicles (EMS, Buses and maybe police cruisers) have been requested to put on these stickers (for the Canadian troops in Afghanistan). Apparently, they wanted to do the same thing in Toronto, but the mayor tried to put the kabosh on it because he felt it was part of a political campaign to drum up support for the military action. But then he got in trouble from all the jingoists who for some reason can get their names in the papers pretty easily. This was compounded by 6 Canadian troops getting killed in one shot the same day. So he put the kabosh on the kabosh.
Funny thing is, it seems even here in Edmonton, which has the largest Canadian military base in the country, which is also providing the majority of our troops over in Afghanistan, that most of the letters to the editor on the subject seem to see right through the silliness over those stickers, and recognize them as a sort of underhanded way of promoting the war.
As for supporting the Canadian troops in general, I'd at least like to know what the fuck they're doing over in Afghanistan, and I don't mean 'why are we there?' but, what exactly are they doing? Every once in awhile I hear that a mosque was bombed, or a wedding party, or even that they just killed a bunch of Taliban dudes, obviously none of which I support. Yet, other sources keep saying that they're protecting villagers and farmers from pretty violent warlords, which sounds nice. Then there's the classic, 'we're building schools and roads' which I'm not sure I support, cuz it seems like little more than a concerted effort to incorporate them in to the global marketplace where they can be more efficiently exploited.
As for the responsibility of the troops, I'm way more sympathetic to the American troops, given their powerful recruitment tactics, which are almost non-existent here. When I think back about how dumb I was at 17, and consider how much worse off I would have been with a lack of education, opportunity and so on, I'd be pretty susceptible to an army sales pitch. While I agree it's not an excuse, nor does it warrant any support for unethical behaviour (which is pretty ubiquitous in that situation) it does make them appear little more sympathetic.
I support the troops. They are fighting a just war in our name. They are building schools for Iraqi school children. They are promoting democracy where none existed before. They are safe guarding a natural resource that makes it possible for us to have the computers we use to bitch about them (where does the plastic used to construct our computers come from). They are fighting Al-Qeada in Iraq so that my daughter does not have to fight them over here. They were instrumental in bringing Saddam Hussein to justice at the end of a Shia rope. So why don't you just suck it. I wish there was a little yellow flag emoticon...
“Support our troops” is a way to squelch any debate over the propriety of the war in Iraq or elsewhere. Before the pro-war people justified intervention with tales of WMDs and lofty visions of freedom. Now a war supporter can freely acknowledge that there is no other purpose for this war but conquest and plunder, but can quickly point out that anyone who says so is a no good quisling who is putting american lives in danger, and for the sake of these innocent youths, that the war must go on. As one old codger yelled from his pickup during an anti-war protest," I support our troops. If you don't, love it or leave it .... faggot."
Some anti-war people has even taken a page from the pro-war folks by suggesting that the war should end so that we can bring the troops home, and point out American casualty figures. This seems to suggest that if casualties were lighter, then by all means, beat those brown bastards black and blue and suck all their oil out of the ground. The Iraqis deserve more sympathy than the damn troops. None of the calamity that has befallen them is any of their own making. The troops on the other hand chose to be soldiers.
Although recruiters tell lies, any recruit must realize that the purpose of an army is to fight in wars and that wars involve dying and being wounded or maimed. Maybe they wanted a college education or a career doing something related to their military specialty, but they did join an army. Perhaps they thought that the only ones dying would be skinnies what with the smart weapons and technological capabilities of the US army, and they could kick some ass while earning a little money. Is that really all that pitiable? If they underestimated their enemies and overestimated their own capabilities, and now are dying as a result, whose fault is it but their own. If they were willing to take innocent lives to build their career and now are being killed as a result, are they really misled innocents that should be protected at all costs. They ought to reap what they sow. Fuck the troops.
well, yeah, more or less.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/16452987@N00/1053877588/
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1127/1053877588_4f86d385a2.jpg
Post a Comment