For some, the phrase "support our troops" is merely a euphemism for: support the policies that put the troops there in the first place. For others—including many activists—the mantra is a safe way to avoid taking an unqualified, uncompromising stand against this war (and all war). Many who identify themselves as “anti-war” still vigorously defend the troops…no questions asked.
The excuse making typically falls into two broad categories. The first being: “Our troops are just following orders.”
A simple Web search will find many reasons why this concept has no legal basis. For example, Principle IV of Nuremberg Tribunal (1950) states: “The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.”
Besides this, it can be easily posited that “only following orders” also has no moral footing. Of course, the facile example would be Nazi Germany. But surely every suicide bomber is merely following orders as are those detonating IEDs in Iraq. The Left praised Vietnam era draftees who fled to Canada. Yet, today’s volunteer warriors are given a free pass because they didn’t give the orders in an illegal war and occupation. This is not only illegal and immoral; it also lacks any radical credibility. Somehow, individuals and groups can stand tall against war and military intervention but refuse to shine a light on those who choose (and get paid) to fight. Nowhere else in the realm of activism does such a paradox exist.
Consider the animal rights activists struggling to end the morally indefensible and scientifically fraudulent enterprise of animal experimentation. Can they expose the corporations and academic institutions but somehow "support" the actual scientists performing the lab experiments? Surely, they are "just doing their job" and “following orders.”
How about those fighting to end unfair labor practices? Is it acceptable to call out the CEOs of Nike & The Gap but hang yellow ribbons for those who handle day-to-day operations of a sweatshop in, say, Vietnam? These men and women are just as “stuck in a bad situation” as any grunt in Iraq or Afghanistan.
The second excuse usually sounds like this: “It’s a poverty draft. These poor souls have to enlist because they any economic options.” America is certainly an unjust economic society and this would be a compelling argument…if it were true. A 2006 New York Times op-ed highlighted a study by Tim Kane and Mackenzie Eaglen that “analyzed demographic data on every single enlistee, not just a sample, and found that in terms of education, last year’s recruits were just as qualified as those of any recent year, and maybe the best ever. Over all, wartime recruits since 1999 are in many respects comparable to the youth population on the whole, except that they are on average a bit wealthier, much more likely to have graduated from high school and more rural than their civilian peers.” They also found that youths “from wealthy American ZIP codes are volunteering in ever higher numbers” while “enlistees from the poorest fifth of American neighborhoods fell nearly a full percentage point over the last two years, to 13.7 percent. In 1999, that number was exactly 18 percent.”
So, are some of the soldiers in Iraq there primarily for economic reasons? Sure. Did others sign up for a chance to shoot some “ragheads”? Probably. After factoring out these two relatively small groups and rejecting the illegal, immoral, and reactionary “only following orders” defense, I ask this of anti-war activists: Exactly how are the men and women who willingly signed up to wage war in Iraq and Afghanistan immune from any and all scrutiny and/or blame?
After all, what do you think “our troops” are doing? "We know that 99.9% of our forces conduct themselves in an exemplary manner,” says Donald Rumsfeld. “We also know that in conflicts things that shouldn't happen do happen."
If only 1/10 of 1% of US soldiers make “things happen that shouldn't happen,” what are the rest doing to have us standing and singing "God Bless America" during the 7th inning stretch at Yankee Stadium? How do we define exemplary manner?
By Rumsfeld's reckoning (and the standard company line of most every politician, pundit, and peon) "exemplary" includes (among other things) the use of Daisy Cutters, cluster bombs, napalm, depleted uranium, white phosphorus, and the launching cruise missiles into crowded cities.
"Things that shouldn't happen do happen," Rumsfeld explains. But what about all the stuff that this society accepts "should" happen? Why would anyone besides a sadist feel compelled to support that unconditionally?
There are two powerful myths/ironies propping up the “support the troops” premise. The first involves what they are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan in the first place. I can’t tell you how many e-mails I’ve received over the years that read something like this: “While you sit at home in your luxurious apartment, making money off your writing (insert laugh track here), those brave men and women are putting their asses on the line to fight for your freedom to write your anti-American garbage.
I say: Bullshit.
The troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are not fighting for my freedom. They are fighting to keep the world safe for petroleum. If anything, since 9/11, our freedom has been slowly eroded and the presence of the US military in Iraq and Afghanistan makes it harder for anyone to speak up in dissent. If I were in an airport, and I spoke aloud what I’ve written in this article, I’d likely be detained or arrested.
