Mudville Gazette

Greetings! You are reading an article from The Mudville Gazette. To reach the front page, with all the latest news and views, click the logo above or "main" below. Thanks for stopping by! « Dawn Patrol | Main | Open Post »

September 29, 2005

Supporting Our Troops VS. the 'Mission'

Holly Aho

I've heard it plenty of times. "I support the troops but not their mission." Many take offense at the thought that they are unsupportive of our troops if they do not support their mission. It seems that with the exception of a rare few (Fred Phelps for one), most people do not disagree on troop support - they disagree on the mission of our troops. While this may seem heartening, the idea that with a few exceptions our entire country supports our troops...you have to wonder why this is such an issue. It's an issue because of the 'mission' aspect of the support.

Why does this raise such passion in our society? Because most of us do not want to align ourselves with the likes of those that openly admit they do not support our troops. It would be an aweful thing to admit that you do not care about your fellow human beings - would it not? We wouldn't want to believe it of ourselves in private, let alone say it in public. Come on - try it...see how it makes you feel to say these words out loud, "I do not care about my fellow human beings." Did you cringe just thinking of saying it? No wonder everyone wants to believe there is a way to support our troops without supporting what they are doing. The alternative (that this is impossible) is repugnant.

So what's the problem? Is it that conservatives want to make the liberals feel bad about their anti-war views? Is it a covert way to call them jerks? "If you are anti-war you can't support our troops - and only really bad people don't care about their fellow human beings." Is that it? Are we back to the moral superiority here? Or is it something more?

I think it is something more. I think the obvious has yet to be stated. When you support our troops you are aiding their mission. How so? Well, a letter to a soldier that boosts his morale will enable him to better perform his job (ie. accomplish his mission). How can you support a soldier and aide in the completion of his mission while stating you do not support said mission?

Something else - trying to do what you think is best for someone is not the same as supporting that person. Trying to bring the troops home now (if that's what you believe to be right), is doing what you think is best for them. Now perhaps there are those soldiers who might agree with you on what is best, but not all of them, and not most of them. So in effect you are putting what you believe to be best above what they believe. Kind of like forcing someone to get married who chooses to remain single, or forcing them to be a doctor when they'd rather be a lawyer because you think you know the best choices for them, regardless of what they want (or pushing a minority position on a majority public? Can we say democracy?).

So what am I saying? That you must be for the war in Iraq? That you must cease lobbying Washington to bring our troops home? That only then can you support our troops? No. What I am saying is this - if you are supporting our troops with actions such as letter writing, carepackages or whatever, you have to realize you are aiding the mission you oppose. If you are supporting our troops merely with lip service (saying the words but you have yet to actually DO anything supportive) then you have to realize you are not really 'supporting' our troops (you are a cheerleader...you are 'supportive').

So let me make it clear here - I don't think there are bad guys in this disagreement. I think there are three types of people:
-Those trying to do what they think is best for everyone
-Cheerleaders
-Those supporting our troops (actually physically doing something supportive)

Now I realize that the word 'support' has become more of a catch phrase than a verb with real meaning these days, so I don't expect everyone to stop saying it. I'm not saying you are a liar if you say you support our troops but want to bring them home now or agree with their mission but have never written a letter. I just want to clarify the arguement that has developed - those that support our troops and their mission are arguing semantics of the word 'support' with those that disagree. It needs to be acknowledged that this has become a catch phrase and is not necessarily being used by dictionary definition.

But if you want to start debating the whole idea - it must be taken back to the definition for some clear-cut lines. Use the phrase - but be honest about what you mean and what your intentions are when you say it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

After reading this article to my mother (to get her wisdom and opinion... gotta love mothers!) she asked a pertinant question that I decided should be asked and answered here: "What is your goal in writing this article? Who do you want to reach?"

My goal is to provide some honesty to conservatives and liberals alike. The very semantics that conservatives use on the word 'support' to indicate the mission must be included can backfire to be used against them - hence the continual debate and mixed feelings. The players, coach, pep squad and waterboys are all important in a game. Disagreeing how things should be done is fine - but there's no need to follow a rabbit trail of 'support', when the mission is the real issue at large.

"'Character' is what you do when no one's looking. The same could be said for 'support'."

Cross posted at Soldiers Angel - Holly Aho.

