Should we still support the troops?

[AuntiePinko]

Dear Auntie Pinko,

I am struggling with the concept of "Supporting our Troops". Early in the Iraq war I felt strongly that we should support our young men and women who were being sent to war. Many of these young soldiers had signed up to serve and were now being asked by our government to fight in a war that was not necessarily of their choosing. It seemed important to separate out their decisions to serve our country with the decisions of our government to go to war.

However, today as young men and women sign up for the military they know where they will be sent and are in fact making a choice to go to war. Since I don't support the war and since they are in fact making this choice how can I in good conscience support them? If I support them aren't I giving my approval to their actions? As we continue to support the troops aren't we giving the wrong message to our young people? Aren't we telling them that it is okay to choose to kill?

Mary
Massachusetts


Dear Mary,

You raise some good, if problematic, questions. It seems clear that one reason the armed forces are having trouble meeting recruitment goals is the very point you raise: Many young people who want to serve their country and defend it from harm do not see Mr. Bush’s war as meeting those goals. Some are expressing reservations, even deep doubts, over the morality of this conflict, and declining to join the military for that reason. But what about those who continue to enlist, knowing the likely disposition of their service?

For some young people, joining up even though they know they will likely become IED bait in Mr. Bush’s war still represents an escape from a future that appears even less appealing. For many, military service seems to be the only possible chance for a future with any economic hope. Many of America’s cities, towns, and rural areas have seen the only real long-term job opportunities for inexperienced high school graduates pack up and move overseas, leaving no options for young people who want to build a future.

When you’re young and facing what looks like a life of hopeless poverty scrabbling from one dead-end job to another, it’s easy to rationalize. It’s difficult enough, when you’re young, to seriously contemplate your own mortality and your vulnerability to death and injury— part of the reason young people figure so large in the casualty figures for high-risk activities like drinking and driving, engaging in criminal violence, etc. “It won’t happen to me" is the default assumption. It becomes easy to believe a recruiter who promises you, on one hand, a large cash signing bonus— more money than you’ve ever seen at one time in your whole life, perhaps— and ‘technical training’ in skills that are ‘certain’ to lead to valuable job opportunities in civilian life, not to mention medical care, food and lodging, etc.; and on the other hand, gives you soothing reassurances like ‘people recruited from this facility are almost always routed into European or East Asian deployments, and anyway, most of our recruits go into specialties that never get anywhere near a combat zone.’ Yes, they say things like that.

And when you’re facing a dead end economy at home, and no money or resources to get out of town and get a decent start somewhere else, it’s very tempting to listen. And to ignore the fine print.

Yes, some of these recruits are colluding in their own deception, but I find it hard to blame them.

But what about the ones who are joining up because they want to shoot guns and other things that make loud noises and deadly explosions, and they want to do it for real, and they see service in Iraq as something to look forward to, an actual incentive to enlist?

There are some of those. But there have always been some of those. Military service always attracts such people. It attracted them long before Mr. Bush’s war and it will attract them still even when we finally manage to bring this insane criminal adventure to an end. For every ten service members who joined up for economic reasons, or a desire to defend their homes from harm, or a combination of such motivations, there will always be some percentage who joined up because they like the idea of inflicting violent mayhem and want a legal opportunity to do so.

Indeed, it is probably a good thing that they find the military. If their parents, teachers, and our larger society have been unsuccessful in giving them more positive ambitions and values, at least in the military they have a small chance of using their anti-social tendencies constructively, and perhaps learning to use restraint and responsibility effectively. I certainly wouldn’t want them roaming the streets, jobless.

They are there when the military fights for “noble” reasons, for reasons we approve of, and they are there when the military is flung willy-nilly into stupid, tragic, misconceived conflicts for the grandiosity or enrichment of evil leaders. But they are always a minority.

Right now, the vast majority of those serving in the military joined before Mr. Bush’s decision to invade and occupy Iraq, or joined from a combination of economic desperation and self-delusion that let them imagine they wouldn’t have to be a part of that horror, or come from families with other members serving, or communities with many friends and neighbors serving, and joined because they want to help and protect their friends and family in harm’s way. The minority who joined because they want to shoot somebody, blow somebody up, kill somebody, etc., are not there solely because of Mr. Bush’s war, the military is always there for them and they are always part of the military.

Every person who enlists in the military, at any time— not just during Mr. Bush’s war— knows that at some point they may be required to kill. Or to assist those who are doing the killing. The military exists to use those tactics for the benefit of the larger community, and as a society (not as individuals,) we have collectively decided that it is, indeed, “okay to kill” when killing is done as part of a military operation. Battlefield deaths, even unintended ‘friendly fire’ deaths, deaths in training, etc., are not legally classed as murder. It has always been “okay to kill” in the military. As individuals, many of us may have reservations or even strong disagreements with this, but it is part of the legal structure that shapes, and is shaped by, our culture and society.

