h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

This question gets asked a lot these days, and it's one of the most loaded questions of the day. What does it mean, exactly?

You know you're in a discussion with a right winger when they ask 'Do you support the troops?' It's a question you hear a lot on right wing talk radio. What they mean in that instance, I believe, is not 'Do you support the troops', more like 'Do you support the reason they're in Iraq?'.

It's loaded because you can't answer it with a simple yes or no. Say 'yes' without any qualification and you seem support the argument of the person asking it, which means that you've painted yourself into a corner as far as your side of the discussion goes. Say 'no' without any qualification and they'll turn on you as unpatriotic and a traitor.

How do you deal with it?

Thank god I'm in the UK, I don't actually know anyone who's pro war. I very rarely hear pro war feelings being expressed by anyone apart from the government, and even then half the Labour party is anti -war.

Apart from one of my friends who's an Iraqi exhile - her parents were forced to leave the country before she was born, because her fathers friend was at a party where someone told a joke about Saddam, and the entire friendship group was being 'disappeared' one by one.

And even she agrees that it was illegal - she's just glad that it happened so it meant that she could go to Iraq for Christmas.

its difficult because if you won't answer yes or no then you get accused of equivocating and anything you say is interupted with "Just answer the question".

at least on hootoo unlike RL you get to complete what you're trying to say

you're lucky Z
i know quite a few people who support the war although often reluctently or because "you have to support the troops"

I've been known to say that...

"I support our troops, just not the draft dodger that sent them there."

Ahh the joys of being at university full of anti war feeling.

The right-wing often set up their questions like "do you support the troops". Everyone agrees with that right? How could you possibly disagree? They cannot think of someone possibly supporting the troops and disagreeing with the the war.

This particular loaded question is quite an ugly one though. When you see bumped stickers saying "Support Your Troops", it's essentially a command to line up and unquestioningly support the war, otherwise you're not a patriot and you want the worst for our brave men and women. It's nationalism at it's worst.

It's also another way the right wing quashes argument and debate, which they see as dissent and unpatriotic. One of the problems of having the head of the executive being the head of state too is that you elevate him/her to almost the level of a King/Queen, and that office can become infallible. This is the case with the current Republican party. They deliberately blur the lines between the President the person and the Office of the President. If you question the policies of the US government then you are going against the noble, great office of the greatest country in the world. What, are you not a patriot? Are you not an American?

As Gosho can attest I'm sure, it's an interesting time being a foreigner in the US right now. Looking in from the outside whilst being in the centre of it all gives you a unique perspective of how messed up the politics of Washington currently is.

Ste

I had this discussion with my mother sometime last year; we were talking about the war and I was saying that I didn't feel we had to invade Iraq, that it was wrong, that if we had to take military action against anyone it should have been bin Laden... she got very upset with me (which I didn't quite understand as she's a liberal as well) and told me I *had* to support our troops. I replied to her that I *do* support our troops, I just don't support the war. I would support the troops *anywhere*, even if I don't support their cause. I know they fight because they've been ordered to, not because they believe in their cause any more than I do. Of course, some of them do... but not all.

But what *exactly* do you mean by 'support the troops' broe? That's what I'm trying to find out by starting this thread. There are plenty of people around these parts who say that they support the troops but not the war. I want to know what 'support the troops' means

I think for the right-wing, telling people to "support the troops" is another way of saying "the debate is over, we're at war now, so show them that we're all behind them and support them". I think it's a spectre of the Vietnam war, where morale was shot partially becuase they knew loads of people at home were demonstrating and placing a lot of the blame (unfairly) at the soldiers' feet.

So, it *is* a way of silencing any further debate, but not for reasons that they think debate is inherently bad, but becuase they want to send the right message of support to the troops.

Ste

I think "supporting the troops" is one of those things best described by looking at examples of the opposite.

For example, during and after the Vietnam War, not only was much of America not supporting the war itself, they also weren't supporting the troops -- as opposed to say, WW2, troops on furlough or returning were treated with a lot of hostility, we didn't exactly have people lining up to do things like bake cookies for CSOs, we didn't have the tons of people writing letters and sending care packages to the random anonymous soldiers that we've seen in the more recent engagements, etc. Many individuals and businesses made it difficult for returning troops to find jobs.

I think it is in part because of the experiences with the Vietnam War that so many people are so sensitive to the topic of "supporting the troops".

I was at the tickertape parade in NYC for the first Gulf War... what did they call it Operation Welcome Home? Something inspired like that. Schwarzkopf and Powell and... I believe it was Cheney who was Defence Secretary then wasn't it? The three of them headed the parade in convertible red Cadillacs.

Anyhoo. Once the major players had been and gone, the bigest cheer from the crowd was for the Vietnam vets. By the early 90s America had reconciled itself to the fact that most of the soldiers who fought in Vietnam were drafted and were simply doing their duty. As a soldier you have to follow orders,and it's the people giving the orders America should have shunned, not the grunts.

But that's a whole nother discussion.

Mikey said it better than I could have explained it - that's exactly what I mean by supporting the troops. Just because I don't support the war doesn't mean I fault the individual soldiers for being there, they are only following orders. It's the chimp that sent them there I can't support. But I would still send letters and care packages to the soldiers, just like I did in Desert Storm.

So you don;t support the leaders who send their citizens off to fight, but you do support the individual soldiers that go off and do what they are told regardless? Not too sure about that. There will inevitably be as much discussion and as many private opinions amoungst the military forces, I just don;t think I can blindly say I support 'the troops' knowing full well that amoungst them there will be those using this as an excuse to indulge some of their more socially unacceptable traits.