Posted by Holly Aho at 10:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (14) |

Show Comments Here (14) |

Hide Comments

So are you saying that someone who opposes the Iraq War shouldn't send a care package to the troops?

Posted by Wilson Kolb at September 30, 2005 01:05 AM

That's definately not what I'm saying...good question though. In fact, I have a reader of my own blog who opposes the war in Iraq but never fails to send letters and carepackages whenever I blog about a specific need. Before I posted this article I actually asked him to read it first because we both disagree with eachother about the war and whatnot, and I wanted to get his opinion on it. This is what he said, "You're right that a lot of the "support" is coming from the "oh god if I don't say this I'll be a bad person" side of things. That happens all the time, on lots of topics, but as you say, particularly when people are involved.

There's a thing in psychology called "cognitive dissonance". Holding two more-or-less opposing ideas in your head at one time, especially if they affect something close to you like, say, your self-identity, is hard on folks.

Getting people (like me) to understand that, yes, you are actually "supporting the mission" is fine. If we didn't know so, we'll learn something."

In any case, I believe that the issue is confused by the overly used term 'support', in cases to which is does not apply. Support in a literal sense is 'actively doing something to meet a need'. Regardless of what you feel on the issue of the war, if you are providing support there's no denying you are indeed supporting the troops.

It's just that many believe that simply trying to bring the soldiers home = support. A misuse of the word. Make sense? And if you do actively support the troops you need to understand that you are in a small way supporting the mission (like I described in the post above). Not a big deal - but needs to be understood and not ignored.

I hope that was more clear. I think absolutely everyone should provide active support to our troops....in a literal sense.

~Holly

Posted by Holly Aho at September 30, 2005 01:59 AM

Thank you for the post...it's a delicate balance for those who really do not want to repeat the "sins of the Vietnam era" in which the soldier came to represent a war which had lost public support (at least as projected by MSM at the time). Personally, a soldier or his family do not need to hear a person's view on the war...a pat on the back...a handshake...a generic "Thank You for your sacrifice" brings a smile. If someone sends a box or letter...those items speak of kindness not politics. I've had friends tell me that they are against the war but supportive of my husband & our family...to those who really are "friends", I explain that I appreciate the support but adding that little additional phrase "...but not the war" makes me feel as if I'm too weak minded to know better and that my husband is blindly & stupidly following orders... And that if they truly want to be supportive...be just that...without the political waiver attached. If they feel they cannot be that type of supportive friend, then I'd rather they not challenge their conscience or my patience by struggling to be "double-minded". And just don't ever let me hear them use that phrase to my husband because the war has not been an abstract concept to him...and I tend to be less tolerant when it's his feelings that might be on the line... Actually real friends almost intuitively seem to know this. For kind hearted strangers who use that phrase "but not the war" as they commend me for my husband's service...I try to remember (and wish that they also did) the most useful social concept my Mother ever taught me: If you cannot say anything nice, then don't say anything...just smile, even if through grinding teeth.... :)

Posted by Sergeantslady at September 30, 2005 04:03 AM

I'm not a charity junkie but I've been involved in a bunch of charitable activities. In some cases I've rendered services to people who I really don't like very much at all and then asked myself why the hell I am doing it.

I have come up with three answers, each of which I think I can honestly say are equally important.

First, I'm was born and raised Catholic -- parochial school among other things, but no sex with the priests. I can't say that I'm much of one anymore in the sense of believing in the doctrine or, frankly, even in the divinity of Jesus Christ let alone the Virgin birth of Papal infallibility.

But one thing rubbed off (pardon the pun) in a major way, and that's the obligation to render aid to the less fortunate. I look at our troops in the mideast and see them as the less fortunate. Maybe that's a skewed view but that's how I look at it. Something about 125 degrees and getting shot at, I guess.

Secondly, there's an ego rush and anyone who does charity work and denies this is lying. The idea that you can make a difference in an indentifiable person's life is a jolt. It makes me feel that I can bring a little ray of something to someone who otherwise might be missing it.

Thirdly, when you render aid to someone either personally or impersonally you are cutting through the fear and loneliness of their situation. You're reaching out to say that someone gives a shit regardless of the larger picture.

