what do people really mean by "support the troops"?

[Southern]

Japan, West Germany, Isreal maybe a few others.

[socialdtk]

@Southern

Are they guilty of taking life… of course. Are they murders in the same sense that a mugger who kills someone in an alley… of course not.

If a person is a participant in an unjust war i.e. a war waged for the purpose of imposing domination over a group of people or to preserve established domination over a group of people is that person a criminal? To take it one step further, is citizens of the country practicing the domination criminal for supporting the domination through taxation?

[Le_Master]

@socialdtk

To take it one step further, is citizens of the country practicing the domination criminal for supporting the domination through taxation?

Is the slave criminal if the master kills a man using a dagger the master procured using the fruit of the slave’s labor?

[socialdtk]

@Le Master

Is the slave criminal if the master kills a man using a dagger the master procured using the fruit of the slave’s labor?

I’ve been pondering the question of what defines a crime most of the day. If crime is simply defined as violating NAP then presidents, generals and scientist that supply the state with more sinister ways to slaughter people are not criminal. If this logic is applied to WWII then Hitler himself wasn’t a criminal. On the other hand If a crime is defined as violating or helping someone to violate NAP then it is possible to arrive at the absurd conclusion that a slave that provided his master with a dagger is a criminal since he assisted him in killing someone. Does anyone have any links to a book or article that defines crime from a libertarian perspective?

[Southern]

@socialdtk

@Le Master

Is the slave criminal if the master kills a man using a dagger the master procured using the fruit of the slave’s labor?

I’ve been pondering the question of what defines a crime most of the day. If crime is simply defined as violating NAP then presidents, generals and scientist that supply the state with more sinister ways to slaughter people are not criminal. If this logic is applied to WWII then Hitler himself wasn’t a criminal. On the other hand If a crime is defined as violating or helping someone to violate NAP then it is possible to arrive at the absurd conclusion that a slave that provided his master with a dagger is a criminal since he assisted him in killing someone. Does anyone have any links to a book or article that defines crime from a libertarian perspective?

An article was linked to me in the “support the troops but not the war” thread. It was by walter block and addressed who should be considered guilty and who is not. I read it but still need to give it some more thought. It might help.

[socialdtk]

The thread was called “support the troops but not the war”? I’m having trouble finding it. Could you send a link when you get a chance please?

[Valject]

@Scott F

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.

How many ways could I possibly answer this? To some degree, many people mean different things by that phrase, depending on many variables. Perhaps it is in their personal interest, such as promotion of ideology, to say “support the troops”. But let’s generalize. Let’s not talk about the meaning associated with the phrase itself. Let us talk about what it means to say “support the troops”. In supporting the troops, you lend legitimacy to their actions via your approval. You cheer the 18 year old boy who shoots his enemy dead at the orders of some far removed leader, whether it is in boy’s interest or not. Alternately, you cheer in support of the idea to bring that same boy home, at the orders of some far removed leader, and whether it is in the boy’s interest or not. And it could be a cheer meaning anything between those two extremes, or beyond, or whatever.

Given that, I don’t really see how meaning is important in this. It has already been given several varying meanings by people who posted before me. All I can do is add another. How about, “I have something to say, but I am too afraid of losing my legitimacy if I don’t first point out that I support the troops, so I’ll start by mentioning that I do and then go on to talk about the problems I see with what our military is doing.”

But to hell with that. I don’t have time to worry about my own image. I’ll support myself.

[Southern]

@socialdtk

The thread was called “support the troops but not the war”? I’m having trouble finding it. Could you send a link when you get a chance please?

lol sorry. I confused the two theads. It was actually in this one. http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/block_radical-libertarianism-rp.pdf

[Southern]

@Valject

How about, “I have something to say, but I am too afraid of losing my legitimacy if I don’t first point out that I support the troops, so I’ll start by mentioning that I do and then go on to talk about the problems I see with what our military is doing.”

How bout not stepping on an emotional land mine.

Unless you argue for the sake of arguing, just making it clear you are not attacking (potentially) peoples loved ones will get you much further in a discussion. Or you might not care about changing minds… only making your point. If thats the case to hell with being careful and thoughtful.

[Marko]

@Southern

Japan, West Germany, Isreal maybe a few others.

You are taking things too far.

[Southern]

@Marko

@Southern

Japan, West Germany, Isreal maybe a few others.

You are taking things too far.

quite possible

[JAlanKatz]

@Southern

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).

There is no politics without people. Hitler can have whatever policy he wants - it’s only a problem because thousands of people carry out his policies. You should not excuse killers from moral approbation on the grounds that someone else suggested their rampage.

