![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Just please read the whole thing before you decide which way your knee jerks in reaction.
It's an amazingly common politically correct disclaimer, when denouncing the war, to follow it with "but I support our troops, of course".
I've been thinking a bit about that.
Do I support our troops?
Well, obviously, I don't want them killed. I wish no person ill who has done me no wrong, in or out of uniform, no matter whether he or she grew up in this country or somewhere else.
The American soldiers aren't draftees, but that doesn't mean I think they're bloodthirsty or evil men. Most of them didn't sign up to go invade someone who wasn't a threat to us. They signed up to get an education, be a man, further their family's pride, serve their country, impress the chicks... perfectly reasonable and legitimate rationales for becoming soldiers. No foul.
And they're not given an opt-out when a war starts. So our soldiers are in a sense trapped there as much as the Iraqis are. "Following orders" isn't an excuse for atrocity, but the rules of war are that it's legal for people wearing the jerseys of the away team to kill the guys wearing the jerseys of the home team, and vice versa -- that's not considered an atrocity, that's just warfare. So by the rules we've set up and agree to live by, soldiers get to be ordered to kill each other. Again, no foul.
I suppose I care more about Iraqi civilians, though even that's a little dubious. For some reason it's a larger tragedy if women or children or mature adults are killed without asking to be placed in harm's way than if young men are. But there you have it, it's the rules, again.
Our soldiers are "doing a job" and there's a common PC reaction to hope they "do it well". But if I don't believe that the job they're doing is in any way related to my security, and indeed is harmful to it even if they do their job really really well, why the hell should I care how successful they are? (I'll answer that, hang on a moment.)
If we were being invaded -- or if some nonprovoking third party like Kuwait had been invaded -- I'd think our soldiers were working toward a worthwhile goal (as opposed to working on behalf of an abomination), and I'd have no problem saying "I support our troops even if I think we could have solved this a different way." This is different.
But I do wish for our soldiers's success. I do, because if our boys are quickly and decisively successful, fewer people overall will get killed, at least as a direct result. I want it to be over, no mistake about that. And the only way it's likely to be over fast is if our team wins fast, because there ain't no way we'll give up fast. So I do wish them success because I wish for a fast end to the war.
But because our soldiers are doing nothing to further our security, I don't have any particularly greater attachment to some boy from West Virginia than I do to some boy from Baghdad.
Except that the kid from West Virginia wears the jersey of my team.
And, if we were actually threatened, he'd go die to protect me, and indeed that's what he signed up for. I don't doubt it, and I honor him for that.
So I guess I do root for him. Even though he's been dangerously and stupidly diverted into doing something that actually undermines my security and my nation's values. He means well. I wish him well.
Having said all that, consider this. If I lived in Germany in 1938, I'd certainly have wished success upon my country's soldiers as they marched off to invade Poland. So I do not think I do any great moral thing. Our soldier's job is both to save my ass and to further the geopolitical wet dream of a madman.
It's an amazingly common politically correct disclaimer, when denouncing the war, to follow it with "but I support our troops, of course".
I've been thinking a bit about that.
Do I support our troops?
Well, obviously, I don't want them killed. I wish no person ill who has done me no wrong, in or out of uniform, no matter whether he or she grew up in this country or somewhere else.
The American soldiers aren't draftees, but that doesn't mean I think they're bloodthirsty or evil men. Most of them didn't sign up to go invade someone who wasn't a threat to us. They signed up to get an education, be a man, further their family's pride, serve their country, impress the chicks... perfectly reasonable and legitimate rationales for becoming soldiers. No foul.
And they're not given an opt-out when a war starts. So our soldiers are in a sense trapped there as much as the Iraqis are. "Following orders" isn't an excuse for atrocity, but the rules of war are that it's legal for people wearing the jerseys of the away team to kill the guys wearing the jerseys of the home team, and vice versa -- that's not considered an atrocity, that's just warfare. So by the rules we've set up and agree to live by, soldiers get to be ordered to kill each other. Again, no foul.
I suppose I care more about Iraqi civilians, though even that's a little dubious. For some reason it's a larger tragedy if women or children or mature adults are killed without asking to be placed in harm's way than if young men are. But there you have it, it's the rules, again.
Our soldiers are "doing a job" and there's a common PC reaction to hope they "do it well". But if I don't believe that the job they're doing is in any way related to my security, and indeed is harmful to it even if they do their job really really well, why the hell should I care how successful they are? (I'll answer that, hang on a moment.)
If we were being invaded -- or if some nonprovoking third party like Kuwait had been invaded -- I'd think our soldiers were working toward a worthwhile goal (as opposed to working on behalf of an abomination), and I'd have no problem saying "I support our troops even if I think we could have solved this a different way." This is different.
But I do wish for our soldiers's success. I do, because if our boys are quickly and decisively successful, fewer people overall will get killed, at least as a direct result. I want it to be over, no mistake about that. And the only way it's likely to be over fast is if our team wins fast, because there ain't no way we'll give up fast. So I do wish them success because I wish for a fast end to the war.
But because our soldiers are doing nothing to further our security, I don't have any particularly greater attachment to some boy from West Virginia than I do to some boy from Baghdad.
Except that the kid from West Virginia wears the jersey of my team.
And, if we were actually threatened, he'd go die to protect me, and indeed that's what he signed up for. I don't doubt it, and I honor him for that.
So I guess I do root for him. Even though he's been dangerously and stupidly diverted into doing something that actually undermines my security and my nation's values. He means well. I wish him well.
Having said all that, consider this. If I lived in Germany in 1938, I'd certainly have wished success upon my country's soldiers as they marched off to invade Poland. So I do not think I do any great moral thing. Our soldier's job is both to save my ass and to further the geopolitical wet dream of a madman.
