<p>We all say, or have heard that , yes, we emphatically support the troops in Iraq – it is just the WAR itself that we oppose. Well, how can we truly support them and not support their collective actions which are what comprise the war.</p>
<p>Such an obvious contradiction will do much to undermine their feelings of self-worth and satisfaction that what they went over there to do was the right thing, once they return home and look at themselves (a large number having wounds and grotesque disfigurements they will have to live with for the rest of their lives), and confront the fact that we Americans were against what they did. </p>
<p>Will they say?: “Hey, look at me, half my face was blown off, but at least I went over there for a good and just cause and I am looked on as a HERO here in the States, so I can live with it.”</p>
<p>Or, will they say?: “Hey, look at me, half my face was blown off – and for what – so that I can return home to a country that despises what I did over there, and only looks at me with pity, when they can look at all?! I can’t take seeing that everyday. What am I living for, after sacrificing SO MUCH of myself…better to end it.”</p>
<p>Do the troops need our FULL support? – we better believe it!</p>
<p>And that is the terrible fact of war that must not be overlooked. Are we in it or are we not? Do we support the troops or is it superficial lip service? Do we welcome home heroes or walking tragedies? And, if we view them as tragedies let us at least find the courage to state that we DO NOT support our troops, and shed this cloak of hypocrisy.</p>
<p>It seems odd to me that the right wing has trouble understanding that someone could support the troops and oppose the war, when you all do the same thing, only in reverse. Many of those in favor of the war but are AGAINST support for the troops–and no one sees that as a contradiction. </p>
<p>Or by “support” did you mean things like placing a yellow ribbon on your car, rather than doing anything of practical and material use to soldiers, like training and equipping them, and caring for them when they are wounded? </p>
<p>You’re looking in the wrong direction for hypocrisy and lip-service. I have to admit, the pro war people have the critics beat in the yellow ribbon department. Otherwise, not so much.</p>
<p>Pro war politicians have voted over and over again AGAINST equipping our troops adequately and against providing wounded soldiers with adequate health care and rehabilitative services. The wartime administration budget even calls for billions of dollars in cuts to VA services over the next five years, even as we create more and more disabled veterans. The prowar administration is now sending battalions over to Iraq without giving them the two weeks of desert training that previously have been considered a bare minimum essential.</p>
<p>ETA: I’ve asked over and over again, if any of the pro-war posters here on CC would support the troops currently in Iraq by advocating that their state send more National Guard and Reservists so that the troops from over-mobilized states could get a rest. Not one person has taken me up on it. Not one pro-war poster here has shown any interest in the conditions at Walter Reed or in DragonSkin body armor. </p>
<p>I am against the surge because respected military strategists–who so far have been right in their predictions about Iraq–say it can only hurt, not help. I support the troops by believing that policies that affect them should be set by competent, experienced people, not pipedreamers with poor track records.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Is it possible that, in the history of the world, a country has ever engaged in a mistaken and self-destructive, or even immoral, military adventure?</p></li>
<li><p>Is it permissible for the citizens of a democracy to question whether their country is engaged in a mistaken and self-destructive, or even immoral, military adventure? In your world, how does that happen?</p></li>
<li><p>Short of war-crimes type behavior, does anyone think that “the troops” have any significant personal responsibility for war policy? </p></li>
<li><p>In what moral universe does hyper-concern about the self-esteem of veterans have a status completely superior to concern about the wisdom, benefits, and morality of national policy? Are you really suggesting that, supposing the war in Iraq really is mistaken and self-destructive, no one should say anything about it because it might make returning soldiers feel bad about themselves? </p></li>
<li><p>How long does that last? How should the Germans and the Japanese teach their children about WWII? The Russians about Afghanistan? How should we teach our children about Vietnam? Isn’t there a risk that if anyone criticizes the strategic conduct of the Vietnam War, that raises the specter that not all soldiers who died or were wounded in that war made a sacrifice that effectively advanced our national interests? Could that make current soldiers feel less secure about their place in history? So is that impermissible, too? What is permissible?</p></li>
<li><p>How should Americans teach their children about German and Japanese involvement in WWII? That their soldiers were all irreducibly evil, because of some flaw in national character or even ethnic makeup? If not, doesn’t that raise the specter that honorable soldiers, without personal fault, might make sacrifices in an ignoble cause? Should we ban (or boycott) Letters From Iwo Jima, because even a child can understand the suggestion that there was no essential moral difference between the footsoldiers on each side, and that self-sacrifice may not always be effective? How far do you take your idea?</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Now this – this is pernicious. Go read about the behavior of German troops in Russia, or Russian troops in Germany, or Japanese troops in China and then come back and tell me that all soldiers of all armies are morally equivalent. Then read accounts about how US and British soldiers behaved in Germany or Japan during the invasion and occupation. When you’re done come back and tell me that all soldiers of all armies are morally equivalent. Writing letters home to loved ones does not excuse the destruction of the Ukraine or the rape of Nanking or what happened in Berlin in 1945.</p>
