'Support the troops' but not war?

Well...hello Deckard. Glad to have you back. One would defend their position because that's what one does in a debate (as in Debate & Discussion ).

That's exactly the hypocrisy that critics from both the left and right are pointing out. You don't criticize soldiers for killing people, including innocents; for possibly engaging in an illegal war (for those who claim it is); for engaging in an unjust/unethical war (for oil etc); for using illegal arms (check out the depleted uranium threads). You don't blame them for torture or illegal detention (all those staffing guantanmo/abu grab). You fallaciously claim they have no choice - you release them from having a conscience because they were ordered to do so. That's the Nuremberg defense that failed so miserably. The fact is that they DO have a choice but its distasteful to attack them. The Vietnam Syndrome runs deep and we don't WANT to criticize the individual soldier but that doesn't mean you shouldn't if you believe some of the above. Your opinion is that most don't hold these positions but here's a quick sampling that I believe illustrates you're incorrect:

Iraq intervention is an illegal/aggressive/unjust war

Glynch

What has changed is that unfortunately the hatred and fear of the United States engenedered by the illegal aggressive war againsty Iraq, which was opposed by virtually the whole world, willl last a very long time and ultimately lead to more terrorism against American citizens.

wnes

Wnes supports our troops. Wnes would never taunt any human being that's physically suffering, let alone a wounded U.S. soldier . Wnes disdains those who send our troops to fight an unjustified war for their own political gains while amassing material wealth.

Grizzled

We now know that there were no WMD and if you don’t believe that they actually ever believed there were WMD in Iraq in threatening amounts then this problem starts to simplify. It looks to me like their own claim of a basis for a just war was a lie, so by their own standards this is not a just war.

We've killed 100,000 for oil.

Pippendagimp

"Only an odd hundred thousand have been killed thus far and I would wager that it won't be too much longer and maybe only a couple hundred thou more before all the oil is ours, every last drop of it." Goes on to declare the Iraq intervention in another post "...an illegal war of conquest."

Certainly those who think the war was only for profit wouldn't agree its an ethical action:

thadeus
The war wasn't intended to keep oil prices low. It was intended to keep oil profits high.

Rocketman Tex
What is the war's intended objective? To enrich the military industrial complex.

Azadre
The war was to disrupt the Sino oil flow. It succeeded so well that our prices have gone up also.

Droxford
The war is being fought because of some serious oil issues.

Then you, I suggest, are in the minority.

 

I am suggesting they know they will go and kill when they are told to and that they can distinguish between repelling an invader and intervening somewhere else. IF you believe this war is illegal etc etc then why would you assume they cannot make the same assessment? You (Major) do not believe it is illegal or unethical - so this is not a dilemma for you. That does not mean the same applies to those who do believe so. If one believes this is an illegal unjust war then why would you NOT criticise those actually engaging in this illegal unjust manner? They DO have a choice. The answer is not 'they don't have a choice.' The answer is that everyone knows criticising the soldier is a non-starter because of the Vietnam Syndrome.

No, for instance Bush's motive's have nothing to do with whether this is an illegal war. IF you fall into the category that believes that then you should criticize the soldiers engaging in the illegal activity. Don't we hold soldiers responsible when the commit an illegal act? In what other example do we simply hold an underling completely without responsibility for assessing the situation?

IF you believe the war is for oil and that its unethical to invade another country for oil then you should criticise the soldier for participating in that. Why do you insist on absolving them from making an ethical decision?

IF you aren't sure (ie you don't know - don't ascribe to one of the above opinions) then, no - you wouldn't criticize the soldiers.

Well, when someone does the wrong thing we generally hold them responsible for it - whether they believed it was the right thing or not. In fact, we go out of our way to point out it was the wrong thing. If I blow away a registered sex offender in my neighborhood, whether I honestly believe I'm doing the right thing is irrelevant, right?

"They’re naïve; they didn’t understand what they were getting into when they signed up. And yet, again, we do seem to understand....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. ...It is also reasonable to assume that many of them do understand and are happy to carry out their orders."

IF one believes that the US is engaged in (as anti-war sources claim)...

"...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...”

THEN one could not 'support the troops' that were doing those things while criticizing the administration and be consistent.

IF one believes guantanamo is illegal then one cannot 'support' any of those troops while criticizing the administration and be consistent. You remove all responsibility from the individual soldiers and no convention does that, international law doesn't do that, US law doesn't do that. But its convienent.

