Supporting the war vs. Supporting our troops

[AmbitV]

Recently, I've been hearing things like "even if you're against the war, be sure to support our troops!"

Usually, a reason given is that the soldiers didn't make the decision to go to war. They're just there following their orders.

At first I was all for this. But now that I've thought about it some more, I can't find a good way to separate supporting the troops from supporting the war. Of course, this all depends on what "supporting the troops" means, but my current hypothesis is that either
a) "supporting the troops" is supporting the war
b) "supporting the troops" is a vacuous notion, or is a notion of support that should be given to the Iraqi people and soldiers as well.

Do you think there can be a difference between supporting the war and supporting our troops, and if so why?
I know I'll get flamed for this, but please try to keep it to logical reasoning. I'm not trying to be disrespectful, just trying to learn.

 

[Orsorum]

Don't be so ashamed to ask questions, you're more respectful and thoughtful than most of the people here.

I don't have any easy answers. I'll leave it at that for tonight.

 

[Feldenak]

Personally, my take on is you can support the troops overseas doing the fighting and dying but you don't agree with the decision to send them there. The thing to remember is that the military has a civilian as C-in-C, the flag level officers do not make the decision(s) to go to war, as long as the orders they are given do not violate the UCMJ and/or the conventions of war, they are obligated to follow those orders.

The Vietnam Conflict is a good reference point for this idea. It seemed like the majority of the protesters in the 60's were not only protesting the war, they also layed the blame at the guys sent over there to do the dying. For example, when my father returned home from Vietnam a protester spat in his face and called him a baby-killer...just plain wrong in my opinion. You can be against the war(s) but the people doing the bleeding & dying do not deserve to be a target for your scorn.


P.S. - The spitting protester was rendered unconscious by my father's return "jab"

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: Feldenak

P.S. - The spitting protester was rendered unconscious by my father's return "jab"

That disrespectful asshole deserved it.. My father fought in Vietnam as well, but never faced any of said persecution.

 

[calpha]

You can definitely support the troops and not support the war. Most people who haven't served don't consider a facet of military service. THere is military justice, and there's civilian justice. The Rule of Law Militarily, or UCMJ, ordaines that once a service member takes the oath of his/her office, they are bound by that oath to follow the commands of their superiors. If a service-member doesn't agree with those orders, it doesn't matter. There is no democracy in the military. There's an order, and then there's action. Our service men and women have no choice in what they do. They're legally bound by their oath of office to follow their command's orders. And, as we all know, the Commander in Chief, is the president.

By supporting the troops, you aren't supporting the action that the administration has ordered them to take. You're supporting the notion and act of their patriatism, which is them believing enough in our country and being patriotic enough to wear it's uniform. To follow orders even in the face of death. That's what you're supporting by "Supporting the Troops". Thier bravery, their patriotism, and most important, their sacrifice.

 

[dahunan]

Three British soldiers sent home after protesting at civilian deaths

Richard Norton-Taylor
Monday March 31, 2003
The Guardian

Three British soldiers in Iraq have been ordered home after objecting to the conduct of the war. It is understood they have been sent home for protesting that the war is killing innocent civilians.
The three soldiers - including a private and a technician - are from 16 Air Assault Brigade which is deployed in southern Iraq. Its task has been to protect oilfields.

The brigade includes the Ist and 3rd battalions of the Parachute Regiment, the 1st battalion of the Royal Irish Regiment, a Royal Horse Artillery regiment, and a reconnaissance squadron of the Household Cavalry.

The three soldiers, based in Colchester, Essex, face court martial and are seeking legal advice, defence sources said yesterday.

The Ministry of Defence said it was not prepared to comment on individual cases. It said it had "no evidence" to suggest the soldiers had been sent home for refusing to fight.

Soldiers could be returned home for a number of reasons, including compassionate and medical, as well as disciplinary grounds, defence sources said.

But it is understood that the three soldiers have been sent home for complaining about the way the war is being fought and the growing danger to civilians.

