'Support the troops' but not war?

I have been struggling to reconcile the divergent views on 'supporting the troops.' Suprisingly I've found criticism from both ends of the spectrum. Thought I'd share a few of the articles, so this is kinda long (although I cut parts out). What do you think? Can you 'support the troops' but not war?

Don’t Support the Troops

"Support the troops – Bring them home!" is a familiar refrain in current libertarian antiwar dogma. The slogan assumes they want to come home. It assumes they don’t like what they’re doing over there. It practically assumes they’re libertarians. But are they? If so, why did they join the military? The fact is that American soldiers probably reflect the attitudes on war and interventionism of the US populace at large. Let’s face an unpleasant truth: the voting majority in the US is pro-intervention. That same majority thinks that both World Wars were swell adventures, and that, if Vietnam was a failure, it was at least a noble effort. This is the pool from which the United States draws its military. Soldiers may think they’re defending the country, or they may believe that action, whatever the consequences, is better than inaction. In other words, better to do something about an atrocity than stand by and allow it to happen. This kind of thinking needs to be debunked and it cannot be done successfully without reasoned criticism of the troops. Libertarians cannot say that war planners and the ideologues who drive them are evil, but that the instruments of those plans are peaceable innocents.

There’s a tendency in libertarian circles to think that radical criticism of supposed sacred cows will prove to be disastrous to the future of the movement. I look at it differently. I think the other side should be ashamed of themselves, and we should encourage such shame with our rhetoric. We should not apologize for our views; we should make the statists apologize. We are libertarians, they are totalitarians; is this not correct? When I see libertarians Supporting the Troops! and reserving criticism for policy-makers, I see this view in practice...

The state is greater than the individual; more important than anything else, and all must be sacrificed to protect it, even from its own parts. Those who are willing to sacrifice themselves should be held above all others – praised as though they were saints. This is what we’re tacitly saying when we Support the Troops!

Many libertarians I read regularly gloss over the issue of The Troops, and exactly what they’re doing in their glorious adventures. When atrocities occur, it is reported as "the US did it…" or "the administration did it…" The terms are invariably abstract enough so that no names are named.

The US has an all-volunteer army now. These aren’t the days of the draft, where men are ordered to kill-or-be-killed (though even in the days of the draft, it was possible to peacefully resist). Still, many arguments abound against criticism of troops:

The troops were lied to by the administration, specifically with regards WMDs. What a revolutionary idea, that politicians lie. Strange that we libertarians never believed those lies. Strange that we knew from the second that they escaped Colin L. Powell’s lips that it was, as Powell himself said, "bullsh*t." I suppose we libertarians have access to special information that everyone else can’t see or make any use of.

They’re naïve; they didn’t understand what they were getting into when they signed up. And yet, again, we do seem to understand. Libertarians did not sign up, because we didn’t want to kill or be killed, for the state. What have we been doing right that they have not? Is the information so hidden that they cannot seek out and determine for themselves what they’re getting themselves into? Certainly there is no substitute for experience, which they certainly lack. But is it not their responsibility, given what they do know about their impending duties, to seek out and inform themselves of what awaits? They are, after all, being asked to take a weapon and kill other human beings. They know that much. That’s not the sort of thing one would do in Sunday school. How much more pathetic and contemptible does it make them that they didn’t properly investigate the situation before they volunteered? It is also reasonable to assume that many of them do understand and are happy to carry out their orders, and it is reasonable to ask what we would do in their place, and why they do not do so. If we had joined the military, gone to Iraq, and suddenly become libertarians, what would we do? Would we not do as Kevin Benderman has done? Refuse to obey any future orders, and willingly go to prison for it. Better that than continue to kill. The fact that the troops continue to obey orders, and some no doubt enjoy their jobs, clearly reflects their attitudes – and suggests what level of sympathy they deserve.

In joining, they’re acting in their financial best interests, like we all do. It’s not their fault, it’s the system. Some equate the military to being on a public works project. Before you continue with this easy, lazy line of thought, be sure to draw a clear moral demarcation point between building a road and blasting someone’s head off.