Now, you're making the point that by doing those things I'm aiding the mission. I suppose that's true, because maybe if I didn't do it someone would have a little more despair and a little less performance. After all, I'm not sending care packages to the insurgents and I wouldn't do so.

But from my point of view I'm doing this in spite of the mission not because of it. This isn't to say that I want the mission to fail but rather to say that I don't believe in it. There are all kinds of reasons for that, one being that I'm not even sure what the hell the mission is given the obvious absurdity of the stated reasons, i.e., WMD, prevention of terror and propagation of "freedom" for Iraqis.

All those things are myths to me, but what isn't a myth is a bunch of American kids sitting in the desert. I want them home yesterday, but in the meantime I'll send 'em microwave popcorn and beef jerky I guess. What sort of bugs me is that idea that by doing it I'm signing on to ... what, I'm not really sure. Just a risk I've got to take.

Posted by Wilson Kolb at September 30, 2005 04:16 AM

I've never included any politics in the letter inside the package. Only greetings.

Posted by Wilson Kolb at September 30, 2005 04:17 AM

I wonder if Native American tribes ever had their own tribe members castigate their warriors for defending the tribe?

That said, who I hope we citzens never lose support of our firefighters and police officers, who daily face death and destruction, by calling upon these warriors to come home when facing a violent criminal who is raping a helpless child or putting out the fires when the city is burning.

I am often perplexed at how easily citizens can diminish the American soldier's chosen profession (they all seem to be children?) while demanding our police officers and firefighters give up their lives to merely serve our own needs. I have always considered a soldiers profession as noble as the police and firefighters, they all serve their country based upon beliefs higher than themselves.

As for Iraq, I have always been behind the clearly defined reasons why Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 was purposed and passed. Dereliction of duty came when this Act was ignored for four years.

Posted by susan at September 30, 2005 10:35 AM

Susan, the antiwar movement during Vietnam had an element that "castigated the warriors." This element is absent among those who now oppose the Iraq War. Oh, I'm sure you'll find a few protesters who call them baby killers. After all, it's a big country we've got and we do have this thing called free speech.

But the overwhelming majority of those who oppose the war don't blame the warriors. I suspect this really disappoints some of those who support the war, because it makes their opponents a lot harder to demonize.

Posted by Wilson Kolb at September 30, 2005 04:30 PM

Wilson, I've heard them called that (baby killers). I would be surprised if I'm the only one. I'm not even in the military.

Thanks, Holly, for a great post.

Posted by Suzi at September 30, 2005 11:56 PM

You've heard the current soldiers in Iraq called "baby killers?" Wow. When? Where? Please fill us in. I'm genuinely curious. I mean, the United States is a big country and there's always going to be a lone wacko here or a lone wacko there, but your report genuinely surprises me and I'd really like more detail.

Posted by Wilson Kolb at October 1, 2005 12:39 AM

"You've heard the current soldiers in Iraq called "baby killers?" Wow. When? Where? Please fill us in. I'm genuinely curious. I mean, the United States is a big country and there's always going to be a lone wacko here or a lone wacko there, but your report genuinely surprises me and I'd really like more detail."

Here ya' go Wilson:

Our Heroic Baby Killers

By DAVE LINDORFF
http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff09252004.html

Soldiers aren't born baby-killers, they become baby-killers.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/21/92747/695

Congratulations George! (none / 1)

You have killed way more innocent women and children than Osama has.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/10/28/132030/06

Heck, there is even a wonderful lefty site devoted to the subject:

Bush's war machine is running in Iraq and it's killing children babies and troops
http://www.babykiller.com/

Need I go on?

Posted by Nope at October 1, 2005 01:57 AM

Someone above wrote that she had "heard" them called baby killers. "Nope" you've cited articles that have objected to the war effort by noting civilian casualties and using the phase "baby killers." It's not something I'd do and frankly I don't like it, but it's also very different than what happened in the Vietnam War, i.e., having individual military members called "baby killers."

The fact of this war is that the United States has killed more children in Iraq than all the American civilians slain on 9/11. That still doesn't justify opponents of the war calling individual soldiers "baby killers" without specific evidence. But it certainly does justify an objection to the war on the grounds that it's killing lots of Iraqi kids.