[MMMark]

Mon. 10/04/05 11:25 EDT
.post #41

@Le Master

Is the slave criminal if the master kills a man using a dagger the master procured using the fruit of the slave’s labor?

No…but this is not analogous to crimes of war. With war, the citizens are the slaves who provide the “fruit”: money, and also, in some cases, moral support (“support the troops”). The entire political and military hierarchical structure comprises the “master,” which makes the laws, passes down the orders, and metes out the punishment for disobedience. The ones actually committing the murder are the grunts (“the troops”), whom we are admonished to “support.”

But, “the troops” are just “following orders,” under the threat of punishment. So, who’s responsible? This is one of the questions explored in the famous Milgram Experiment and the book Obedience To Authority. Consider a passage from the wiki article:

…which measured the willingness of study participants to obey an authority figure who instructed them to perform acts that conflicted with their personal conscience.

But the point is that, for some soldiers, citizens and politicians, murdering innocent people does not “conflict with their personal conscience” (as long as it is justified in the name of “national defense” or “fighting terrorism” or “making the world safe for democracy” or any number of other jingoistic slogans.)

The root issue here (in my opinion) is the issue of responsibility for crime, and many people feel that Obedience To Authority either absolves them of Responsibility For Crime, or somehow eliminates the criminal nature of the act committed. This is the idea that must be explored, questioned and challenged.

Now consider this recent news story:The case for the killer captain

@Peter Worthington

Toronto Sun
Last Updated: April 3, 2010 7:07pm

Even though the court martial of Capt. Robert Semrau in Gatineau, Que., is expected to last into June, so far there’s little indication of sympathy or understanding of the pressures faced by a junior officer in a field command.

Semrau is the first Canadian to be charged with murdering an enemy combatant on a battlefield.

Semrau is also charged with attempted murder (in case murder fails), disgraceful conduct and negligence of duty.

If one didn’t know better, one might suppose he’s facing a lynch trial — politically motivated to advertise Canadian sanctimony.

By every account — even the prosecution’s — Semrau was an outstanding officer whom the Crown seeks to send to prison.

Semrau’s lawyer from the judge advocate general’s (JAG) legal department (Major Steve Turner) wanted the five-officer panel to be in civilian clothes so their rank would be unknown.

This was rightly rejected. They all know who is who.

What he should have urged is that panel (jury) members be drawn from combat arms who have served under fire and know what Semrau faced, when his patrol in Helmand province was ambushed by Taliban insurgents, and a mortally wounded Talib was subsequently shot.

According to The Canadian Press, the panel is comprised of a commodore, a colonel, two majors and a captain — one navy, two airforce and two army (branch of service unknown).

It seems a safe bet that none has ever been ambushed nor shot at, or faced the instant decisions a patrol commander in enemy territory must make.

Semrau’s choice was to abort the patrol and tend to the grievously wounded enemy — thus ensuring the ambush to stop the patrol succeeded — or to leave the man to the mercies of the Afghan National Army he was mentoring, and who’d already kicked and spat on the insurgent, and [b]would have undoubtedly brutally killed him.

Instead, the wounded man was given a quick, merciful death. And the patrol carried on.[/b] [color=#8B0000][Did the wounded man ask for this death? If not, was this death something Semrau had a right to “give”?][/color]

It’s hard to convey responsibilities a young officer faces in the field. Situations arise that require instant decisions that aren’t covered in training manuals.

While Afghanistan is unique, I recall leading patrols in Korea where poor judgment can be fatal.

I once led a patrol to investigate an earthen dyke behind which it was believed the Chinese were holed up waiting to attack at night.

We encountered a minefield through which there was no path. Rather than turn back, I ordered the lead soldier to go through it, gambling he’d not step on a mine. If he had — I’d have been toast at a court martial.

My decision was wrong. I should have taken the lead, not ordered someone else to do it. I was going by the book.

On return, I did take the lead, with the rest of the patrol using my footsteps in the snow and advancing single file and well spaced. I later had nightmares about first risking someone else’s life instead of my own.

That Oct. 19, 2008, Semrau did what he thought was right. He should not be charged. [color=#8B0000][Does “doing what one thinks is right” change wrong into right? Are “good intentions” enough? Can we ever really know what another’s “intentions” are?][/color]

The incident should have been ignored. And every (combat) soldier knows it. [color=#8B0000][Should the murdered man’s family and friends also ignore this “incident”?][/color]

Sen. John Kerry, the Democratic U.S. presidential candidate in 2004, won a Silver Star in Vietnam when he killed a wounded Vietnamese fighter who had shot at him.