“Supporting our troops” is not a matter of approving of their actions. We can disapprove of a war, disapprove of how our military is being used, disapprove of the leadership that makes the military decisions, and still support the men and women who are putting their lives at risk under horrible circumstances. We can still support them and their families by supporting any number of efforts to provide assistance to wounded troops and their families. And we can support them most of all with strong voices telling our political leadership to stop throwing their lives away. We can support them by demanding that they have all the resources necessary to keep them safe while they are in harm’s way. We can support them by demanding that they be given the health care and other benefits befitting their service to our country.

And since I have no idea which individual ‘troop’ is a cold-hearted killer enjoying the opportunity to shoot some brown people, and which individual ‘troop’ is a worried, frightened young father or mother trying to build a better future for their young family and in way over their head in a war they don’t like and don’t want to be fighting, I’m going to continue to support them all by demanding that our leaders respect their commitments to serve and the lives and limbs they put on the line for us, and bring them home!

I hope that helps as you continue to think about those troubling questions, Mary, and thanks for asking Auntie Pinko!

[mike_c]

I will respectfully disagree that "supporting our troops..."

..."is not a matter of approving of their actions." They have killed over 600,000 Iraqi civilians in our names. Our names lend them authority, and their actions defame all of us.

I support soldiers serving in America's defense, not those killing Iraqis who never threatened America, and killing them by the hundreds of thousands. How many dead does it require to withhold our support? Six million? Six hundred thousand? When are the men and women pulling the triggers not responsible for the deaths of innocent people? Can anyone prove that even one single Iraqi was a credible threat to America's national security? Even one?

[Leftisalwaysright]

1. Good Argument...

I think we should always support the troops, but this was definitely intersting debate!

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. I agree with Auntie Pinko

I know too many folks who are in the military for economic reasons or because they feel they must go to protect their family members or neighbors. What gets my goat is how the republics have made it difficult for veterans to obtain treatment and how they have denied those in the field body armor, etc.

No, I don't think the Iraq War is right. But what would you have the soldier in the field do?

[LeahMira]

9. Maybe it's not something for the soldier in the field to do.

Maybe it's on us to demand changes in the way our economy is working to create poverty and leave some young folks with apparently so few choices.

I do agree about better treatment for veterans. It's a disgrace as it is now, and it hasn't been vert great for quite some time... since long before the "war on terror."

There's an article in salon.com that may make everyone squirm a bit. One thing it's saying that since the whole population is not affected by a draft, most of us don't really care. It's not us or our children who are fighting, so we aren't personally touched by the war. I don't entirely agree with the author, but I do wonder why the anti-war protests don't seem to have the numbers they did before the invasion even began, and I wonder why Guantanamo is still open. For sure the Bush administation isn't going to change, but we maybe need to do more.

[Paranoid Pessimist]

3. Song Lyrics Germane to This Topic

UNIVERSAL SOLDIER
Buffy Sainte-Marie
© Caleb Music-ASCAP

I wrote "Universal Soldier" in the basement of The Purple Onion coffee house in Toronto in the early sixties. It's about individual responsibility for war and how the old feudal thinking kills us all. Donovan had a hit with it in 1965.

He's five feet two and he's six feet four
He fights with missiles and with spears
He's all of 31 and he's only 17
He's been a soldier for a thousand years

He's a Catholic, a Hindu, an atheist, a Jain,
a Buddhist and a Baptist and a Jew
and he knows he shouldn't kill
and he knows he always will
kill you for me my friend and me for you

And he's fighting for Canada,
he's fighting for France,
he's fighting for the USA,
and he's fighting for the Russians
and he's fighting for Japan,
and he thinks we'll put an end to war this way

And he's fighting for Democracy
and fighting for the Reds
He says it's for the peace of all
He's the one who must decide
who's to live and who's to die
and he never sees the writing on the walls

But without him how would Hitler have
condemned him at Dachau
Without him Caesar would have stood alone
He's the one who gives his body
as a weapon to a war
and without him all this killing can't go on

He's the universal soldier and he
really is to blame
His orders come from far away no more
They come from him, and you, and me
and brothers can't you see
this is not the way we put an end to war.

[qwlauren35]

6. Well, that's one view.

Figure out how to ensure that men refuse to fight wars as soldiers and then there won't be any wars...

But, on the defensive end, there are many of us (men and women - I'm a woman) who would take up arms to defend our own land. So, there goes half of the theory.

Why do people go on the offensive? All too often, it is an escalated retaliation of a grievance. That's truly what WWII was in the minds of many Germans. Other times it is because beliefs or cultural values seem threatened. Sometimes it is because rights HAVE been threatened, or eradicated. And all of a sudden, a group of people decide that risking death is more important that living as they are.

And last, sometimes a large country is supposedly trying to come to the aid of a faction in a smaller one. Most recently, that seems to be the type of war Americans hate being in.

In many human beings, there is an element of aggression. I don't think it's going to be bred out any time soon.

I'm tempted to say that it's a guy thing, and who am I to pretend to understand it. But some men would probably object. We're all different. But by and large, I think a lot of soldiers are willing participants. And perhaps part of why people support them is because these willing participants are our relatives...

