obviously it often means support the state or the foreign policy but what does it mean when individuals seperate the two and say they oppose the war but support the troops? is this a contradiction? does supporting the troops mean we hope they survive? or that we hope they suceed? if it means we hope they suceed ,does that not lead to us supporting the war? How can we support troops in an unjust war who claim ‘enemy’ individuals to be aggressors when they are actually innocent (including the opposing state’s troops or guerrilla army etc).does each individual attack on the invading soldier by the foreign army constitute initiation of force and thus make the killing just?
essentially are all soldiers -regardless of whether they kill civilians or engage in war crimes- in unjust wars who kill,criminals?
if so can any Libertarian honestly “support the troops”.
and also following from this, does this mean Medals are not honourable but really just awards forthe best murderer?
Maybe that would end the cult which has arisen around he military.
sorry if this sounds extreme or harsh but it’s been bugging me for such a long time.I have initial inclinations ,I just wondered what others thought.
Anti-war people who “support the troops” say that supporting the troops means getting them out of a pointless war that will get them killed for no reason.
There are millions of people in this country whose loved ones are in the military and fighting the war in Afganistan. Of those millions some dont believe we should be there, others think it regrettable but neccessary, and some think it is great in every way. Supporting the troops but not the war is a way of separating the politics from the people. An important distinction not made enough.
Depends. What is an unjust war? Is there an objective criteria? Have those soldier volunteered for service or been drafted? If they dont engage in killing civilians or other “war crimes” why are they criminals? For killing other soldiers, which by definition are criminals themselves?
Sure. If your brother (misguided as he maybe) was a soldier would you wish for falure of the war and his death or dismemberment? Or just the falure of the war? Would it matter to you why he if fighting? Just to kill or if he trully believes (whether it is true or not) that he is defending his home/people/ect?
Military worship has indeed become far too popular for my comfort. But maybe we need to focus on the source (Government) of the military problem and not the symptoms(people being decieved into believing that they are defending their home/land/loved ones).
Separate the politics from the people. Or do you not believe that average people are used like pawns. Manipulated and sacrificed for a hgher purpose (aka enriching and empowering certain elements of society).
Dont blame the pawns for lacking the sophistication to see through all the bs.
Another thought. If we assume all soldiers are criminals then in a red dawn type of scenario, those soldiers who are defending thier country would be criminals too. So why exactly are they criminals? Is it only because they are fighting for a state? (assuming they are only killing other “hired thugs”)
But this is not how “support the troops” is understood nowadays. It is one thing to “support the troops” in this sense yourself. But it is another thing to employ pressure in order to browbeat others into outwardly supporting the troops as well.
“I support the troops.” is one thing, but “Support the troops!” is another. If you choose to forgive the Soviet troops for the criminal act of invading the US and killing Patrick Swayze then that is your right. But it is unfair to demand of others to do the same, since it is also their right to instead not forgive the common Soviet foot soldier taking part in the invasion.
Nobody assumes this. It is a crime to kill a soldier who is merely defending his country. It is not a crime to defend your country. Whether you wear a state issued costume or not makes no difference.
You can’t pay a man to die. Any army depends entirely on the belief of the masses in their actions and troops in their own actions. Take away morale and an army is nothing.
No. It means I respect the sacrifice they are willing to make and do not support how they are being used. Said another way, I thank them for their service, think they have been deployed for reasons not worthy of their potential sacrifice, and so want them home ASAP.
Sure it is. This is the understanding of most everyone I know. They dont want us halfway across the world fighting a war with no end, but they have loved ones who are in the military and hope that they make it through unharmed. This is in contrast to the antiwar sentiment during the vietnam war, where opponents of the war wished all sorts of evil on the soldiers (even though at this time the soldiers were drafted into service against thier will).
I do understand your point though. Supporting the troops is most certainly used as a tool of manipulation by the warmongers (being the people who beleive the US should use its military power to establish political control of the world).
Agreed, the original post was about “i support the troops but not the war”, not support the troops! and therefore the war by association.
Thank you for not making me blame the pawns and I have not demanded anything of anyone.