One other thing, you never answered my query about your percentages. How much of the anti-war population uses your reasoning and not the other reasons? My bet is that it is very low. Certainly those against any war (glynch) do not fall into your category. Nor those who might be more moderate but consider this an illegal war. Nor those who believe this war is about oil. Nor those who believe this is about subjegating Islam. Nor those who believe this is a Big Game between the US and Russia/China. None of those categories fit into yours.

 

You just misunderstand the comparison. The point is that a soldier cannot advance as his defense 'I was following orders' while engaging in illegal activity.

Its too basic. That's the point. Would you not criticize your son if he was a murdering gang member? If he stole funds from his firm? If so then you are blind to your hypocrisy.

Yes, I understand your words.

 

Thanks. I think its interesting to approach an old subject from a new lens when possible to delve deeper into a controversial subject. On this topic I think the antiwar crowd picks and chooses which factoids are most convienent to advance their position at whatever moment they address the topic. For instance, 'more than 51% of the people are against the war.' Well, what does that mean - does it mean they all think the same about the war? No. Some are for immediate withdraw, some for changing tactics. They are against the war for a wide variety of reasons - many not consistent with each other, and some not consistent with their own actions.

Who is forced to fight the administrations battle?

Does 'support the troops' mean you recognize troops are human? That seems a little silly to me. Nazis were human but I wouldn't support them. And the 'antiwar people' are not one monolithic mass you can lump together. The articles I posted are from antiwar people and many of them say 'I do not support the troops' for the reasons listed. I find this to be a red herring somewhat. Some of the antiwar people are like Major - don't think its worth the cost and not likely to succeed. Fair enough. Not talking about him. Some are mothers who just don't want their sons killed. Fair enough. Some fall into other categories - as I've listed above. Those have hard contradictions to deal with - soldiers are not forced to participate. To castigate the administration but not the actors is not consistent and leaves them open to charges of cynical avoidance (not wanting to deplete their support by taking on the Vietnam Syndrome) or outright hypocrisy based on the false premise that 'they are ordered to do it and so are not culpable.'

The troops make the decision to participate in the action. There is no rational way to separate them out and remove their culpability. That's sentimental nonsense. I'm not saying opponents of the war who fit the criteria outlined should hate the troops. But they should certainly be critical of those who choose to undertake these actions they find unacceptable, and that is not consistent with blanket 'support (of) the troops.' In what other situation do we remove culpability from the actor? We don't. But because of a particular sociological phenomenon (the Vietnam Syndrome) we don't want to be critical of the troops. But that does not mean its logical or consistent.

Troops are by definition wagers of war. To recognize that does not mean you don't care about the human beings that are soldiers. The issue is whether or not a soldiers decision to participate intertwines them inextricably with the policy or not.

 

Wow. That's quite a statement. Not sure Afghanistan, Kosovo, or Bosnia fit that description. But hey, some think the MIC is reponsible for blowing up the WTC, so if you're going down that road...

I am aware that everyone who joined the army volunteered to fight our wars.

Simply not true. In fact one of the articles lists someone who refused to fight.

Well because that's the standard. Orders do not provide an exemption. Period.

Your delineation is just artificial. There is no reason why a soldier is exempt from responsibility for their actions, and certainly there is no exemption for being ignorant of what is or is not legal. Do Israeli soldiers who follow orders and kill Palestinians become exempt because they were ordered to do so? No. Even if they believe what they are doing is protecting their country? Still no.

If you rob a bank and someone gets killed accidentally - you're likely to be charged with murder even if you didn't do it, much less if you did it on purpose because you were in a bad situation. If you think you see someone in your neighbors house and you break in the back door and end up shooting your neighbor - that doesn't get written off. Let's try another one - when Charles Manson ordered his ladies to kill S Tate and the others - did they get a free pass and only Charlie got the blame? No, they were all responsible. The fact that there is a consequence to refusing to participate in an illegal activity does not excuse their participation. Again, look at Israeli soldiers refusing to participate in operations in the West Bank. Your assertion that soldiers are ignorant of what is or not legal is both patronizing and bordering on absurd as instances of said refusal have happened.

Which is why I posted articles from multiple sources from the Left, the Right, and the middle. Specifically so you cannot deny that no one thinks this way. Across the spectrum people think this way as illustrated.