[Longhorn]

4. I have tried to understand why my son enlisted in October 2003.

He did not come from poverty and knew that we would pay for college. In fact, we had already paid for one semester but because he played around and got lousy grades, we pulled the plug, telling him that we would be happy to pay again when he had proven that he was ready. He got a good job and his own apartment but lost interest and started playing around again. He was 19 and mature enough to know that he needed to make changes in his life but not mature enough to make those changes. So he decided to become a Marine and he admitted at the time that he joined so that they would "make a man out of me."

We did our best to make sure it was an informed decision. We tried to get him to go to college first and then enlist as an officer. We asked him to consider other branches of service because, frankly, I had a pretty stereotypical view of the Marines. But ultimately we supported his decision. What choice did we have? His mind was made up.

He went in without a contract so it was months before we knew what he was going to do. He excelled in boot camp, graduating as platoon guide and earning a promotion. I was worried that he would be brainwashed but he came home as the same guy who left only a little more polite and responsible. He basically learned how to play the game and he has continued to do so in the three-plus years since he went in. He had no trouble telling others that he was an atheist and a liberal and he engaged in plenty of political debates. And he's had the satisfaction of watching the attitudes of his fellow Marines change in the last three years.

Due to his high ASVAB scores, he was given an MOS in computer networking. And because he did well at MOS school, he got to choose his assignment. He chose Iwakuni, Japan. It was a two-year assignment but he opted to stay a third year, meaning he will stay there until he gets out later this year. We were thrilled because it meant that he wouldn't be going to Iraq. We would see less of him but he would be relatively safe.

Recently he told me that he had been trying to get sent to Iraq the first two years he was in Japan. Why on earth would he want to do that? He doesn't support this war at all! It's because a friend of his from Austin and from boot camp was killed there. And because his best friend from middle and high school was sent three times and was awarded the Bronze Star for saving the lives of two Marines. He wanted a chance to go save lives, not take them. And initially, he believed the story that we were making a difference over there -- you know, building schools and giving candy to children. Then there is apparently this attitude in the Marines that your service wasn't as important if you didn't go to Iraq.

He wasn't paying a lot of attention to the news but I tried to let him know what was really going on when we talked. And I'd send him links to articles about fellow Marines who were against the war. Eventually, he saw the light and realized what a waste of lives and limbs and resources this war has been. That's why he opted to stay in Japan the last year.

So should people like my son be supported? He truly wanted to serve his country, though he also wanted the "bragging rights" of being a Marine. He was lucky enough to receive some great training that will be beneficial to him when he gets out. He doesn't want to stay in tech but he'll likely be able to get a decent job in it while he goes to school. He wants to get into international business or communications. He's been learning Japanese and hopes to study abroad in Japan to learn the language and customs even better. He's developed a profound respect for the Japanese since he's lived there.

He also has some regret about having served. His high school classmates have mostly graduated from college and started their careers or grad school; he feels like he's behind. He didn't manage to save any money so he'll be coming out with none -- no car, no job, and no place to live, except home, of course. It looks a little bleak to him but that's because he's way over there counting the days until he gets out. He'll live with us, we'll lend him a vehicle, he'll get a job and start school and eventually get his own place and car. He'll be fine.

We know how lucky we are. My heart breaks for all of those who weren't so lucky. Even if their loved one came home, I don't know how they survived the months and months of worry. My son's friend, the Bronze Star recipient, came to visit yesterday. He's going to community college this fall on my campus so I'll get to see him often in the tutoring lab. I mentioned to him how my son had wanted to go to Iraq and he was aghast. He doesn't consider himself a hero and said he was just doing his job and what is important is that they served their country, no matter how they did it.

I honestly believe that that's what most of them wanted to do. There are bad apples, as Aunti Pinko said, but most had personal and/or patriotic reasons for joining. I believe our country requires a strong, well-trained defense and I despise Bush and his cronies for twisting things so badly that anyone would ever have to defend his or her reason for serving.

[ieoeja]

5. This is the first Ask Auntie Pinko column I didn't like.

You have them joining for money, for friends and family or for pathological reasons. But you completely ignore the fact that a lot of people believe this war to be right and just.

We may think those people are wrong. But they do exist.

[William769]

7. Well this thread will definitely bring out two sides.

Of course I will be on the right side.

[ismnotwasm]

8. Nope. I will of course

Actually I was thinking of that line from the sixties, "What if they gave a war and no one came?"

The whole thing is a sad mess and I'll blame that asshole in office and whoever pulls his strings until the day I die.

I will say that when my daughter was in Afghanistan she was very proud of the work they did to try and improve the country, (now it looks like that hard work may have been in vain) rather than the memorials they had to attend. Or the maimed and permanently deformed soldiers. I'll never forget the sadness in her voice when she was on leave and she told me (this was a couple of years ago) "Mama, those boys in Iraq just need to go home"

She told me a story of a pissy little first Sargent who was micromanaging and mismanaging his troops. She went to her superior and said "You can't DO that to a bunch of stressed out people who go around and carry big guns in constant contact with each other"
That sentiment can be applied to a fucked up war in general. Or probably any war.