Can you support the troops but not the war?

Sure, I'll be happy to support the troops when the troops support War Resistors and other peace groups.

quote:

---

What a profound insight, and valuable contribution to the discussion.

---

I think what Arsenault was trying to point out with his comment about Bin Laden is that the violence that people like Bin Laden, Saddam, Noriega, and others do while in the employ of the US is much greater than the violence they commit against the US. That is pretty profound and valuable because most people in this country have no idea what US foreign policy really looks like.

[ 29 January 2007: Message edited by: Le Tйlйspectateur ]

Oddly enough, the article sidra linked to doesn't really discuss the question that forms its title (the title of this thread as well).

Obviously, it's possible for families of soldiers who are sent to Afghanistan to "support" their loved ones, with prayers and good wishes, etc., even if they don't support the war. For them, the war is a personal thing, and number one priority is to get Johnny or Suzie back home safely without losing a leg or being damaged in any other way, regardless of how they see the merits of the war.

For those of us who have no personal connection to the soldiers who are sent there, what is meant by "supporting the troops"? Are we sending them Christmas cards? Knitting socks? Or are we simply "rooting" for them?

How can we reconcile any such support with opposition to the war? We know the soldiers are carrying out the designs and instructions of the Harper government and the US Pentagon, and we also know that most, if not all of them, are quite willing to do so. Does that enter into consideration at all?

But the real issue for progressive social activists who oppose the war is how do we view the current penchant for making public declarations of support for the troops in Afghanistan? In my view, unless those public declarations are coupled with equally prominent denunciations of the war effort itself, they can only be regarded as being deliberately calculated to express support for the war, albeit in slightly different words. This is borne out by the fact that the participants in the Red Fridays and other public demonstrations of support for the troops (including wearing or displaying slogans) are overwhelmingly supporters of the Afghanistan campaign.

I have no problem with "Support the Troops; Bring them Home Now". I have a big problem with people who display a simple "Support the Troops". Such people are quite prepared to allow this message to be interpreted by the general public as support for the war.

How do I know? Because if they truly opposed the war they would not do anything that might imply, however indirectly, that they supported it; they would not say, without qualification or explanation, that they support the troops in Afghanistan. Expressions of support for troops, without more, are necessarily seen as expressions of support for what the troops are doing, which is, after all, making war.

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
[b]For those of us who have no personal connection to the soldiers who are sent there, what is meant by "supporting the troops"?[/b]

---

For starters, we hope they don't get their heads blown off. And we mourn, or at least respect those who do, when it happens.

quote:

---

[b]But the real issue for progressive social activists who oppose the war is how do we view the current penchant for making public declarations of support for the troops in Afghanistan?[/b]

---

For me, that's something entirely different. Those public declarations have, indeed, become politicized. I don't wear red on Friday and the moment I heard about it I thought "Bad idea." Because some try to make it into an obligation. In fact, some have.

And one more.

Some of you should be old enough to remember where this debate started. It started with Vietnam and the urban myth that returning vets were spat upon by the dirty fucking hippies as they were stepping off the planes. How the dirty fucking hippies got near enough to military transport planes landing in military airports has never been explained. It's the "stabbed in the back by the liberal media and the anti-war movement" meme.

To buy into the question is to accept the frame that forces you to choose sides in a way that allows people to claim that if you don't support "the mission" you're a traitor. You're a dirty fucking hippie. (Yes, I've been reading Atrios too much.) The men and women serving in Canada's armed forces may not be your brothers and sisters, or sons and daughters, but they're still your friends and neighbours, your countrymen and countrywomen who might be friends if you had an opportunity to get to know them. What does it mean to say you don't "support" them? That you hope they die? Really?

[ 29 January 2007: Message edited by: pogge ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by pogge:
[b]What does it mean to say you don't "support" them? That you hope they die? Really?[/b]

---

I don't unconditionally "support" the cops, or "support" the librarians, but I certainly don't actively wish them harm.

I do, however, desire an end to the foreign occupation of Afghanistan. And unfortunately, barring a paradigm shift in Ottawa and the defense establishment, the reality is that the Afghan people will drive the foreign troops out of their country. I "support" the right of the Afghan people to resist occupation.