The fact that they are seeking legal advice makes it clear they have been sent home for refusing to obey orders rather than because of any medical or related problems such as shell shock.

MoD lawyers were understood last night to be anxiously trying to discover the circumstances surrounding the order to send the soldiers home.

Any refusal of soldiers to obey orders is highly embarrassing to the government, with ministers becoming increasingly worried about the way the war is developing.

It is also causing concern to British military chiefs who are worried about growing evidence of civilians being killed in fighting involving American soldiers around urban areas in southern Iraq.

 

[Insane3D]

I feel that the vast majority of the people against war fully support our troops, just not the war they are fighting in. However, it seems the media has started to make it look like being anti-war makes you non-troop supporting by default. We see the reports of the few morons on the anti-war side who do stupid crap like defacing 9/11 memorials, and take that to be representative of the anti-war movement as a whole. This is unfortunate. I was watching a story the other day about a group of anti-war protestors who are also families of 9/11 victims. They are not radical hippies or any of the other generalizations made about the protestors, but rather normal families who don't want to see any more of our fellow countrymen die. They are peaceful and don't break any laws, and simply make their voices heard. We rarely hear about these type of protestors though...only the moron ones who break the law and such.

 

[AmbitV]

I understand that the troops are just fulfilling their obligations to follow orders. But the fact remains that they are carrying out a mission that I may be against.

What about some of Saddam's troops. One might say they are just fulfilling their obligation to follow their orders. Should these troops be given support?

And as I understand it we currently have complete voluntary enlistment. Unlike Vietnam where there was a draft.

 

[Feldenak]

Originally posted by: vman
I understand that the troops are just fulfilling their obligations to follow orders. But the fact remains that they are carrying out a mission that I may be against.

What about some of Saddam's troops. One might say they are just fulfilling their obligation to follow their orders. Should these troops be given support?

And as I understand it we currently have complete voluntary enlistment. Unlike Vietnam where there was a draft.

Well, they are carrying out the mission because those are their orders. You don't have to agree with the decision that gave them those orders, but that's no reason not to offer the service members your support. "War is a continuation of politics through other means" The decision makers who sent those troops into battle are civilians. Yes, Iraqi troops (conscripts) are just following orders, and most will not face prosection in a war crimes tribunal after the war.

The U.S. military is an entirely volunteer force, but that doesn't make service members warmongering fiends. I have yet to meet a sane service member who likes or wants to go to war, generally the armed forces like the peaceful alternatives....they're the ones that die in war.

 

[xyyz]

Originally posted by: vman
I understand that the troops are just fulfilling their obligations to follow orders. But the fact remains that they are carrying out a mission that I may be against.

What about some of Saddam's troops. One might say they are just fulfilling their obligation to follow their orders. Should these troops be given support?

And as I understand it we currently have complete voluntary enlistment. Unlike Vietnam where there was a draft.

it's more you don't support the reasons for war... however the troops had really no say in the matter. the "support" is more about the concern of the saftey of our boys and gurls overseas. it's concern for their well being... and it's a worry that harm might come to them.

supporting them pretty much means... well it doesn't necassarily agree with what you are doing... but it's concern for their heath, welfare, lives etc... and the desire to have them come home healthy.

at least it is for me.

 

[kombatmud]

Originally posted by: vman
I understand that the troops are just fulfilling their obligations to follow orders. But the fact remains that they are carrying out a mission that I may be against.

What about some of Saddam's troops. One might say they are just fulfilling their obligation to follow their orders. Should these troops be given support?

And as I understand it we currently have complete voluntary enlistment. Unlike Vietnam where there was a draft.

Yes, our military is voluntary, however once you join the military you can't exactly just leave at any time. You're committed to serve for a certain amount of time. Even if they weren't committed though, it's their job. It's not easy to become unemployed just because you're job requires you to do something you don't agree with.

