Supporting the troops

Define "support".

Well, I think it's wrong to support the administration and their destructive decisions. But a lot of these troops are young and lack education, and none of them decided to go on their own. They're following orders because they believe enough in the American way to put their lives on the line. It's unquestioning faith, ignorant but no less meaningful.

Well, I think a majority of recruits before 9/11 were just looking for a way to pay for college and make their Daddies proud, with the "We're not in a war right now - what could go wrong?" train of thought. I also think that a majority who signed up afterwards were angry, scared and didn't know what else to do and got swept up in the whole "Main Street, USA" mentality.

And as far as following their own morality - I always thought that's what Boot Camp was - a complete breakdown of their free will and independent thought, essentially making them robots.

So maybe it's not so much "supporting" them as it is "sympathizing." A lot of these kids probably honestly didn't know what they had gotten themselves into.

And then of course there are those who sing songs about murdering little kids - fuck those guys.

I'm with Mr. Butler. There's no reason to paint the whole group with one brush. I do indeed feel for some of the folks over there.

I don't know what the ratio is between them and the sociopaths you see on youtube now and again, but whether you feel badly for them or not, unless you're fat, over 30, and completely lack empathy, be glad they volunteered.

Since I don't see anyone lynching kids returning from Iraq, or at the very least spitting in their faces, I thing that by "supporting the troops", the Dubya drones mean something completely different: Not questioning the administration and it's insistence on fighting an illegal war that has cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of people and which cannot be won. Like the liberals and us foreigners said.

Note: Feeling sorry for and supporting are two totally different things.

"...but I support our troops" is something that people throw out as a fear-based knee-jerk when criticizing the war. It essentially means nothing except that nobody wants to see a repeat of the treatment soldiers faced coming home from Vietnam. It's just a meaningless catch phrase that nobody can define. But heaven help the political figure or celebrity who fails to utter it in public when discussing the war, for they shall be crucified on the highest hill.

I still can't understand how wanting our troops to be home and safe and not being shot at on a regular basis is somehow not supporting them.

That's pretty much it.

I can say as a troop what that phrase means to me is to simply show me the same respect you would anyone else. Yes you may not agree with the current administration or whatever military engagement we may be involved in. Just don't take it out on ME. Like all the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines got together one day and said "Hey let's invade some shit hole country, get shot at and be away from our families for months at a time".

Most people join just wanting to serve their country or money for school or just to do a particular job they've always liked. The catch to that is sometimes you'll be tasked to do some shit you don't like (i.e. war).

Of course, the irony is (and on that is entirely lost on Republicans and other right-wingers) that the widespread mistreatment of troops returning from Vietnam is a myth. This has gotten a lot of currency in film and right wing talk, but I don't think that there were many incidents of abuse at all. The ones who failed the returning soldiers were the military and government bureaucracies, and the elected officials. Refusal to take Agent Orange seriously, lousy mental health counseling, understaffed and underequipped VA hospitals. And we're seeing that all over again as injured soldiers return from Iraq, and soldiers with untreated or undertreated emotional problems are discharged.

You support them or not support them the same way you're doing now, you vote. Aside from picketing every day with a big "I hate the troops" sign, or flying to Iraq and shooting them, you're not going to do much to stop them. As far as supporting them, I can't think of anyone who isn't a family member, friend, or elementary school student who might be sending cards or care packages.
I don't think people are aware of what they're referring to when they mention "supporting troops". The government supports the troops, civilians don't have much to do with it.

The fact that politicians and public figures across the political spectrum still insist on beginning everything with a "support the troops" comment does give us an idea about the way that the Democrats will (or won't) deal with sending another 20,000 or so troops to Iraq. The Congress still holds the purse strings, but I can't imagine that they're going to hold back any money to fund this craziness. The first move that anybody makes to cut money is going to get them hit big time with accusations of not supporting the troops, and I don't think that they're going to be able to take it.