Welcome, Piper-519. But I'm a little confused by your post -- how do the troops "literally support everyone in Canada"?

Perhaps you could expand on your point.

quote:

---

Originally posted by siren:
[b]Welcome, Piper-519. But I'm a little confused by your post -- how do the troops "literally support everyone in Canada"?

Perhaps you could expand on your point.[/b]

---

Ok.

- Sauganay floods (bad spelling, I know)
- Manitoba floods
- BC forest fires
- Ice Storm '98
- Hundreds of Search and Rescue missions every year

Get the idea? And that's just domestically. I won't go into our international missions and their implications right yet, because on this site it is very hard to get an opinion in edgeways if it involves anything remotely supporting overseas missions for our military.

Thats what I meant by 'literally' (the actually, physically go out and support Canadians).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Piper-519:
[b]It's a free country after all, and everyone is entitled to their opinions. [/b]

---

I agree. You're entitled to my opinions.

Thanks for those words, pogge.

quote:

---

What does it mean to say you don't "support" them? That you hope they die? Really?

---

What does it mean to say you do "support" the troops? That you hope they kill lots of Afghanis conveniently labelled "Taliban"? Really?

The premise of the question that began this thread is all wrong. It matters not one whit whether we support the troops (whatever the hell that means) one bit. In fact, I would bet the media and the politicians would interpret support for the troops (whatever the hell that means) as being support for the mission.

I hope our troops come home alive and well. I'm reasonably certain they will never face an invading army smashing into their homes, and their families being herded and terrorized at gun point just because they live close to the path of an oil pipeline.

It is good to be white and in Canada, isn't it? We have the luxury of defining what "supporting" the troops means without a fear in the world of what our troops are actually doing.

[ 29 January 2007: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

I have a problem with using the word 'mission' in the context of Canadian troops going to Afganistan and other places. Sounds like we're going to convert the heathen. A 'crusade', in other words. It's a job, not a mission.

quote:

---

No, we don't have that luxury at all.

---

It was never offered to you. You have it by default of being part of the empire. So do I. So do all of us. We have the time to spend here debating "supporting" our troops while Afghanis die daily. I read that yesterday some 700 Iraqis died while Americans debate supporting their troops.

We use the resources extracted from those nations. Every one of us, me too, benefit from the violence inflicted upon others in the name of liberty which is such a strange way to spell [i]resources[/i].

[ 29 January 2007: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

quote:

---

I have a problem with using the word 'mission' in the context of Canadian troops going to Afganistan and other places. Sounds like we're going to convert the heathen.

---

But isn't that the mission? To convert them? To civilize them? To teach them that globalization is inevitable and resistance is futile and to keep our oil flowing or else? Isn't that the mission?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Piper-519:
[b]They were paid, thats their job. So?.[/b]

---

Excuse, they were paid to do the things listed by you just as all the other people involved in infrastructure crisis. Why should the military be more respected for their activities?

quote:

---

[b]Anyways, foreign deployments. What Canadians DO NOT understand, ever, is that domestic security begins overseas. We cannot be safe if the world around us is unstable. But, that is another topic for another discussion..[/b]

---

That is such utter BS as not even to be real, "fight em there or fight em here" mentality.

The world has never been stable around us and the "cold war" made it even less stable. And one didn't hear that kind of useless claptrap. It's propaganda and if the Canadian military personal has bought into it the more fools they are.

quote:

---

[b]I guess my comments are directed at those here who seem to either a)claim to understand a soldier's life and job (which they don't) or b)don't like soldiers period.[/b]

---

Wow, what a fete, making seem like soldiers are so complex they are misunderstood and/or not liked victimization. Talk about self marginalization and victimization.

quote:

---

[b]You can't "support the troops but not the war". This is why;

a) You ask them to withdraw. Leaving behind all the good work they have already done to be undone by the Taliban...which will happen..[/b]

---

Apparently, there is more BAD to leave behind than good, one has to consider both sides of the issue and see which out weighs the other. So how about the military start thinking about leaving behind the majority of bad things that have been done insteadof looking at the monority of good things?

