An unsparing rejoinder to the "support the troops/oppose the war" position

As someone who struggles with the "oppose the war/support the troops" paradox (which may, in fact, be the very contradiction this essayist suggests), I'd like to throw this out to all those who consider themselves to be anti-war/anti-imperialist.

The following is an excerpt from the essay "Naomi Klein's 'Courage'" by Professor Michael Neumann:

--snip--

This is not compassion; it is cowardice. Unless you are a third force, with decisive power to affect the world situation, in a war you must take one side or the other. The left is no such third force. We are for the American invasion of Iraq, and the troops that effect it, or we are against it. To be serious is to acknowledge that one can't always pick and choose. We could not have seriously said, "we support the war against Hitler, but oppose Stalin", because that, taken seriously, would have been silly. Are you going to fight Stalin? Then you help Hitler. Are you not going to fight Stalin? Then who gives a damn what you 'oppose'?

If we support the troops, that means we don't want them to be killed, and we support their efforts to protect themselves, at least until such time--months, years?--as they can withdraw. In other words, we are against the Iraqis who attack them. We are for the deaths of the attackers, and anyone else who gets caught in crossfire as American troops fight back. If not, how is our support 'meaningful'?

We make patronizing excuses for 'our' soldiers: they are poor, ignorant, oppressed, deceived by recruiters, they are canon-fodder, they are everything that has formed the backbone of evil armies since the dawn of history. They are everything, that is, but adults, responsible for their decisions. As a consequence of these decisions, they have come thousands of miles to kill and mutilate people who did them no harm. If we--to use Klein's idiom--'meaningfully' support 'our' troops, we 'meaningfully' support the rape of Iraq, however much we bleat about the right and proper, partisan and time-consuming way to bring the boys home. The courage to be serious means the courage to make hard choices. Do we have it?

--snip--

http://www.counterpunch.com/neumann05102005.html

But I can still see the argument that many members of the military join because of a complete lack of other viable options (since they are embroiled in generational poverty, economic recession, lack of educational options, etc.).

However, on a more personal level, my husband has said that, if he were to make the decision whether or not to join the Army again today, he would choose not to, simply because he would only kill in the case of true defense of our country. And in the case of the war in Iraq, this does NOT involve defense of our country. So if he were still in, he'd be directed and ordered to kill those who did nothing to his country and posed no harm or threat to his country. And he would have a huge problem with that now. He would have had a problem with it at 17, too, when he joined, but he "didn't think about things like that back then."

...didn't do a thing for me.

But then, I reject the basic premise, which is eerily like Bush's: "If you're not A, you're B." I find that wholly unconvincing and unlike most humans who are capable of making much finer, and perfectly consistent, distinctions.

It was pretty muddled.

Doesn't make much sense to me. How in the HELL did Michael Neumann become a professor? x(

""we support the war against Hitler, but oppose Stalin", because that, taken seriously, would have been silly." - Not silly at all. I'd LOVE to take one of his classes and rip his ass to shreads before I dropped it.

"Are you going to fight Stalin? Then you help Hitler. " - False dichotomy?

What a putz! He reminds me of a lizard I know:

"patronising excuses" "poor, ignorant...cannon fodder"

These aren't patronising excuses these are the reality. Many young soldiers are ignorant of the realities always been the same. My great grandad lies in a cemetery in Gallipolli killed in a war that he along with many others thought was a fantastic idea at the time. He was ignorant of the reasons and realities. In that war WW1 the British Tommy had greater affection for the German or the Turk he was fighting, rather than his superiors once the reality dawned. The older soldiers and those up the hierachy maybe. But the rank and file are invariably economic conscripts.

And to say that hoping they don't get killed is hoping that an iraqi gets killed is ridiculous. I hope NO-ONE GETS KILLED.

This will be good, however, to evaluate our views and hold them to scrutiny.

Fine so far, but then...



That sounds a lot like labeling us "pro-abortion." A logical fallacy, at best. Hyperventilating, more accurately.



Well, how would a lack of support be meaningful? :shrug:

Best we can do, it seems to me, is to urge that our "leaders" bring the troops home as quick as can be, while acknowledging that we need to find a way to help repair the damage that's already been done.

I cannot support murder, no matter who's rationalizing (or sanctioning) the killing.

As unpopular as this may be with the 'support the murderers, er I mean troops' crowd, it's the raw truth as I see it. And I calls'em as I sees'em. ;-)

I do agree that "support the troops" was a great way to get many on the left to shut up for the first few months after we invaded Iraq. The theme was also trumped up again as a way for many pro-Bushies to identify themselves as supporter of the pretender to the throne before the election without attracting vandalism from the more exhuberent anti-war people (not that it is true, but this is how they think).

But I do not agree that "supporting the troops" in principle is giving any one carte blanche to kill Iraqis. The logic has more than two steps, therefore the error of the logic is compounded for every step this person takes.

For example:

Liberal = Democrat = Bill Clinton = Welfare reform = Republican = Conservative

I support the troops by helping to pay for their healthcare when they get home. I do not need a sticker for it nor do I need a "leftier than thou" person calling me a hypocrite for it. Coming down on ground troops for the situation they find themselves in is wrong and distasteful. Coming down on the political leaders and brass that allowed this to happen, warranted.

Too bad we aren't within spitting distance of THOSE people.

all of course agree on what "support the troops" actually means--or Neumann is trying to portray his interpretation as the definitive one, at any rate. I wish that phrase had never entered the lexicon. There's something false about it. I hate that fucking phrase and I wish i could read an essayist who recognizes the PR-ness of it, the false construct it sets up.

I have a car because I need a car. I find it useful when I have to transport a sick child to the doctor, for instance.

If the glue-sniffing neighbor kid were to steal it and use it to run down some gradeschoolers, it isn't the car's fault, nor has the car become inherently evil, any more than it's the soldiers' fault which targets they are pointed at.

Armies, including ours, can and occasionally do stand between oppressors and their victims.

Granted, they can also become the tool of the oppressors.

I think it's seriously misguided to pin this on the enlistees, most of whom just want to serve and protect their country - they don't get to pick and choose which battles to fight, that's the voters job.

A job that we failed to perform adequately.