They don't choose their assignments, and most entered the service either out of some notion of patriotism post-9/11 or for personal gain pre-9/11.

I certainly think that the military could stand a good downsizing, but whenever I meet a "support the troops" drone, I tend to make it VERY clear that I think the Iraq war was a bad idea - and I thought it was a bad idea from the get-go; but I appreciate US troops' willingness to go in there and get the job done to the best of their ability. Trust me, the people I've personally met who've done time in Iraq KNOW it's a mess and aren't happy about being put in a bad situation by the Republican admin - hence all the Iraq vets coming back to run on Democratic tickets.

In my mind "supporting the troops" would mean holding the President and Congress 100% accountable for putting them in harm's way needlessly, and making sure that they are properly equipped, properly cared for when injured, well-paid for putting their lives on the line, and taken care of when discharged -whether that means medically or financially.

Well, considering that when most people say "support our troops" they really mean "support our war" I have to say that I feel sorta ambivalent about the troops themselves. As much as I think that a lot of the troops are really just meat for the grinder, there are guys like Pat Tillman who stand out as exceptional and exceptionally dead.

I support them in spirit because they didn't choose their assignment and didn't have a vote in having to be somewhere where they are most definitely not defending our freedom and, as Devin says, probably endangering it even further. Which is why I think if you truly support our troops you should push for the impeachment of this President, who has deliberately put our troops in harm's way for no reason when greater threats presented themselves.

But what does "support" really mean? Probably nothing in reality. It means I don't call them names when I see them or cheer when they die. In actuality it means very little. But, then, I imagine it means the same as the "support" given by someone with twenty magnetic ribbons on their car.

It doesn't have a ring to it but I'm going to stick with "I don't go out of my way to applaud or denegrate the troops". Probably won't fit on a bumper sticker.

Glad to see everyone is fiesty so soon after the holidays. Rest in Peace, Godfather Brown. The rest of you have a terrific new year. If all goes well, I won't be posting much. And things look to be going well. See you all in one sense or another somewhere.

I suppose that the argument could be made that, to support our troops means having some sympathy for these kids who enlisted in peace time as a way to fund their educations or to remove themselves from a bad situation, and who have now found themselves in a war zone.

But on the other hand, to enlist in the military means that there is the possibility of being called up; of having to go into battle.....perhaps a battle with which one doesn't agree. That is the chance one takes, isn't it, when one enlists in the Armed Forces?

Personally, I have a couple of friends in Iraq and my only concern is that these guys come home in something other than a body bag. I don't want to debate the legality or the logistics of the war in Iraq; I just want my friends home. I don't know if that's considered, "supporting our troops", or not.

The two of whom I'm speaking were National Guard Reserves who have been "volunteered" for 3+ more tours.

For those who have enlisted in war time; sure, I'd still like them home safe and sound, but the empathy scale drops dramatically.

I wouldn't volunteer to be part of an organization that kills innocent people (yet I continue to pay taxes). I can't support members of the U.S. military who go to help fight an unjust war (which in itself is something I don't think I could define). If for some reason soldiers feel now that they've made a mistake by getting involved and enlisting, maybe they should now refuse to fight? I know that's a hard thing, but is killing someone an easier thing to do? I would even question people who enlist in peaceful times - the military is still built on the threat of violence even in times of peace.

Hold the fucking phone. I've known some of these kids enlisting in the military. Some of these kids have no idea what they're doing. They need a purpose in life, and they end up finding it in the middle of a war that would terrify the regular person. But look at what the military represents to some of these kids. Many are poor, from unfortunate households. The military offers them a chance to have a job, get cared for, and pay for college. Does anyone remember the military recruiters in "Fahrenheit 9/11" telling kids they can play basketball in the armed forces, "like David Robinson"? The shit they spew in real life is actually worse. Most of these people aren't enlisting to kill ragheads.

Real support for our troops would involve trying everything in our power to get them home, though.

I think I read this here first.