quote:

---

[b]b) You don't want them to fight. If they don't fight, they can't secure an area to then provide aid...so you are saying you don't want them to help people..[/b]

---

Let's talk about Drs Without Borders then, and why they left, or RAWA's statements to disprove your notion of "helping".

quote:

---

[b]c) You say what they are doing it pointless. Want me to come to your place of work and tell you the past 6 months of effort on your part have been to 'naught?.[/b]

---

Being told your work has been for naught, happens ALL the time to people across every field of employee.

quote:

---

[b]So, don't pretend to 'support the troops' if you won't support their mission. It goes hand in hand..[/b]

---

The mission, your doing now was not the mission you were supposed to be doing, say nothing of the fact it should not have happened in the first place, but it is not the fault of those on the ground but their governments. So, we can support military personal and not support the mission quite easily.

quote:

---

[b]Don't hide behind the 'we support you' to advance your agenda....we know it and we see right through it.[/b]

---

What agenda is that?

Maybe I was too hard on Arsenault with my "trafficking in stupidity" comment. The author does demonstrate a grasp of the Afghanistan situation with this comment: "In 2005, General Hillier made headlines after calling Afghan enemies, “detestable murderers and scum bags.” For all his bombast, Hillier is correct on this. The Taliban, Al-Qaeda and other groups leading anti-occupation activities are anything but freedom fighters. They are detestable."

What annoyed me about Arsenault's piece was what I perceived to be naivete about the military. Of course the soldiers were ordered to attend the ceremony in question. Soldiers are ordered to do just about everything that they do. The issue of ordering non-military employees is valid though, and should be offensive to all of us. The right to dissent is what Canada's military is tasked to protect.

But even here, military culture is its own world, and I suspect the scenario would have been similar (civilians pressured to show support) on any military base, anywhere in the world. It is understandable that free-thinking progressives might find this military willingness to be bound by rules, regulations and orders somewhat disturbing and distasteful. Students of psychology may recall [i]The Authoritarian Personality[/i] (by Adorno?) and may suspect latent fascist tendencies in all volunteer soldiers. And there even may be a grain of truth in this, but it does not tell the full story. Military service is about team work in a game with lethal consequences. If we can appreciate how team members in Olympic sports, for example, sacrifice their individual freedoms for the sake of the team, we may be able to conceive of some respect for this same attitude in the military.

I think it is indeed possible to support the troops but not the mission, after some reflection. But "supporting the troops" would include, at a minimum, a respect for and knowledge of military culture and history. I hope I'm wrong about this, but Chris Arsenault does not appear to have cultivated such knowledge and respect, and consequently is at a disadvantage in trying to portray and analyse military doings. A commentator who demonstrated a deeper appreciation of military affairs, and Canada's military history in particular, would be much better placed to criticise the Afghan mission.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jingles:
[b]

I've lived in the military culture and frankly, it isn't worthy of respect. Indeed, it is rather contemptible. It is misogynist, racist, fascist, pointless, arrogant, and self-pitying, with an unhealthy delusion of grandeur and a messiah complex.

Its history is likewise questionable. There is no critical examination of its uses, as to do so would undermine its mythos of "fighting for freedom". A cursory look at various wars and battles from the perspective of political goals demonstrates that time and again the military is used not to defend the country, but to employ violence on behalf of a priviledged elite to maintain their status. If someone could demonstrate to me that Moreuil Wood was anything but an example of mass suicide I'll slap a yellow ribbon on my bumper.

Afghanistan is merely the latest in a long line of colonial water-carrying for empire. The empire may change, but one can always count on the pathetic subservience of our ruling elites to serve it.[/b]

---

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

You've never lived in 'the military culture' have you? No really, it's ok to admit your lying...because you obviously have no fucking clue as to what you are talking about.

I'm not going to bother, because you are obviously so infected with that Socialist bullshit about the 'fighting for the elites' and all that crap that arguing with you is the equivalent of smashing my head into a brick wall. It's easy for you to dismiss the last 50 odd years of military history, because for YOU...obviously keeping Communism at bay is not a good thing.

