"For the troops;Against the war"??

[Addict]

I believe this position has been used by many people including people who post here, and politicians, actors/actresses, etc. I know it is a position I've heard attacked by Iraqi war supporters. However, this article is an attack on the stance from the anti-war side. (whatever you think of it politically or on the topic, I liked the writing style and thought it somewhat humorous!)

From the LA Times, an Opinion column by Joel Stein: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...mment-opinions

Is the position "For the troops;Against the war" ever a tenable position?

[aeroripper]

But when you volunteer for the U.S. military, you pretty much know you're not going to be fending off invasions from Mexico and Canada. So you're willingly signing up to be a fighting tool of American imperialism, for better or worse. Sometimes you get lucky and get to fight ethnic genocide in Kosovo, but other times it's Vietnam.

Just slap on some hardcore propaganda driven patriotism and they'll get you fighting anything.

Me? They voluntarily joined the army to be put in a position to possibly kill other people. If they are doing things like burning taliban bodies to enrage other fighters to come out of fighting, abusing "combatants", performing indiscriminate carpet bombing, or killing a group of angry protesters outside a burning bradley vehicle with an apache, then no I don't support the troops. But I guess you can just happily lump those with the "its war, these things happen" carefree mentality some americans seem to have.

The"for the troops, against the war" sounds like a partial callback to the vietnam era. It's popular now to be against any wars the US embarks on, but a lot of people don't want to see a repeat of the negative support the troops got in vietnam. Seems like most of the people I've talked to with a support the troops sticker on the car are the least knowledgeable of US foreign policy and politics in general, but want an easy way to make it seem they really care. Meaningless jingoistic bumper stickers are not really of interest to me.

EDIT: It should be noted i'm getting negative rep for this post, but I don't care because sometimes the truth is offensive :-/.

[Addict]

So I take it from your response, though I'm having to interpret pretty heavily, you think "no, it's not a tenable position, and I agree with Not Supporting the Troops"? (no judgement here, just trying to clarify your answer to my question)

[CingularDuality]

Originally Posted by Addict

Is the position "For the troops;Against the war" ever a tenable position?

I didn't read the article, but I would have to answer your question in the affirmative. However, I doubt the sincerity of the majority of people that express that position.

I can see how people might be against the war, but still sympathetic to those poor Marines being forced to go to war by the evil President. It may be an emotional position instead of a logical one, but if that's what they truly believe...

[aeroripper]

Originally Posted by Addict

So I take it from your response, though I'm having to interpret pretty heavily, you think "no, it's not a tenable position, and I agree with Not Supporting the Troops"? (no judgement here, just trying to clarify your answer to my question)

Well I was trying to say that "support our troops" is an over-simplification, as in, you either support the troops or you don't. Basically when somebody asks me that question it narrows your answer into "your only a patriot if you defend our troops", or "your a dirty stinking unpatriotic defeatist liberal commie terrorist supporting rat if you don't".

There are instances where I would most definitely NOT support the troops as I defined above (and there are many more). I guess I should just say there is a line every soldier crosses that goes beyond "following orders" and wanting to kill or harm excessively for fun or revenge.

EDIT: No it is not tenable due to the connotations implied. When its a matter of supporting our troops, who would want to say they don't? It's kind of a trick question.

[leejo]

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

I didn't read the article, but I would have to answer your question in the affirmative. However, I doubt the sincerity of the majority of people that express that position.

I can see how people might be against the war, but still sympathetic to those poor Marines being forced to go to war by the evil President. It may be an emotional position instead of a logical one, but if that's what they truly believe...

I agree. I can't even give many of these folks the benefit of the doubt, though. Seems more fashion than any honest understanding and respect for the armed services or the work they do.

Support the troops, but assume at every opportunity that they exist in a corrupt organization, are lead by corrupt officers, and execute the missions corrupt politicians send them. Being against the war in Iraq but for the troops is fully possible, but how many people who claimed to take this position assumed that the criminal soldiers at Abu Ghraib were acting on their own criminal initiative? How many instead assumed that they were an example of the dispicable way the US Armed Forces are executing their missions? Read the papers and you'll see many people who claim to be for the troops throwing them collectively under the bus to suit their own political agenda.