They could, but then they would have to face the consequences of jail time and possible re-payment of any bonus money. The military is a job just like any civilian job. Yes the overall goals are different and bit more drastic on the military side, but still it's a job. If you sign a legally binding contract with a civilian employer and decide before it expires that you no longer like the job and want to leave they're not just going to let you walk away without some type of legal action. The military is no different.

People who enlist then complain that they have to go to war (their job). Are fucking idiots and don't deserve any sympathy.

In my experience it's been just the opposite. The few vets I know firmly believe that the war is wholly justified, and our presence in Iraq is the best possible thing in the world for the people there.

On topic, though, I have to go with Bayouradio's stance of "I don't go out of my way to applaud or denigrate the troops." That's a bumper sticker I would have no problem displaying, though it WOULD probably take up the whole bumper.

It's pretty short-sighted to blame the troops for anything that has gone on. The blame for everything -- every abuse, every transgression -- falls squarely into the lap of the Bush administration (Lynndie England is in jail but *&^%$ Rumsfeld is not?). I do support the troops. I would never join the army. I'd leave the country before I'd allow one of my kids to join. Yet I do feel comfort that we HAVE an army. It's being abused right now. It's being sent to fight a war that has nothing to do with the individuals fighting it and their "freedoms." It has to do with money, oil and power -- abstracts the troops themselves will never see or experience or even be aware of for the most part. A lot of them have been brainwashed by propaganda, it's true. But with the shitty system of education in this country -- good ones for those who can pay for it, the measliest token crap for everybody else -- it's no wonder a lot of them are inexperienced with complex, independent thinking.

I believe it's incredibly unfair NOT to support the troops. And the best way to support those that still survive is to do everything in our power to get them brought back to the U.S. and A. and out of Iraq. There will be no peace in Iraq as long as our troops are there. But the Bush/Cheney cabal just can't let go of the possibility of ownage.

Just saw this Esquire cover over at Democratic Underground and it makes me wonder what sort of "support" this administration is going to give this soldier?

Pretty much exactly how I feel, and I never could have expressed it so well.

Well done.

Well, I think I have to disagree with you YT. The act of being in the military is a personal choice. If you know your country is fighting in an immoral war and you disagree with that war, yet you join anyways for money or just to have a job or whatnot, you are no better than Rumsfeld. Yeah sure the money is good, but since when is money an excuse to chuck your morality out the window? If you know you are going to be in a war, and you know you will be asked to kill people, and you volunteer to do that, there is something fundamentally wrong with you in my opinion. Wanting to "serve your country" should only be legitimate if someone is trying to wipe your country out and if you don't volunteer your country will be gone. Any other reason is just commerce-related, or allowing yourself to be a tool for empire-building.

You have to be well-off in life in the first place, in order to think like that.

"Supporting the troops" really is nothing more than a catchphrase. Since there was no draft, every soldier out there fighting is doing so with a clean conscience. If they're not, it's up to them to get out of it. If they can't afford to get out of the army then I feel sorry for them, but life isn't a sweet fruit all the way.

But yeah, you can choose your own way of "supporting" like everyone in this thread has been saying, and if you don't agree with this war then you show your support by closely watching the administration and blame them for every false step they take. That and care packages, if you know anyone there.

I wish the administration would show more support for the troops and extricate them from that nasty situation.

I'd strongly disagree with that, but there ya go.

Care to expand? I mean, if my choice boiled down to good money for shooting people in a war I found immoral and working at a 7-11 for pittance, I know which oen I'd plump for.

This idea that in order to find murder abhorrent you have to be middle class or higher is absurd. I get that the recruiters go after poor people with promises of wealth and college, but if you are willing to pay the price they are asking you to pay, especially in this the most immoral of wars, there is something deeply wrong with you. Basically, if you are this type of recruit, you are saying "Well, I guess it's not so bad that I have to murder a bunch of people, just as long as I can make my house payment and feed my kids it's all good." Your own financial situation, no matter how grim, is not a justification for murder. I'd rather just barely survive day-to-day than have to kill people for a living under the guise of "Well, I'm just following orders."