In the Korean War, Lieut. Russ Gardiner and Cpl. Karl Fowler captured a Chinese soldier whom they beat horribly to shut him up as they brought him back to allied lines. They weren’t charged with abuse, but rightly decorated with a Military Cross and Military Medal.

Both were from Semrau’s regiment, the RCR, both legends in the ranks of Korean veterans.

See also The Banality Of Evil

[Southern]

@JAlanKatz

There is no politics without people.

Of course. However, does your average everyday joe concern himself with politics… rarely.

@JAlanKatz

Hitler can have whatever policy he wants - it’s only a problem because thousands of people carry out his policies.

Absolutely correct. So put those thousands on trial. Not the millions of average foot soldiers who were forced into service by the extrodinary circumstances created by hitler and his group of thugs.

@JAlanKatz

You should not excuse killers from moral approbation on the grounds that someone else suggested their rampage.

You should not confuse killers, who kill for the pleasure or personal gain, and soldiers who kill because they have been put in to extrodinary circumstances (created by horrible people who stand to gain power by sacrificing innocents).

I think it is important to remove the people you to believe murders from the war. Do they pose a threat to you and me? Or would they simple live thier lives in peace. The vast majority of soldiers only want to live in peace. They do not want war. War is brought to them by the state. Blame those who bring war. Its not your average foot soldier.

[bbnet]

‘Support our troops’ today means endorsing more killing of innocents with stolen money for the personal visceral satisfaction of being a partner in murder without exposing oneself to the dangers which it involves. 150 years ago, it probably meant something different?

@Scott F

essentially are all soldiers … criminals?

Yes if referring to a gunvernment run military.

@Scott F

if so can any Libertarian honestly “support the troops”?

Only when their emotion supersedes their logic.

@Scott F

does this mean Medals are not honourable but really just awards forthe best murderer?

Depends on the medal, but for the most part yes.

Your post isn’t extreme and harsh but this is:

Collateral Murder - Wikileaks - Iraq

[Southern]

@MMMark

Mon. 10/04/05 11:25 EDT
.post #41

@Le Master

Is the slave criminal if the master kills a man using a dagger the master procured using the fruit of the slave’s labor?

No…but this is not analogous to crimes of war. With war, the citizens are the slaves who provide the “fruit”: money, and also, in some cases, moral support (“support the troops”). The entire political and military hierarchical structure comprises the “master,” which makes the laws, passes down the orders, and metes out the punishment for disobedience. The ones actually committing the murder are the grunts (“the troops”), whom we are admonished to “support.”

But, “the troops” are just “following orders,” under the threat of punishment. So, who’s responsible? This is one of the questions explored in the famous Milgram Experiment and the book Obedience To Authority. Consider a passage from the wiki article:

…which measured the willingness of study participants to obey an authority figure who instructed them to perform acts that conflicted with their personal conscience.

But the point is that, for some soldiers, citizens and politicians, murdering innocent people does not “conflict with their personal conscience” (as long as it is justified in the name of “national defense” or “fighting terrorism” or “making the world safe for democracy” or any number of other jingoistic slogans.)

The root issue here (in my opinion) is the issue of responsibility for crime, and many people feel that Obedience To Authority either absolves them of Responsibility For Crime, or somehow eliminates the criminal nature of the act committed. This is the idea that must be explored, questioned and challenged.

Now consider this recent news story:The case for the killer captain

@Peter Worthington

Toronto Sun
Last Updated: April 3, 2010 7:07pm

Even though the court martial of Capt. Robert Semrau in Gatineau, Que., is expected to last into June, so far there’s little indication of sympathy or understanding of the pressures faced by a junior officer in a field command.

Semrau is the first Canadian to be charged with murdering an enemy combatant on a battlefield.

Semrau is also charged with attempted murder (in case murder fails), disgraceful conduct and negligence of duty.

If one didn’t know better, one might suppose he’s facing a lynch trial — politically motivated to advertise Canadian sanctimony.

By every account — even the prosecution’s — Semrau was an outstanding officer whom the Crown seeks to send to prison.

Semrau’s lawyer from the judge advocate general’s (JAG) legal department (Major Steve Turner) wanted the five-officer panel to be in civilian clothes so their rank would be unknown.

This was rightly rejected. They all know who is who.

What he should have urged is that panel (jury) members be drawn from combat arms who have served under fire and know what Semrau faced, when his patrol in Helmand province was ambushed by Taliban insurgents, and a mortally wounded Talib was subsequently shot.

According to The Canadian Press, the panel is comprised of a commodore, a colonel, two majors and a captain — one navy, two airforce and two army (branch of service unknown).