One might as well say "For the hitmen, against the mob" if that's how one truly feels.

[Mateo]

I think it is a tenable position.

I disagree with the current administration both on the reasoning for, and the prosecution of, this war.

That does not make me any less a Patriot: patriotism is not blind alliegance.

I also know many Reservists that are involved in what is going on. For whatever personal reasons (love of country, sense of duty, need for college money, etc.) they have committed themselves to the fight, and they have my support.

I want them to have the best weapons, the best training, I want them to have clear objectives, I want their leaders to act with honor, and I want them and their families taken care of when they come home injured.

Nothing untenable about that.

[leejo]

Righto.

[aeroripper]

Support the troops, but assume at every opportunity that they exist in a corrupt organization, are lead by corrupt officers, and execute the missions corrupt politicians send them. Being against the war in Iraq but for the troops is fully possible, but how many people who claimed to take this position assumed that the criminal soldiers at Abu Ghraib were acting on their own criminal initiative? How many instead assumed that they were an example of the dispicable way the US Armed Forces are executing their missions? Read the papers and you'll see many people who claim to be for the troops throwing them collectively under the bus to suit their own political agenda.

The reservists at Abu Ghraib were not entirely acting under their own initiave, this was part due to the sloppyness (i'm giving them the benefit of the doubt that it wasn't intentional) of handling the new interrogation methods. It was bad leadership and a poorly executed policy from the beginning.

[leejo]

The facts of what happened at Abu Ghraid aren't relevant. What is relevant is the assumptions people drew when first learning about the scandal. However, I think your post belies your true position by excusing the criminal individuals whose behavior shamed a service and this nation, and instead laying responsibility at the feet of policy makers and officers.

[Buck Fush]

This is the modern day version of calling someone a "Commie"

I am one of those who would say I support the troops, but not the war. Does that mean that I think all war is bad? No. I wish many more of our troops were in Afghanistan looking for the actual person that attacked Americans on American soil.

I support many wars, but not this one. I support our troops in the sense that I would like to see them come home in one piece. I send care packages to our troops. I believe that's supportive. Just because I do not have the same view on Iraq that you do does not mean that you can define what my other feelings are.

If I say that I support the troops, but not the war, then that is exactly what it sounds like. To me, if you support this position then you're a fascist. I think that is as reasonable as saying "If you don't believe in this war, then you don't support our troops."


Edited to add line breaks for Wyz's appeasement. Sorry, I was in a hurry. :P

[Wyzcrak]

Support the Line Breaks.

[Mateo]

Originally Posted by Wyzcrak

Support the Line Breaks.

And sentences that are not fragments!

[Wyzcrak]

Fragmented, but complete.

Kinda like Mateo.

[Steeler]

Originally Posted by leejo

The facts of what happened at Abu Ghraid aren't relevant. What is relevant is the assumptions people drew when first learning about the scandal. However, I think your post belies your true position by excusing the criminal individuals whose behavior shamed a service and this nation, and instead laying responsibility at the feet of policy makers and officers.

I don't think anyone is excusing the soldiers from responsibility for their illegal and immoral actions - many were prosecuted and convicted. But why are the officers who should have been in control of the situation and the brass that allowed really experimental black ops techniques into the reservists' playbook shielded from scrutiny or responsibility? For that matter, why is the President shielded from responsibility when he makes bad policy decisions or puts unqualified people in key positions? Why does Tenet get a medal? Why does Bremer get a book deal where he whitewashes his performance in Iraq while the people who are there right now complain about all the mistakes he made?

Sometimes it's not so much support for the war that irks me, it's support for the people who have mucked it up so bad. And the soldiers who actually have to fight it get caught in the mire. That's why they, barring any wrongdoing (Mai Lai, etc.) deserve our support regardless of anything else.