What? Are you insane or just stupid?

Since when is a soldier's duty the same as MURDER?

Yeah, they may have to kill occasionally. But 50% of the times they won't be the ones opening fire first, and on all occasions they're either fighting other soldiers or people that would gladly kill innocents just to get a point across.

Is it murder when a cop shoots down a guy going postal on a street with an AK?

Ahh, CHUD.com, bastion of intelligence and civil discourse.

I would say that the 200,000+ dead in Iraq right now goes beyond the moniker of "kill occasiionally". This idea that a soldier doing his duty excuses him from the moral implications of his actions is erroneous. In this particular war, killing people in the line of duty is murder, as there was no justification for this war in the first place. That people are actually fighting back doesn't excuse anything. Killing in self-defence at the end of the day is still killing. To people who were already in the military before Iraq broke out, I have a little sympathy, as the military can do awful things to members who become conscientious objecters. But to the people who joined after this war started? These people are comfortable with becoming killers for money, and deserve no support whatsoever.

The cop who shoots the crazy dude with the AK is doing a civic duty in order to protect the greater good. He still has blood on his hands at the end of the day, but the price in that case is worth paying so that many others can live. It's not the same thing as volunteering to go kill people in Iraq in a pointless war. Even if the only reason you are doing so is to support your friends and neighbours, the fact is at one point you will be asked to kill someone who in all likelyhood wouldn't be a "soldier" had the US not gone into Iraq in the first place.

1) If we had known each other for more than 2 hours, I wouls also have said this to your face in Real Life. Seeing as this is the internet, the social contract has different rules and I don't feel as bad saying this to a stranger.

2) CHUD.com probably has its share of knee-jerk jerks, but I've only been posting here for a couple of days so don't blame them for me.

3) You would only have a point if that was all I had posted as a reply.


Yeah, there probably was no justification for this war. But two sovereign nations are engaged in it, and the soldiers fighting are doing so with the legitimacy of a flag behind them. It's not like they're out there killing people on their own time.


Where is this notion of berserk adrenaline seekers volunteering for Iraq coming from?



Even if there were no warlords in Iraq and even if there weren't terrorist all over the place as well, let's get serious: Saddam Hussein was a fucking dictator who abused his own people, and I don't care if the US did it to get a seat at the OPEP, I'm glad they went to Iraq and kicked him out.

In this second Iraq war people died for the greater good. Too many people died, and too many die still, but one day I am sure you will look back and see that the ends justified the means.

If an all-out World War broke out, on which side do you think Iraq would be if the US hadn't moved in?

You blow my goddamn mind, sir.

Or even if you don't.

No, seriously, recruiting offices are telling these 18 and 19 year olds that the "war ended". You can put some blame on a teenager for not being smart enough to get the facts himself, but they're not all marching in with their hands out for a rifle.

Nexus, I'm gonna be totally honest here...you're starting to freak me out, dude.

Why? :/

So far, most of this discussion has been about "supporting the troops" in the context of us (here) supporting the troops (there). It seems to me that the way that it's been used since the beginning of the war has been in left-right debate. If you criticize the war, you aren't attacked because of some kind of flaw in your reasoning. You're attacked because you don't "support the troops." It's like we have to be like the audience at a showing of Peter Pan--if we stop clapping, Tinkerbell will fade away.

My question is: do the troops really give a shit? I started thinking about this again when John Kerry blew his punch line about ending up in Iraq. About a day later, we saw a picture of troops actually in Iraq holding a banner up ragging on Kerry. This caught my attention for two reasons. First, while there doesn't seem to be enough body or vehicle armor to go around, the troops apparently have access to high quality banner making materia. Second, I wondered if they really pay attention to what some politician says back home.