I have the utmost respect for each and every one of our soldiers over in Iraq, and I hope they all get home safely. I hope that even if you don't support the war, that you hope our soldiers get home safely as well, that's what supporting them is all about.

As for Saddam's troops, yes it would be nice if they were able to go home too, but unless they surrender, they are our enemy, and as long as they are a threat, I would rather our boys come home safe than them.

In the meantime, I will support the people who are enlisted to fight for our freedom, regardless of what job they might be ordered to do.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: vman
Recently, I've been hearing things like "even if you're against the war, be sure to support our troops!"

Usually, a reason given is that the soldiers didn't make the decision to go to war. They're just there following their orders.

At first I was all for this. But now that I've thought about it some more, I can't find a good way to separate supporting the troops from supporting the war. Of course, this all depends on what "supporting the troops" means, but my current hypothesis is that either
a) "supporting the troops" is supporting the war
b) "supporting the troops" is a vacuous notion, or is a notion of support that should be given to the Iraqi people and soldiers as well.

Do you think there can be a difference between supporting the war and supporting our troops, and if so why?
I know I'll get flamed for this, but please try to keep it to logical reasoning. I'm not trying to be disrespectful, just trying to learn.

How about:
Support out troops by bringing them home.

 

[HappyNic]

yup, if the war ends more quickly then more of our troops can come home sooner.

 

[sandorski]

The best way to support the troops and be against the war is to make those who sent the troops to Iraq unemployed at the next election!

 

[alexruiz]

Originally posted by: sandorski
The best way to support the troops and be against the war is to make those who sent the troops to Iraq unemployed at the next election!

Good point, You and Dr Smooth the prize my friends..... YES, the best way to support the troops is bring them home NOW.... They are fighting a war ONLY to please their commander..... and that commander deserves to be booted out!!

 

[jagr10]

THat's a good question you ask. Here's how i see it. The troops are doing a job where they are putting their lives on the line for their country regardless of the situation. They are doing this because they want to, not because they are forced to (they decided to joing the army). That's what they mean by support the troops.

I guess you could make a point about how it means the same as supporting the war, but i see it as two different things. The war is a bigger picture decided by Political people, not the soldiers. So people don't support the fact that the politicans decided to start a war. However, they do ask you to support the troops because they're defending their lives to do their job.

The same can be said for any country i guess.

 

[datalink7]

Originally posted by: Insane3D
I feel that the vast majority of the people against war fully support our troops, just not the war they are fighting in. However, it seems the media has started to make it look like being anti-war makes you non-troop supporting by default. We see the reports of the few morons on the anti-war side who do stupid crap like defacing 9/11 memorials, and take that to be representative of the anti-war movement as a whole. This is unfortunate. I was watching a story the other day about a group of anti-war protestors who are also families of 9/11 victims. They are not radical hippies or any of the other generalizations made about the protestors, but rather normal families who don't want to see any more of our fellow countrymen die. They are peaceful and don't break any laws, and simply make their voices heard. We rarely hear about these type of protestors though...only the moron ones who break the law and such.

I agree. Heck, my family lives in Eugene (second only to Seattle in the hippie population ), and over spring break this last week the anti-war hippies and the pro-war people got together and organized a "You don't have to support the war to support our troops" get together.

It was sort of interesting seeing long haired tie-dyed hippies standing on the corner with people in suits. I guess the leaders of the two different movements decided to call a cease-fire (they had been standing across the street from each other since the war started and things had been getting heated) and do something they agreed upon. I found it a refreshing occurance.

 

[Wheezer]

Originally posted by: alexruiz

Originally posted by: sandorski
The best way to support the troops and be against the war is to make those who sent the troops to Iraq unemployed at the next election!

Good point, You and Dr Smooth the prize my friends..... YES, the best way to support the troops is bring them home NOW.... They are fighting a war ONLY to please their commander..... and that commander deserves to be booted out!!

Where the hell were all you people when Clinton went after Slobodan Milosevic?
Or when he launched all those cruise missles into Iraq?

Why were there no protests then?