That said, the deaths of Iraqi civilians is not the basis for my objection to the war. Fact is, wars kill people including civilians. If the war is worthwhile, you have the accept this. I don't think the war is worthwhile. I've given those reasons in a different thread here, and you can go there and read it if you're interested.

If "Suzi" is still reading, I'm still interested in when and where you "heard" this baby-killer stuff.

Posted by Wilson Kolb at October 1, 2005 03:19 AM

The fact of this war is that the United States has killed more children in Iraq than all the American civilians slain on 9/11.

Wilson, where did you get the numbers behind this assertion, and do those numbers include the children killed by terrorist/insurgent actions?

I could be wrong, but it's awful easy to blame the United States for EVERY casualty in this war, when (IMO) the vast majority of casualties stem from terrorists/insurgents pulling the trigger.

We have a fundamental difference, of course -- while you do not see this war as worthwhile, I see it as not only worthwhile, but inevitible ... and our years of delay in decisively prosecuting it has raised the price tag of fighting it, in both blood and treasure.

Posted by Rich Casebolt at October 2, 2005 03:59 AM

Here are two reports on casualties in the opening phase of the war:

http://w3t.org/?u=5fn

http://w3t.org/?u=5fo

This study says that U.S. forces killed about 1,850 women and children between 2003 and May 2005. The group uses very conservative methods; it reports only deaths reported in at least two media accounts. Officials of that group have said their numbers are definitely too low.

http://w3t.org/?u=5fp

This study by Johns Hopkins University says that 100,000 civilians died in the war between the invasion and late 2004. If you use the same 20% of casualties being women and children as the other study, that would be 20,000 women and children.

The study was widely criticized for giving numbers that are way too high, and the commentary issued along with the study makes it clear that the number is far from precise.

http://w3t.org/?u=5ft

This report was issued in July 2005. It attempted to steer a middle course between the conservative numbers, which require two media accounts for any deaths to be added, and the Johns Hopkins study that was widely criticized for overcounting.

It says that 39,000 Iraqis have been killed in fighting since the U.S. invasion. If the conservative study's apportionment of the total deaths caused by the U.S. forces and the proportion of those death suffered by women and children are applied, you'd get about 2,900 women and children killed by U.S. troops.

http://w3t.org/?u=5fw

But I would point out that those numbers don't count additional deaths caused by the destruction of Iraq's infrastructure, including water systems, sewer systems and hospitals. Nor do they count the deaths from criminal gangs operating as the result of the breakdown of law and order.

http://w3t.org/?u=5fy

CONCLUSION:

Even if you support the war, I think an honest person would have to acknowledge that the effect has been devastating on Iraq's children. Prior to the 1991 Gulf War and the sanctions imposed afterwards, Iraq had the lowest infant mortality rate in the Mideast.

Now, again, I wish to stress that this is no reason to shout, "Baby killer!" at a returning American solider. In a posting above, "Suzi" wrote that she has "heard them called that." I asked for more details, and Suzi has not yet provided them.

I do think that an opponent of the Iraq War could say that American policy has "killed babies," because it's true. But as I've noted, my objection to the Iraq War isn't that it kills babies. All wars kill babies, but there are some wars that I still support. My objection to the Iraq War is that it wasn't necessary and that the United States leadership has thoroughly bungled it as the result of a series of strategic and tactical failures.

I think the war is a loser. All wars are losers in a sense, so I mean to say that I think the U.S. is losing this war. I think the longer we stay the worse the consequences will be. That's not because I somehow support the insurgents or am a pacifist, it's because I think Bush's people are incompetent and have already lost it.

And "Suzy," if you're reading I really WOULD like to know just when and where you "heard" our returning soldiers being called baby killers. This did happen after the Vietnam War; I am old enough to remember the stories from the time. But even many of those stories are apocryphal. It didn't happen nearly as often as people think; in my my opinion, many of the reports from back then are second- or third-hand.

I am skeptical of "Suzy" and her recent report, but I'd be willing to read what she has to say and hope she will be telling the truth.

Posted by Wilson Kolb at October 2, 2005 07:49 AM

Shit, Wilson. This really goes to some extreme ideas when your posts sound worse then mine.

Posted by Sinke at October 6, 2005 09:39 AM

Hide Comments | Show/Add Comments in Popup Window(14) | (Note: You must refresh main page to view newly posted comments here)