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
[b]

That is such utter BS as not even to be real, "fight em there or fight em here" mentality.

The world has never been stable around us and the "cold war" made it even less stable. And one didn't hear that kind of useless claptrap. It's propaganda and if the Canadian military personal has bought into it the more fools they are.

[/b]

---

Exactly. So, we wait for unstability to come to us....or do we nip it in the bud as much as we can?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Piper-519:
[b]So, we wait for unstability to come to us....or do we nip it in the bud as much as we can?[/b]

---

What evidence do you have that "instability" would come to Canada?

If anything, our military involvement in Afghanistan, and our close relationship with the American war machine has increased the possibility of possible terrorist attacks on Canada, not made us safer.

Before we cozied up to George Bush and his oil company backers, Middle Eastern terrorists likely didn't give Canada a second thought.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Secret Agent Style:
[b]
What evidence do you have that "instability" would come to Canada?

If anything, our military involvement in Afghanistan, and our close relationship with the American war machine has increased the possibility of possible terrorist attacks on Canada, not made us safer.

Before we cozied up to George Bush and his oil company backers, Middle Eastern terrorists likely didn't give Canada a second thought.[/b]

---

Actually, they did.

It's not because we 'cosy up' to Bush. I don't see how anyone does not understand this...

it's because we are a western Christian country. We could 'cosy up' to the Islamo-fascists all we want, and eventually they'd come for us anyways.

Here's something (from a right-wing source, since biased sources is the style here)....

[url=http://www.phillysonline.com/know_the_enemy.htm]http://www.phillysonline...

A little less;

[url=http://www.infoplease.com/spot/al-qaeda-terrorism.html]http://www.infopl...

So. Of course they use 'drive the infidel US out' as a 'goal', thats obvious PR tactics. But see also their wish to eradicate the Jews, Christians and establish the new Islamic empire under radical Islamic law.

So, you support the enslavement of millions of Muslims then, under this new empire? Thats what we're fighting.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Secret Agent Style:
[b]
Have you always been this stupid, or have had a recent head injury?[/b]

---

Have you always made your rebuttals the equivalent of a school yard taunt?

Typical tactic of a losing arguer....if you can't beat 'em logically, start name-calling.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Secret Agent Style:
[b]
So have you always been an ignorant hypocritical dickhead or is this a recent development?[/b]

---

I've always been a dickhead. FYI. It's what I get paid for in my other job.

Well, my point is valid. Under the Taliban (and Saudi Arabia of course, before anyone brings that up, I don't like 'em either), radical Islam was followed to the letter which essentially lead to the death of anyone who did not follow it.

Do you want the entire middle east to be under that influence? Oh, and have a second holocaust once radical Islamists realise that nucs are more effective then suicide bombers in Israel?

And it IS likely. Not come pipe dream conjured up by some right-wing Ann Coulter wannabe, it is a valid outcome for the mid-east if something isn't done.

So I ask again, you don't have to support war....but do you support the potential outcome if radical Islam is not at least kept at bay?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Secret Agent Style:
[b]
If this apocolyptic prediction is correct, then why was it not an issue until well after the World Trade Centre in New York City got attacked, and the USA's other excuses for invading the Middle East were shown to be lies and half-truths?

It sounds sneakingly similar to the reasons given for the Cold War, which inspired sensationalistic movies like Red Dawn.[/b]

---

Oh, so the Russian Bear was really more like a cute teddy bear? Riiiiiiiiiiiiight. Anyways.

Of course nothing happened until 9/11. Not until we were directly affected in the West did we think to do anything major about it.

Western society is lazy and won't do anything unless it has too and even then unless it's in it's own interests, I'm not denying that. It's called reality.

Hey, Pied Piper. I see you've got your talking points right out of US right-wing blogs.

Well answer me this: Who was it that armed, trained and abetted Osama in 1980's? USA or USSR?
Who was he trained to fight?

Just another one of the dirty Cold War tactics that came back to bite Americans in the a$$.

Oh and during the Cold War, US' relentless support of brutal Israeli war machine has greatly alienated secular Arabs and made them ready recruits for radical Islam by 1980's.