Was it because there were none of our troops involved? In both cases we never sent one man in on the ground. So as long as none of our people have to do what they are paid to do, what they are trained to do weather they like it or not then war is ok?

 

[AmbitV]

it's more you don't support the reasons for war... however the troops had really no say in the matter. the "support" is more about the concern of the saftey of our boys and gurls overseas. it's concern for their well being... and it's a worry that harm might come to them.

supporting them pretty much means... well it doesn't necassarily agree with what you are doing... but it's concern for their heath, welfare, lives etc... and the desire to have them come home healthy.

at least it is for me.

You say concern for their health, welfare, lives, etc......well my point is, if that is all that support amounts to, then who on earth wouldn't you give that kind of support to (well except maybe people like saddam)? I mean, if that's what support is, shouldn't we also give "support" to the Iraqi people and perhaps even Saddam's troops. I don't hear anyone calling out for support of them.

I can understand if you know someone in the military personally, and want to give them a show of support. But what if you don't know anyone in the military. These are just total strangers to you. Why should I give them any kind of special support like "hey I hope you don't die and no harm comes to you" that I wouldn't give any Saddam troop, or anyone else on this planet?

 

[Wheezer]

you are an idiot.

They are over there for you and your country. They are on your team, reguardless if you believe in the cause or not.

Let me ask you, do you watch ANY kind of sports? If you do, then do you root for both teams?

 

[datalink7]

Originally posted by: vman

it's more you don't support the reasons for war... however the troops had really no say in the matter. the "support" is more about the concern of the saftey of our boys and gurls overseas. it's concern for their well being... and it's a worry that harm might come to them.

supporting them pretty much means... well it doesn't necassarily agree with what you are doing... but it's concern for their heath, welfare, lives etc... and the desire to have them come home healthy.

at least it is for me.

You say concern for their health, welfare, lives, etc......well my point is, if that is all that support amounts to, then who on earth wouldn't you give that kind of support to (well except maybe people like saddam)? I mean, if that's what support is, shouldn't we also give "support" to the Iraqi people and perhaps even Saddam's troops. I don't hear anyone calling out for support of them.

I can understand if you know someone in the military personally, and want to give them a show of support. But what if you don't know anyone in the military. These are just total strangers to you. Why should I give them any kind of special support like "hey I hope you don't die and no harm comes to you" that I wouldn't give any Saddam troop, or anyone else on this planet?

Maybe because they are putting their life on the line for you?

 

[AmbitV]

Originally posted by: Wheezer
you are an idiot.

They are over there for you and your country. They are on your team, reguardless if you believe in the cause or not.

Let me ask you, do you watch ANY kind of sports? If you do, then do you root for both teams?

I root for the team I want to win. Why should I root for the US soldiers to win a mission that I don't believe in? That kind of comparison to sports basically means supporting the troops is supporting the war.

 

[FoBoT]

Originally posted by: vman
Do you think there can be a difference between supporting the war and supporting our troops, and if so why?

i support the war and all of the USA military

i think the point is don't call the soldiers baby killers and stuff like that, like what happened to the soldiers during vietnam

 

[AmbitV]

Maybe because they are putting their life on the line for you?

For me, or for Bush's goals? If it's for me, then I say to them, don't risk your life for a stupid cause. Just come back home.
And yet noone considers that "support". They consider that somehow anti-american and cowardice.

I know it's hard to understand if you support the war. But just try to take the perspective of being against the war.

Put it this way. Let's say the president sent the troops to go invade and take over Europe and Asia. Let's assume you're against this. Would you support the troops? They're just following orders right? They're putting their life on the line for me right?
It's hard for me in that case to see any kind of support for the troops other than "hey get the hell out of there and come home".

 

[sandorski]

Datalink7: Why don't we clarify your quote, "Maybe because they are putting their life on the line for you?"

A member of the Military puts their life on the line by merely joining the Military. A Politician puts the life of a member of the Military on the line by sending them to war.