Hmmm, thought there was quite a lot of protest at the beginning of the war, no? From CNN for example before the war:

Demonstrators gathered in Washington on Saturday to protest a possible U.S.-led war on Iraq with anti-war chants, placards and speakers chastising politicians. The organizers say Congress' Iraq resolution is illegal and U.S. President George W. Bush's threats of a possible war against Iraq do not represent the views of the American people.

From another CNN article:
Demonstrators converged near the United Nations to protest the possible war in just one of the more than 600 anti-war rallies around the globe. Organizers estimated the crowd at more than 375,000, but Police Commissioner Ray Kelly estimated turnout at 100,000. In New York on Saturday, a giant puppet depicting President Bush holding buckets of blood and oil towered over the cheering crowd that was pressed against police barricades near U.N. headquarters. The main demonstration stretched 20 blocks down First Avenue, and overflowed onto Second and Third avenues as more people tried to reach the rally.

From wikipedia: Many commentators have stated that popular opposition to the 2003 Iraq War exceeded the opposition to U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War in scale, even before the war was declared. Many protests against the invasion of Iraq and war in general were held around the world in 2003.

It doesn't say those decisions have changed because of cost/benefit analysis. You exclude the possibility that people have changed their minds because they originally believed it was legal (self defense) and now do not. That is not cost benefit but an ethical consideration. Many on this very board have said they supported the intervention originally but then changed their minds as evidence came out after the intervention.

That number is less than a 10% increase.

Maybe I'm not reading this right, but according to this almost 80% of those who were opposed to the war BEFORE it happened say they've always felt this way and haven't changed their mind. That's a lot of people for you to be claiming that they were opposed to the war for cost/benefit - especially when considering the protests before the war:

"Only a minority of respondents say they have changed their mind about the decision to go to war in Iraq, and about equal portions on both sides of the war decision say their views have stayed the same on Iraq. Eight-in-ten (83%) of those who think the U.S. made the right decision on Iraq report they have always felt this way, while just 15% say they have changed their mind on this issue. Similarly, 79% of those who think it was the wrong decision say they've always felt this way; 21% report having changed their mind."

C'mon, Major. This poll doesn't make ANY of the comparisons we are talking about. In fact, the poll is FRAMED with cost/benefit questions.

"Would you be willing or not willing to pay more in taxes in order to pay for the war with Iraq?"

"In order to pay for the war with Iraq, would you approve or disapprove of the United States cutting spending on domestic programs, like education and health care?"

"How confident are you that the money appropriated to rebuild Iraq is being spent wisely . . . ?"

"As you may know, the U.S. Congress has appropriated 260 billion dollars to fight the war and help rebuild Iraq. What best describes how you feel about federal spending on the rebuilding of Iraq? We are spending too much. We are spending the right amount. We should spend more."

"Still, fully six-in-ten say it is at least probable that the U.S. will succeed in establishing a stable government in Iraq; just a third say the U.S. is likely to fail."

"However, bottom-line support for the war has not eroded, even in the face of intensifying violence in Iraq. Roughly half of the public favors maintaining U.S. forces in Iraq until the country is stabilized (52%), and about the same number support the original decision to go to war (49%)."

 

And where btw, one might wonder, ARE these people who've declared the war illegal and immoral?

 

Well, factually Cheney has not been in power for the last 40 years so there's a hole in your basket you can start with. And if you believe every war is started for money then how can you support the actors that wage (no pun intended) those wars of profit? Were they duped? You can see it and they can't? They don't have a choice but to act in this immoral way? They are lower class economically and so have no choice?

 

That's the only specifics you've advanced and there's a lot more than that to account for. In addition you've failed to explain how your generic claim applies to Afghanistan, Kosovo, and Bosnia. I'm assuming you can prove the motivation for those conflicts was profiteering?

Such a weak argument. Everyone has a choice. You don't excuse the gangbanger for robbing a store or killing a clerk because he is poor. Further, your mindset only serves to legitimize the cycle by claiming it is (IYO) their only choice. It's ok that they kill for money sums up your standards. Maybe you should be saying 'hey, don't do that - don't kill for money - that's not right.' Unless like the war profiteers you think its ok to kill for money I guess.

From one of the original articles: '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.

From another of the original articles: "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...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."

Sigh. Get over yourself.

 

I grew up an Army brat so I understand plenty about it, thank you.

Then go away and let the adults have a conversation.