It seems a safe bet that none has ever been ambushed nor shot at, or faced the instant decisions a patrol commander in enemy territory must make.

Semrau’s choice was to abort the patrol and tend to the grievously wounded enemy — thus ensuring the ambush to stop the patrol succeeded — or to leave the man to the mercies of the Afghan National Army he was mentoring, and who’d already kicked and spat on the insurgent, and would have undoubtedly brutally killed him.

Instead, the wounded man was given a quick, merciful death. And the patrol carried on. [Did the wounded man ask for this death? If not, was this death something Semrau had a right to “give”?]

It’s hard to convey responsibilities a young officer faces in the field. Situations arise that require instant decisions that aren’t covered in training manuals.

While Afghanistan is unique, I recall leading patrols in Korea where poor judgment can be fatal.

I once led a patrol to investigate an earthen dyke behind which it was believed the Chinese were holed up waiting to attack at night.

We encountered a minefield through which there was no path. Rather than turn back, I ordered the lead soldier to go through it, gambling he’d not step on a mine. If he had — I’d have been toast at a court martial.

My decision was wrong. I should have taken the lead, not ordered someone else to do it. I was going by the book.

On return, I did take the lead, with the rest of the patrol using my footsteps in the snow and advancing single file and well spaced. I later had nightmares about first risking someone else’s life instead of my own.

That Oct. 19, 2008, Semrau did what he thought was right. He should not be charged. [Does “doing what one thinks is right” change wrong into right? Are “good intentions” enough? Can we ever really know what another’s “intentions” are?]

The incident should have been ignored. And every (combat) soldier knows it. [Should the murdered man’s family and friends also ignore this “incident”?]

Sen. John Kerry, the Democratic U.S. presidential candidate in 2004, won a Silver Star in Vietnam when he killed a wounded Vietnamese fighter who had shot at him.

In the Korean War, Lieut. Russ Gardiner and Cpl. Karl Fowler captured a Chinese soldier whom they beat horribly to shut him up as they brought him back to allied lines. They weren’t charged with abuse, but rightly decorated with a Military Cross and Military Medal.

Both were from Semrau’s regiment, the RCR, both legends in the ranks of Korean veterans.

See also The Banality Of Evil

I think this story shows exactly why we have to be careful when assigning blame in war. There are no doubt some absolutely bloodthirsty killers in uniform. They should be dealt with as such. But the rest are asked to make choices that are almost impossible for us to understand unless we have been there.

[JAlanKatz]

@Southern

You should not confuse killers, who kill for the pleasure or personal gain, and soldiers who kill because they have been put in to extrodinary circumstances (created by horrible people who stand to gain power by sacrificing innocents).

Well, I haven’t watched the news lately. Do we have a draft, or do we have an army full of people who decided that free college tuition was worth signing a paper obligating them to kill when so ordered?

[Marko]

@Southern

I think this story shows exactly why we have to be careful when assigning blame in war. There are no doubt some absolutely bloodthirsty killers in uniform. They should be dealt with as such. But the rest are asked to make choices that are almost impossible for us to understand unless we have been there.

The impossible choice of having to decide between having a patrol fail and murdering a human being?

[Marko]

@Southern

I think it is important to remove the people you to believe murders from the war. Do they pose a threat to you and me? Or would they simple live thier lives in peace. The vast majority of soldiers only want to live in peace. They do not want war. War is brought to them by the state. Blame those who bring war. Its not your average foot soldier.

They absolutely pose a threat. They will kill people on command. People guilty of nothing. How many more people have to die by their hands for them to cease being harmless?

I do not buy your picture of ´reluctant warriors´, American soldiers are gung-ho, love the idea of “seeing action”, take it as a sign of professionalism to have the world split into “good guys” and “bad guys” and are bothered about killing a person in a designated enemy country or “Indian land” as much as they are bothered about squashing a bug. They do not sign themselves away because they are forced, pressured or bamboozled. They primarily join because the pay and the benefits are excellent compared to what they could with their education earn in civilian sector.

[Southern]

@Marko

@Southern

I think this story shows exactly why we have to be careful when assigning blame in war. There are no doubt some absolutely bloodthirsty killers in uniform. They should be dealt with as such. But the rest are asked to make choices that are almost impossible for us to understand unless we have been there.

The impossible choice of having to decide between having a patrol fail and murdering a human being?

False choices. The real choices are you stop the patrol to tend to one enemy soldier who was already half dead (putting at risk others to ambushes, traps, etc.), leave the man to be beaten and tortured to death by afgan allies, or kill him quickly. None of these are good choices. All immoral.