Troops are victims of military planners. If so, they share equal responsibility for their victimhood. What do we call someone who’s killed by an invading force? We usually try not to call them anything at all. We usually ignore them and focus on our own casualties. They are, however, clearly victims. The troops who have victimized them share responsibility with the military planners. Troops are not mindless machines, automatons carrying out prearranged instructions as if without free will. At any time, they can lay down their weapons and refuse kill.

War is just one big insane disaster; blaming individual troops for what happens is not fair. Military-worshipper Tom Hanks made a similar comment on Charlie Rose’s program a while back. He said "In the Vietnam War, there were no bad guys." A deft maneuver – reducing thoughtful, reasoned analysis into a 2-second sound bite, while simultaneously granting pardons all around. This is an argument against war, not against joining the military and following orders. If you and I know that war is an insane kill-fest, then why doesn’t GI Joe know it beforehand? And isn’t it his responsibility to know?

Conclusion

It’s easy for libertarians to dislike politicians, but not so easy for them to dislike GI Joe. We hold brutal killers like John Wesley Hardin or Charles Manson in the lowest regard, but the difference between these killers and military troops is semantic and symbolic. It’s time to address the issue of the troops with the brutality it richly deserves. It’s time to deconstruct the myth of the glorious military adventure. It’s long past time we shame people who think about military service. Perhaps then fewer young people will throw their lives away. "Kill the head and the body will die" is a truism that many libertarians no doubt use to justify their attitudes towards the troops. But the supply of troops and the attitudes regarding them is also a key. Shame people into refusing to join and the supply of cannon fodder will atrophy to the point where foreign adventures will not be possible without a draft. Will the populace accept a draft? I have an idea that a draft at this point would be the same as poking a sleeping grizzly bear with a stick. Try it, just try it.

Support Our Trooops (You Mean War Criminals? Nuh-Uh)

This brings us to the conclusion of this Glorious Revolutionary Pamphlet: a discussion of imperial agents—i.e. the “troops”—and the call by many of the center-right-liberal-establishment-left spectrum to “support” them.

No. No. No.

There exists a question that all those of the “Support the Troops” tendency must confront: how does one “support” troops executing a grotesque and inhumane collective war crime?

The Federation cannot support agents of the following: destruction of civilian hospitals, destruction of civilian water and energy supplies, destruction and razing of civilian homes, prison torture and humiliation, and military orders to shoot without regard for whether potential targets are “hostile.” ...The only troops deserving of “support” and who deserve the term “war hero” are those who disobey orders and resist this war. It is impossible otherwise to support the troops when the troops are carrying out war crimes and are thus war criminals themselves, some individually, all collectively. “We were just following orders” did not work for the Nazis—it should not work for the American troops, either.

 

Why I Do Not Support The Troops

For the last four years, the anti-war movement has been seriously handicapping itself with its "We support the troops but we're against war" mantra of qualified dissent. Initially, the phrasing of this message was a reflexive attempt to fit into the context of pro-militarism created by the Neocon spinmeisters who quickly established a flag-waving, "Support our troops" litmus test in the aftermath of the tragedies of September 11th.

Wanting to avoid being branded as un-American traitors from the get-go, the left promptly started couching their verbiage in the newly minted criteria for patriotism. Unfortunately, that line of thinking is still alive and well today and has become a serious detriment to bringing an end to the agenda of empire.

One of the guilt factors that continues to keep the mostly white and privileged anti-war movement supporting the troops is the argument that many soldiers come from impoverished circumstances and are motivated to join the military because of the education and job benefits that are marketed by recruiters and glossy advertisements. Implicit in this angst is the assumption that it is racist and classist to deny the "benefits" of military service to those who choose to enlist just because of our own ideological objections to the military industrial complex.

There are several major problems with this line of reasoning. First, the benefits aren't all they are cracked up to be. For some, military service has been a positive experience on a personal level, but for too many others, it has not. Many military personnel receive no educational benefits at all and only a few receive full benefits.

In addition, while the military boasts about job benefits, the reality is that, according to the Veteran's Administration, veterans actually make less money in civilian life than those without military experience. They also make up 1/3 of homeless men and 20% of the nation's prison population.