<p>It’s called revisionism, WashDad. Or moral relativism – everyone’s right, in their own way. This kind of thinking doesn’t believe in the division between good and evil, right and wrong. </p>
<p>WashDad: You may have skipped over the “short of war-crimes type behavior” caveat in my Socratic punchlist. Of course, those responsible for Nanking, etc., are morally culpable and should be condemned. And are. How about My Lai – much smaller, but still horrifying? How about Atlanta? Abu Ghraib? How about Carthage?</p>
<p>I actually worry about this a lot, because I can’t imagine that it’s good for morale for soldiers to worry about whether they are going to be charged as war criminals for stuff they do in the heat of battle. And I think a lot of the complaints from Vietnam vets about how they were treated when they returned stemmed more from a sense that they were being lumped together with Lt. Calley than a sense that everyone should be pretending that they had won a great victory for Democracy and Civilization. So I wonder whether “supporting the troops” really should mean damping down criticism of isolated brutality. And I also wonder whether the military is a little too aggressive with prosecuting the enlisted soldiers to avoid looking too hard at the responsibility of their commanders.</p>
<p>“yes, we emphatically support the troops in Iraq”</p>
<p>I do not, repeat, do not, support the troops. I support individuals and their families (and when I say support, I mean spiritually, emotionally, and financially, and regularly) caught in a web of lies, deceit, misinformation, and utter malfeasance. I wish better for them. And I am working actively for it. (And don’t let me get started on what one of the families I have been supporting has gone through - it makes the Walter Reed fiasco sound like a picnic.)</p>
<p>I do think, however, we can all support the occupation:</p>
<p>mini, you know I don’t agree with you on political issues, but you are just about the only person I know who admits to not supporting the troops. At least you are honest, and I respect that.</p>
<p>I am not benefiting from the occupation, so I don’t support it either.</p>
<p>Though Mr. Cheney does, since his options have increased in value 3000%. No matter how many times I type that, it still doesn’t cease to amaze me.</p>
<p>And I have been clear a hundred times that I don’t support the troops in this mission either. I support their lives, so I support our bringing them home. I can think of no greater tribute of support, than wishing to protect them from being unnecessarily in harm’s way.</p>
<p>And sjmom, you are nuts if you think I, too, don’t see WWII as a victory of good over evil. That’s why I used it as an example. Germany and Japan were evil. In order for that to happen, lots of leaders, political and military, and lots of followers, too, had to do a lot of evil things. At the same time, I think it’s pretty clear that not all, or even necessarily most, of the citizens and soldiers of each country were evil people.</p>
<p>We criticize the Japanese all the time about soft-pedaling how they teach kids about Japanese militarism in WWII, and their former PM’s visit to a shrine for the war dead was an international incident. But, on leanid’s logic, the Japanese are doing exactly the right thing. Or, if it’s not right, that’s because they are Japanese and therefore inherently evil, and we are American and therefore inherently good, and subject to a different set of rules. </p>
<p>I think that we ARE good, but that one of the things that keeps us that way, in general, is that people are allowed to call “foul” in public when we maybe do some things that are wrong, or misguided. And I think it’s possible to have all the respect in the world for our soldiers and still to question the wisdom of the policy that put them in this situation and the strategy that’s supposed to make it better. And I wish people in Germany and Japan in the 1930s had followed my logic, and not leanid’s.</p>
<p>I think you’ve touched on a significant distinction here. Front-line troops live in an environment that I do not understand. Unless you’ve been there, you don’t either. I think it’s safe to say that in all armies, the front line soldiers make decisions that sound awful after the fact in a warm, dry room with lots of time to think. Soldiers kill other soldiers trying to surrender because they know they can’t watch over them in combat. They accept surrender when they have the resources, and sometimes they don’t. That’s part of war. If the enemy in a bunker just killed half a soldier’s patrol, he’s not likely to be merciful toward them, even if they are 12-year-old kids waving white flags five minutes later. That’s war.</p>
<p>What sets armies apart is how they behave towards civilians and prisoners once they are in custody. I’m not an idiot, I understand that soldiers of all armies have committed atrocities against civilians and prisoners. In occupied Germany there were crimes against citizens that were never prosecuted. There were also American soldiers tried, convicted and executed for rape and murder. This would have been simply unknown in the Japanese or Soviet armies. The critical featur of My Lai is that it was legally prosecuted afterwards, not that it happened – and that while you can find documentation of tens of thousands of rapes and murders when the Red Army overran East Germany and Poland, you won’t about the US/British occupation of West Germany. There are moral differences in how different societies prosecute wars, and, yes, I think the US has been generally better than most about separating actual battle incidents from ruthless destruction of non-combatants.</p>