"Just because I don't support the war doesn't mean I fault the individual soldiers for being there, they are only following orders"
I was under the impression that 'only following orders' is neither a valid nor a sufficient defence in the case of military wrong doings. I thought that was one of the fundamental things to come out of the war trials after WW2.
Doesn't matter if you were told to shoot and kill someone or not, *you* still did it, it is your responsibility. If you have a problem with it, then perhaps that should have been thought about before signing up. (obviously shooting is just one instance where this may be the case, any military decision may well fall under this category).

Perhaps this need to support the troops is tied up in the military mindset and the need for social control.
After all, to have an efficient military you basically need the soldiers and officers to be trained to obey without question, to essentially turn into automatons. Many individuals will feel awful afterwards (sorry for the naff description, I have only ever encountered such feelings second hand) about what they did. If the rest of society then says "it's ok, you were only following orders, doesn;t matter" then this may help them to absolve themselves of guilt and carry on.
So perhaps the whole attitude of supporting and cheering the soldiers is one that is encouraged since it can help towards keeping a fit active and mentally stable military force. I dunno, just bouncing ideas about.

The duty of 'our' troops, I.E., the troops/miltary of an nation is, at least on one level to 'protect' that country, and protect its interests. I personally don't agree that the war in Iraq, or Afganastan, was in the interest of any participating nations. But, as to weather I support 'our' troops, then the answer is 'yes', in so far as I recognize the opperational importance of disaplin in the armed forces, and that they themselves in essence have no choice as to weather or not they fight in any given combat situeation. I also support them from teh point of view that I do not wish any of 'our', or the 'allies' (or whatever teh armed forces headed by the USA are being termed) to die or be injured in their duty to their respective nations, however wrong I might view the stance of the nations leaders in relation to beginning the 'War on terroism' (or whatever they are calling it now).

But do you support them unconditionally? If they are ordered to do something considered morally or otherwise wrong by you is it still the leaders you would condemn for ordering that action, or would you also find fault with the individual for carrying out that order?

If the immoral act concerned was against the individual or a g Hmm, ahh, damn... I'd certainly consider it wrong should the troops follow orders to do acts that are against international combatant laws, E.G., if they were ordered to shoot civilians who weren't armed, etc... Tricky isn't it....

One must never underestimate the power of peer pressure, whether you work in an office or you're a soldier on the front line.

There's a different kind if pressure which may or not have a name, but which I'll call 'situation pressure' - not wanting to rock the boat. For most people it's much easy to go along with the prevailing situation than to say 'This is wrong and I'm not going to do it'. It may be something as trivial as refusing to give someone back their money because it's store policy not to give refunds, even though you know that this person deserves their money back and you'd be asking the same if you were on the other side of the counter. You don't want to put your position at the store in jeopardy by going against any of its policies because you either like other aspects of your job too much, or you can't afford to lose it.

In the military, that kind of pressure is many times greater because a soldier is meant to obey the orders of his superiors without question. Of course, sometimes those superiors can be wrong, and can give orders which they shouldn't. The problem for the soldier lies in deducing whether the orders are valid under the rules of combat - how to tell if refusing to obey orders will result in a court martial or the removal of the officer for overstepping his authority.

It's never quite as black and white as saying "'only following orders' is neither a valid nor a sufficient defence in the case of military wrong doings". You have to take into account the severity of the actions taken, and the mindset of the kind of person who is willing to give up most of their decision-making to the army/navy/air force.

You also have to look at the reasons why the soldier decided to go into the military in the first place. For many it's a way to get out of the ghetto or out of poverty. For others it's a way to (at least in America) to get a free education and all kinds of benefits they wouldn't have otherwise easily come by such as health cover. If what you have to go back to is something you desperately wanted to get away from, you're not lightly going to put your army career in jeopardy.

There were those soldiers in the Israeli army who refused to do the army's work on Palestinian soil. Does anyone know what happened to them in the end?


I think Ictoan's point is important, about the social function of supporting the troops. What is the incentive to go overseas and kill people and risk your own life, if the people at home you are defending don't appreciate it?

I can't imagine choosing to go into active war instead of jail _unless_ I believed in what I was fighting for.

On the one hand I do think that individual soldiers have a responsibility for their actions. On the other, I think that if we want an army at all, we have to be willing to support the individuals concerned across the board. We can't pick and choose when we support them on the basis of our beliefs because once in the army they can't get out easily. So the issue maybe is do we support having armed services?


btw, are the Americans in the Armed Services there voluntarily, and how long do they have to stay in the army etc before they can leave?

Gosho, I agree with a lot of that. I also disagree with some of it
It is a sad fact that there are a lot of people who see the military as a damn good way to earn a lot of money and respect and completely forget about the bit that you are signing control of your life over to some politician.
I would counter your statement and say it *is* as black and white as saying "is neither a valid nor a sufficient defence in the case of military wrong doings".
I say this because I feel that that defence is effectively absolving the individual of personal responsibility for their actions.
As for peer pressure and military tribunals, well, that has to be factored in as a test of your resolution. If you believe strongly that a certain order or action is not correct, you should make a point of it. If it is something small and inconsequential by all means register your complaint and go ahead and do it if you want. If it is something more serious then don;t do it.
Of course this then comes down to the fact that you signed up and said you would do whatever you were told, and are now breaking your contract.
It is , as 2Legs pointed out, a bit of a difficult one.

One of the military requirements is a certain levelof intelligence. You could possibly argue the only following orders for someone not personally capable of looking after themselves, but they are unlikely to be in the front line of military actions.
*you* are responsible for what *you* do. Regardless of what everyone wants you to do, or tells you to do, or not do.