It's been a long time since I was in the service, but in my time, most of the guys had no idea who the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of the Navy was. It was a typical inspection question, and people were always getting it wrong. Most people also had very little interest in what was going on back in the States outside of their immediate circle (why didn't their girlfriend write? is their sick father getting better? why did somebody say that they saw their wife at a club?). There would be interest in the release of a movie that they wanted to see or music that they wanted to hear. People would be happy to get a package with a picture of their girl, some gear they needed, or some Copenhagen. That was about it.

The fact is, that in a good unit, people aren't much interested in the other parts of the military, let alone what civilians are up to. There's a sense of superiority over the guys back home on the block--the ones who didn't have what it takes to do what they're doing. Why would you want their support?

I know that things are a lot different now. Instead of six months or more punctuated by occasional letters and the odd international call, troops have access to email and cell phones on a regular basis. I can't imagine what that would be like--the World can stay real to you in a way that it couldn't before. And there's a lot new in the emphasis on evangelical Christianity, clean living and right wing talk. But do the troops in the field really get worked up by Dennis Kucinich giving a speech or by Cindy Sheehan protesting in Crawford?

I find that incredibly hard to believe.

What the hell are you talking about?



Seriously, what the fuck? We should just draw up sides for WWIII and start attacking everyone who we think would be on the other side if it broke out today? Brilliant.

I was with you at first, too. I think Ludwig's wrong to view fighting in Iraq as murder for hire (at the end of the day, killing may be killing, but that doesn't make it murder). But there is some seriously dumb shit in that post. "One day" we'll look back and decide Iraq was worth it? Guess what? Saddam was toppled several years ago. Today is "one day", and we're looking back saying that it wasn't worth it.

It's always worth kicking shitheels out of the leadership of countries.

And life WILL improve for the Iraqis. But rebuilding a country isn't like downloading a song on iTunes, you know. It takes a lot of fucking time.

Kinda messed up my point there, but I was just trying to say that this wasn't some sort of mercenary action, that this was war and as such the soldiers were following the orders of a country's authorities.

Rebuilding a country takes a lot of fucking time, and is really fucking hard, I agree. That's exactly why it's not always worth removing the leader of a country, even if he is a shitheel.

I agree with your basic point that a soldier killing in an official military action is different from murder-for-hire, but saying that this is a war between 2 sovereign nations was just flat-out wrong. In fact, the lack of an enemy nation to defeat is one of the defining characteristics of this war.

I have to disagree with you slightly Ludwig. Every person who joined the military even after 9/11 and the start of the Iraq campaign didn't do it with the knowledge that they have to kill people for their paycheck. I've been in the military 10 years and I've fired an M16 exactly 4 times for qualifying purposes. The number of people in the military who've had a direct hand in taking another life in Iraq is a very small percentage. Now you could make the argument that anyone in the military has had an in-direct hand in the killings. But if you're going to play the guilt by association card then every tax paying citizen should be also be held accountable.

Which he probably will...

You must be reading some fairy tales or something if you think the world is that easily divided into camps of "bad" and "good." Seriously, I don't think the military has an MOS listed as "killer for money." Does anyone think guys are signing up for the military HOPING to go to an unfamiliar land and kill a bunch of people who've done them no personal offense? Wrong. Most are, as has already been said, people from lower income brackets with lower levels of education who had a choice to make between menial labor/minimum wage jobs or the military, which provides job training, camaraderie, direction, tons of medical benefits, discipline, opportunities for travel (not Iraq, a lot of guys still go to Korea and Germany), signing bonuses (minimal though they may be), and the certain level of personal security that comes from having nearly all aspects of your life controlled by your superiors.

I'm sorry if I repeated anything said before, but that post grated on me. This fucking guy Ludwig needs to have his head examined.

On the rare occasion I use the phrase "I support the troops", what I mean is that I don't hold them accountable for the bullshit war we're stuck in. I'm glad they enlisted. I'm glad I live in a country that people want to serve and protect. And while that's not what our troops are doing in Iraq, it's what many of them thought (think?) they'd be doing.