How then can it be appropriate to support recruits who sign up for benefits that are overstated if not totally illusory? By saying that we understand that they signed up because of the benefits, we are buying into the myth of the military as a tool for social betterment. In essence, we are excusing them (and ourselves) from questioning the morality of their participation in a system that was designed to wage war.

Getting bogged down in this line of reasoning also keeps us from examining how increased military spending, as well as trade agreements like CAFTA, destroy our economy. Would we not better support those who join the military for the job benefits if we insisted that our spending priorities emphasize education and job training, rather than cutting those funds so that the only option left is the military?

By supporting those who sign up for the benefits, we are saying that we think they are so low on the totem poll that the only way we are going to give them a chance to better themselves and lead a productive life is if they first risk their lives for something that we don't actually even believe in. And then maybe, possibly, depending on the small print at the bottom of their contracts, they might get the benefits.

Most importantly, supporting those who sign up to serve their country totally excuses the immorality of justifying the unjust as patriotism. There can be no excuse for enriching the coffers of the likes of Halliburton while bleeding dry our human capital and the resources of this planet.

It is not now nor has it ever been in the best interests of our country, any other country, or indeed the planet to kill innocent people, to poison the environment with nuclear weaponry, to destroy cities and deprive people of their health or the basic necessities of life for any reason. It does not matter what their religion or skin color is or what language they speak or how much oil is under their sand.

As Cindy Sheehan has so eloquently pointed out, using our children as "human cluster-bombs" to kill other children in never-ending wars is not a family value, it is the callous betrayal of our youth and the wanton destruction of our future.

It is for these reasons that I will not say that I support our troops.

http://practicalpenumbra.mu.nu/archives/102000.php

I do not understand why so many on the left are unable to see the fundamental paradox--I am tempted to call it hypocrisy, but I suspect that may be too harsh--in their statements of support for troops who they believe are torturing, maiming and killing innocent bystanders. The old "I was just obeying orders" didn't cut it at Nuremberg, and it doesn't cut it today.

Contradictions of 'supporting the troops?'

Liberals, Democrats and others on the Left frequently state that they "support the troops." For most of them, whether they realize it or not, this is not true. They feel they must say this because the majority of Americans would find any other position unacceptable. Indeed, for most liberals, the thought that they really do not support the troops is unacceptable even to them.

Lest this argument be dismissed as an attack on leftist Americans' patriotism, let it be clear that leftists' patriotism is not the issue here. Their honesty is.

In order to understand this, we need to first have a working definition of the term "support the troops." Presumably it means that one supports what the troops are doing and rooting for them to succeed. What else could "support the troops" mean? If you say, for example, that you support the Yankees or the Dodgers, we assume it means you want them to win.

But most of the Left does not want the troops to win in Iraq. The Left's message is this: "You troops may think you are winning; you may think you are doing good and moral things in Iraq; you may believe you are fighting the worst human beings of our age and protecting us against the scourge of Islamic terror. But we on the Left believe none of that. We believe this war is being fought for oil and for Halliburton and other corporations; we believe you are waging a war that is both illegal and immoral; we believe you have invaded a country for no good reason and have killed a hundred thousand Iraqis [the Left's generally mentioned number] for no good reason; but, hey, we sure do support you."

Honest people on the Left need to understand that the two positions are not reconcilable. A German citizen during World War II could not have argued: "The Nazi regime's army is engaged in an evil war of aggression and is slaughtering millions of innocent people, and I therefore completely oppose this war, but I sure do support the Nazi troops."

One example is the claim made by Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry and almost all other Democrats and liberals that the war in Iraq is "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time." How does one support troops that are fighting a wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time? A few leftist writers have been honest enough to say, "Nothing personal, guys, but I sure don't support you." But the vast majority of the Left and all Democratic politicians have not been honest on this matter.

A second example is the oft-repeated line, found on liberal bumper stickers, "War is not the answer." Aside from the idiocy of this claim -- war has solved slavery, ended the Holocaust, destroyed Japanese Fascism, preserved half the Korean peninsula from near-genocide, and saved Israel from extinction, among other noble achievements -- the claim offers no support to those who do engage in war.

