A few days I wrote a
diary called "Support The Troops: Why Should I?" that provoked some pretty heated discussion. I've had some time to rethink my position, and I thought I'd take a second stab at the topic, this time hopefully with more precision and clarity.
First, what do I see (A) as constituting "supporting the troops"?
A1. To recognize that they are doing a necessary job, and that it is very dangerous.
A2. To ensure that they have adequate funding and supplies to complete each mission as quickly and safely as possible.
A3. To support them as veterans, through medical care, retirement pay, and support for their widows and children.
A4. Finally, to be conservative by only declaring war when diplomacy has failed. This is related to #1: making sure that each war is NECESSARY, and recognizing that war should be avoided if possible because it is DANGEROUS.
Second, what seems to constitute the mainstream version (B) of "Support the Troops"?
B1. #1 above
B2. #2, #3, and #4 above are not stressed at all.
(A2) Small numbers of troops are sent in because civilian leadership overrules military leadership. They are sent in without adequate body armor or armored vehicles.
(A3) They are given inadequate medical care when they return. Their families get reduced benefits when they die.
(A4) They are sent on UNNECESSARY missions, and they are sent without making serious attempts at diplomacy.
B3. A focus on the troops' "morale", whereby their morale is supposedly bolstered by popular support for their mission. Thus to support the troops, one must SUPPORT THE MISSION they are sent on, even if it conflicts with #'s 2, 3, and 4 above.
B4. A near-total absolution of guilt for individual soldiers' actions while obeying orders, as long as those actions are still officially supported. HOWEVER, if a policy, such as torture, is later officially condemned, its effects can be blamed on "a few bad apples" acting on their own, and the existence of the policy carefully ignored. This explanation is usually greeted by the public as convincing, and the troops carrying out the policy are publicly condemned. Thus is shown the shallowness of the "Support the Troops" sentiment.
Third, why do I object to supporting the troops?
I support the first conception of supporting the troops, A1-A4 above. I recognize that having a military is necessary for self-defense, and that the job is dangerous and thus worthy of respect (similar to a police officer or fire fighter in that respect). I support being circumspect in entering military conflicts because of the sacrifices involved, and exercising diplomacy instead, whenever possible. I support supporting our veterans, and supporting our troops on the ground with adequate supplies to do their job as safely as possible.
However, I differ from the mainstream movement of "Support The Troops" in several ways (B2, B3, and B4 above). Many things I consider important to any coherent conception of supporting the troops (A2, A3, and A4) seem to be completely absent from the mainstream version.
Moreover, most mainstream "troops supporters" conflate supporting the troops with supporting the mission. They are separate issues. Clearly, if the mission is wrong or unnecessary it is much more supportive NOT to ask our troops to make sacrifices for it than to ask them to die in vain. If a war was wrong to begin with, and we only realize this later, which is more supportive of the troops: to tell them to keep fighting, if only for the prestige of "winning", as if war were a football game, or to bring them home safely and admit our mistake in sending them? Is our troops' morale really so important that we should PRETEND a mission is just and honorable, and keep them in harm's way, even if it's not necessary for any other reason? Isn't it more respectful of the troops to be more careful with their lives and get them off the battlefield as quickly as possible? If you start a fight with someone over a misunderstanding, and you find out you were wrong, don't you apologize and stop fighting? Only a complete idiot would keep fighting for his prestige. There is no prestige or honor in continuing such a fight.
Finally, most people who consider themselves to be ardent troops supporters want to hear nothing of war crimes or responsibility for war crimes, except insofar as such responsibility involves the highest levels of command. No responsibility can trickle down to the actual people carrying out the torture, or the bombing, because they are following orders. The core of the argument seems to be that it's such a dangerous job that we should honor them and not criticize them for anything. Furthermore, the premise seems to be that the only way a military can function is through such subordination of individual will to the machine, or bureaucracy, of the military command structure. Only a rigid hierarchy in which commands are passed down and unquestioningly obeyed can defend our country adequately.
However, I disagree with this conception of personal responsibility, or lack thereof. As has been repeated many times on here, "just following orders" has never been a convincing, or extenuating, excuse. A mafia hitman is not innocent because he received orders to kill. One might argue that war is completely different, and in war murder is legal. I don't see how that view can be supported. A war is nothing but a conflict between two societies. How is it different in nature from a conflict between two Mafia families, or between two street gangs? Our justice system, and indeed our basic conception of justice makes no allowances for such small-scale wars as justifications for murder. Of course we have no World Court to appeal to to say that American soldiers murdered Iraqi soldiers and thus are murderers, and of course no American court would have any interest in such accusations, but that doesn't mean they aren't logical extensions of our system of justice.
I have more to say on the ideas of militarism and fascism and how they relate to the mainstream "Support the Troops" movement, but I'll hold off on that until another diary. Thanks for reading, and I welcome your feedback.