Irony #2: While most American citizens are manipulated, harassed, coerced, and guilted into hanging yellow ribbons—even if they’re anti-war—from Shays Rebellion in 1787 to Coxey’s Army to the Bonus Army to the Gulf War Syndrome to a quarter-million homeless vets today, generation after generation of US military personnel has suffered a lack of support from their own government (and the corporations that own it). “Our troops” are just as controlled and exploited as the US citizens that worship them.
And one more thing: Let’s stop with the “our troops” charade. You and I may foot the bill, but “we” have no say in what they do. If those truly were “my” men and women, I’d bring them right home and put them to work doing something useful…like turning the Long Island Expressway into the world’s longest organic farm.
I would say that you have said a lot of "Bullshit". Our troops are American citizens just like you and me(well, me at any rate). They have knowledge and views just the same as all of us do. As a Vietnam Vet I lived through a period where the majority of US citizens thought the same way you did and they were just as wrong then as you are now. Attacking our military will not stop any war, right or wrong. The only way to stop wars like Bush's stupidity is to stop Bush and his corrupt administration. In spite of the lame Congress we still have a better chance of removing Bush/Cheney than of causing a revolt amongst US troops. We cannot get a consensus amongst civilians and you will not have any chance with the troops either.
Our military is there to protect us from either foreign powers or internal forces such as natural disasters. There will always be a need for these forces due to the frailty of mankind. Our main concern must be to control the people who control the troops. Are the troops responsible for electing the Bush/Cheney regime? I think not. The American voter and Bush's manipulating of votes were the cause and We, the people, are responsible for getting rid of him. Our only hope(Obi Kenobi) is to ban together to get Congress's attention in such away that they have no choice but to remove most of the Bush administration and indict those who have committed crimes. It is not the troops that we have lost control of, it is the government itself. If America is going to survive Bush and his regime cannot. The only presidential candidate with a chance of reversing the damage of the last 8 years is Obama. Clinton and McCain are only extensions of Bush. Obama may not be the best of all candidates but he is definitely the best of what is left(those that have a real chance of winning at least). If too many third party candidates show up it will give the crooks a better chance at staying in power so beware of them too. Quit wasting your breath assailing the troops and start pressuring your Representatives to remove the real cause of our failing nation.
by
Hayesml47 (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 388 comments)
on Friday, March 14, 2008 at 1:11:26 PM
To the extent that Mickey has directed his attention in this article to the military - the enforcers of the federal government in international situations - I agree with him. One cannot "support the troops" and be against the current wars. Without a significant number of young men and women willing to take orders to do what the Commander in Chief decides is "in the national interest", the occupant of the White House and all those below him/her in the Executive branch chain of command would be left standing babbling words and issuing paper versions of the same.
It takes quite some imagination to picture the current president and any of his underlings (or any others in recent history) actually doing the harmful acts to those people to whom all those missiles, bombs, bullets, and other weapons are directed. The current wars in which US troops are participating are not ones in which the US itself is being attacked by foreign troops. In such a case, I doubt that there would be any reluctance by most individuals of both genders, all ages, and all educational and financial status to do whatever they could and was necessary to repel the invaders.
It is because it is not the situation of the US being invaded, but rather that the US troops are the invaders now, that makes all the difference. And US troops have been invaders for most all the foreign armed conflicts in which they have been involved since the founding of the country. In the past, excuses could be made that the general public - from which all the troops come - knew only what they were told and would convince them that the country itself was in peril if the war was not taken "over there". And in a very few cases that was most likely true; but in the vast majority a study of history has shown this was a considerable exaggeration, almost certainly for the benefit of the politicians at the time.
I have written elsewhere on the subject of negative social preferencing those individuals who choose to be government enforcers - those who do the harm that their superiors order. Two specific articles: "Social Preferencing - Evaluation and Choice of Association; A Method for Influence" and "Incremental Approach - A Better Method for Effecting Change" This last article, written exactly 1 year ago, is primarily an encouragement for the "inform them" route that Mickey urges. I closed that article with, "Small incremental steps may be the best way to introduce a new idea to those who have not already expressed an interest in those ideas and who may actually be acting in opposition to them."
**Kitty Antonik Wakfer
MoreLife for the rational - http://morelife.org Reality based tools for more life in quantity and quality Self-Sovereign Individual Project - http://selfsip.org Self-sovereignty, rational pursuit of optimal lifetime happiness, individual responsibility, social preferencing & social contracting
by
Kitty Antonik Wakfer (14 articles, 3 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 100 comments)
on Friday, March 14, 2008 at 4:13:40 PM
I cannot help but wonder if either of you 2 have been in the military. You would be amazed at what a difference it makes having actual experience in what you are talking about!
by
Hayesml47 (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 388 comments)
on Friday, March 14, 2008 at 9:59:15 PM