How could one believe that "war is not the answer" and also claim to "support the troops," the very people waging what is "not the answer"? The answer is, by being dishonest.

A third example is the Left's opposition to military recruitment on most of the elite and many other college campuses. So deep is leftist disdain for troops that most on the Left regard the mere presence of military personnel on a university campus as a form of contamination. Yet, the Left claims to "support the troops...."

 

Are you a doctor? j/k

Hmmm, well - each of the articles tackles this kind of sentiment. I cut a bunch more out so you don't have to read the whole thing:

"I do not understand why so many on the left are unable to see the fundamental paradox--I am tempted to call it hypocrisy, but I suspect that may be too harsh--in their statements of support for troops who they believe are torturing, maiming and killing innocent bystanders. The old "I was just obeying orders" didn't cut it at Nuremberg, and it doesn't cut it today."

"Honest people on the Left need to understand that the two positions are not reconcilable. A German citizen during World War II could not have argued: "The Nazi regime's army is engaged in an evil war of aggression and is slaughtering millions of innocent people, and I therefore completely oppose this war, but I sure do support the Nazi troops."

"How could one believe that "war is not the answer" and also claim to "support the troops," the very people waging what is "not the answer"? The answer is, by being dishonest."

"Soldiers may think they’re defending the country, or they may believe that action, whatever the consequences, is better than inaction. In other words, better to do something about an atrocity than stand by and allow it to happen. This kind of thinking needs to be debunked and it cannot be done successfully without reasoned criticism of the troops. Libertarians cannot say that war planners and the ideologues who drive them are evil, but that the instruments of those plans are peaceable innocents."

"The US has an all-volunteer army now. These aren’t the days of the draft, where men are ordered to kill-or-be-killed (though even in the days of the draft, it was possible to peacefully resist)...It is also reasonable to assume that many of them do understand and are happy to carry out their orders, and it is reasonable to ask what we would do in their place, and why they do not do so. If we had joined the military, gone to Iraq, and suddenly become libertarians, what would we do? Would we not do as Kevin Benderman has done? Refuse to obey any future orders, and willingly go to prison for it. Better that than continue to kill. The fact that the troops continue to obey orders, and some no doubt enjoy their jobs, clearly reflects their attitudes – and suggests what level of sympathy they deserve."

"In joining, they’re acting in their financial best interests, like we all do. It’s not their fault, it’s the system. Some equate the military to being on a public works project. Before you continue with this easy, lazy line of thought, be sure to draw a clear moral demarcation point between building a road and blasting someone’s head off."

"Troops are victims of military planners. If so, they share equal responsibility for their victimhood. What do we call someone who’s killed by an invading force? We usually try not to call them anything at all. We usually ignore them and focus on our own casualties. They are, however, clearly victims. The troops who have victimized them share responsibility with the military planners. Troops are not mindless machines, automatons carrying out prearranged instructions as if without free will. At any time, they can lay down their weapons and refuse kill."

 

Funny. We make fun of the pro-interventionist for having a yellow ribbon on their SUVs, then buy a cool t-shirt to express our dissent.

 

TR maybe?

 

I think it covers the bases of people's motives. Not all people think all of these things, true. Which apply to each is up to them to defend I believe.

Some say the whole intervention is illegal. Glynch, for instance - and yet he 'supports the troops.' Those would face the contradictions listed above. In addition the troops do kill innocent people - a general byproduct of war.

Not sure where you're getting your percentages. Care to elaborate?

Not sure how you support the troops but not what they DO (as opposed to 'asked to do.'). What exactly are you supporting? Not their decisions or their actions, presumably.

Interesting. As pointed out above there is a difference between building a road and blowing someone's head off. If you don't think there is anything illegal or unethical about the intervention, then I'm not sure what the problem IS unless you don't think we should be involved 'in someone else's business.' If that's the narrow parameters of your complaint then we can discuss that in relation to genocide, nuclear proliferation, and a host of other issues.

 

oops.