<p>WWII is more complex than just “the free world vs. Hitler.” I’ll grant that that was a triumph of good vs. evil. </p>
<p>However, a lot of people don’t consider the domination of Eastern Europe by Soviet Russia, and the political oppression and perhaps millions of deaths that resulted, as a triumph of “good” over anything. I think you would have more in common with those people than you realise.</p>
<p>And just because Hitler’s cause was evil, I don’t it’s fair to say that the average Axis footsoldier was “evil.” When Italy switched from the Axis to the Allies, it wasn’t because the “evil” footsoldiers had all undergone some simultaneous mass spiritual and personal redemption. Absent an illegal order, the boots on the ground do what the higher ups tell them. </p>
<p>It doesn’t make any more sense to accuse people of not supporting the soldiers for disagreeing with policy than it does to accuse your spouse of betraying you if he doesn’t like a book your teacher assigns you to read in grad school.</p>
<p>How do we support our troops leanid? Considering that the invasion into Iraq was based on lies linking SH to al Q, grossly faulty intelligence, and a fundamental lack of understanding about the geo-ethnic issues in the country that has devolved into a civil war, support of our troops can only be accomplished by getting them the hell out of the utter mess we have created.</p>
<p>And now it is reported that the administration is resorting to funding of Sunni terrorist groups in Saudi Arabia to stabilize factions in Iraq? What an unmitigated disaster.</p>
<p>I agree, It’s a travesty that the people who voted to re-elect politicians who voted against properly equipping our troops and voted against giving them the health care they need, won’t admit that they don’t support the troops. In fact, these voters have acted very specifically to REDUCE and PREVENT support for our troops.</p>
<p>The people who insist that the troops should go to Iraq without desert training, without sufficient jammers, trucks, and armored vehicles, without a budgetary commitment to care properly for them when they’re injured…why can’t they just admit that they don’t support our troops? The debate would be a lot more refreshing if they were at least honest.</p>
<p>“mini, you know I don’t agree with you on political issues, but you are just about the only person I know who admits to not supporting the troops. At least you are honest, and I respect that.”</p>
<p>Okay, so instead of us going on and off regarding whether the Bush daughters should be “sacrificed”, what tangibly are you doing to support them? Are you caring for children left behind by their parent(s)? Employing disabled vets? Providing free mental health counseling for the returnees? Handing out baskets of food on the base for those struggling to get by? The reason I mentioned these in particular is because I am, both directly, and closely indirectly, doing all these things, and I DON’T support the troops. But I would sure like to have some troop supporters join me.</p>
<p>I do not believe that JHS was being a relativist, nor to I believe his remarks above were insinuating that the “Allied” and “Axis” soldiers were morally equivalent in their abuse of either civilians or soldiers.</p>
<p>I do, however, think that the left has a bit of a historical problem when it comes to “supporting the troops”, as it were. I suspect the very idea often sticks in their craw–not always, just often.
In the liberal imagination, “troops” too often wear “jack-boots” and other such paraphernalia they occasionally associate with fascism.</p>
<p>I read the following and felt it touched on this bit of ideological contortion. It is specifically adressing British politics but to the degree that the American left looks ever fondly upon Europe for its liberal-legitimacy, it applies.</p>
<p>I understand your point, but haven’t you ever heard the phrase “the victors write history.”? </p>
<p>Our troops actions are only as good as the moral authority of their command. Having my dad spend roughly four years in a Japanese prison camp (he was on Wake ) I have read (camp accounts) and know first hand how cruel it was. However, I also subscribe to the ideal that what we fight for is to be better than that, not the same, not eye for an eye but better. American’s like to see themselves as the world’s best in everything. We expect a high standard of conduct, period. </p>
<p>I can easily say I support the troops while at the same time voicing disaproval of leadership, because I think the leadership has made the effort to do this on the cheap, almost as a dare of minimalization, when we really needed to put 1 million troops on the ground, seal the borders and establish a permanet large presence of troops. I don’t know if that “liberal”, but I do know that’s how you win wars. If fewer, with better wins, we’d all be speaking german. We won ww2 cause there were more of us, than of them. We could lose 3 shermans to each panzer, because we still had 5 shermans left. </p>
<p>From the begining, this has been mismanaged. I cannot and will not support mismanagement like this. It does not support the troops, it kills the troops. If we’re gonna be there, we should REALLY be there. If not, we should leave.</p>
<p>I think a fairer statement would be: in the right wing spin doctors’ paranoid fantasies about the liberal imagination, “troops” too often wear “jack-boots” and other such paraphernalia they occasionally associate with fascism.</p>
<p>I think the fact that you perceive liberals this way says more about liberals than it does about you.</p>