The unpopular opinion I fear to voice

[Alzrius]

I always feel uncomfortable whenever I hear things like "support our troops" because of their "service to our country," and how they deserve our backing and encouragement for that.

While I suppose some people could say that this is all my imagination, I always feel like there's an unspoken comparative judgment there. That, if I don't support whatever action our soldiers are undertaking, then I somehow I'm not as patriotic, or love my country less (whether or not I do is a separate issue altogether).

It's certainly true that soldiers work in service to their country; they're the military arm of the government, and are used to further government interests (usually abroad). But that doesn't necessarily mean it's something ethical, moral, or legal. More than one war (or whatever term they use for it) in the twentieth and early twenty-first century was fought for reasons that furthered a government's interests (e.g. economic interests), but weren't necessarily in service to the people.

One common response I get when I do dare to voice this (beyond the all-too-common heated rhetoric), is that you can not support the actions of a government, but still support its soldiers. I can certainly understand admiring them for their puissant combat abilities, dedicated mindset, and the daring they display in life-or-death situations; I can support anyone wishing to develop those skills (and those aren't limited to soldiers - firefighters, for example, display many similar qualities). However, the previous sentiment of supporting the troops even if you don't support their commanders isn't something I can bring myself to personally agree with. If I think the government is wrong, and the soldiers are carrying out the will of the government, isn't that one and the same? Facing death on a battlefield is something worthy of respect, but the idea that that alone deserves a commitment from fellow citizens isn't something I believe in. Another offshoot of this idea is that the soldiers should be shown support because they must carry out the missions they are given, and we should sympathize with that - that it's not their fault if they're sent in the wrong direction. But again, this sits badly with me; it's too close to saying that they're "just following orders," which isn't a mindset I can get behind.

Just because our troops are fighting a war doesn't mean that they should be, or that they're on the right side of it. If I feel that's so, then can't I still love my country while simultaneously not support what our soldiers are doing? If I don't support our troops, I shouldn't be made to feel ashamed of that.

 

[Jdvn1]

I think the idea is to support the people that defend the country (and, by extention, you) regardless of the war they're fighting or what they're doing--since they have no choice over where they go and what they do. You can support the troops without supporting their cause. Troops really have no choice over what they do. If they choose not to do something, they can be imprisoned or killed for abandonment.

And, there are troops all around the world. You might support some of the ones in forts in your own country, and not the ones that are fighting in a particulary other country, and still support some that are working in yet another country.

"Thanks for keeping me safe!"

Though, I wouldn't consider you unpatriotic for not supporting the troops. Some might, though.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

While I suppose some people could say that this is all my imagination, I always feel like there's an unspoken comparative judgment there. That, if I don't support whatever action our soldiers are undertaking, then I somehow I'm not as patriotic, or love my country less (whether or not I do is a separate issue altogether).

That's not what "support the troops" means. That's "support the president," and frankly, I think the president (every president) can take care of himself (or herself, someday).

Military personnel signed up for a tough job and in it up to their necks. When people want you to support the troops, they're wanting things like be understanding with the families back home, send care packages if you can, send letters and so on. None of that requires supporting this war (or any war) by any means.

It's mostly a carryover from the Vietnam era, where a lot of people blurred the line between opposing the war and taking it out on those drafted to fight in it.

 

[delericho]

Okay, I find this very hard to reply to without stepping way over the line as far as "no politics" is concerned.

The short version is that the armed forces simply cannot function if the troops are afforded the luxury of not obeying orders they don't agree with. They have to accept that, if they're being sent into a war that they don't agree with, that their commanders have information that they don't have, that their commanders have considered the situation long and hard, and that their commanders are sure this is the right thing to do.

A soldier (or equivalent) really should only be refusing orders if he's quite certain that those orders are wrong. If he does so, it then means either taking up arms against his own government, or facing a court martial and likely imprisonment. It's not something that they can do lightly.

Here's a (somewhat) related question: do you feel that you should have to obey laws that you don't agree with? Do you casually flout those laws, or do you obey (either out of fear of punishment, or because you believe that the law should generally be respected, even where you don't necessarily agree with it)?

You should probably not answer those questions, due to the "no politics" rule. But perhaps thinking about your answers might help with the "support the troops" problems.

 

[Pielorinho]

Moderator's Notes
Alzrius, I'm not worried about the unpopular nature of the opinion you've voiced--I'm worried about its inherently political nature. This isn't in a gray area: this is exactly the sort of thread we don't allow here.

Thread locked.

Daniel

 

[Dinkeldog]

Yes, there is a "no politics" rule, and it's there for a reason. There are, however, some really good places to discuss this fully and freely. One is http://www.circvsmaximvs.com/ and another is http://www.nothingland.com/index.php . I'm going to close this thread, not because anyone has actually broken the rules yet, but because, in the immortal words of one of the moderators at whose knees I learned, "It really has no place good to go." I'm going to wholeheartedly recommend that such a valid topic for discussion occur, just in a more appropriate place.

Feel free to look up my e-mail address in this thread: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=90386 and we can have more of a personal discussion.

Thanks,
Dinkeldog
ENWorld Moderator