'Stop saying "Support the troops"'

[Dick Whitman]

Thought-provoking piece in (on? at?) Salon.com, inspired by the subtle disapproval the writer felt when he elected not to donate to "the troops" at a local convenience store:

http://www.salon.com/2013/08/25/no_thanks_i_wont_support_the_troops/

Such troop worship is trite and tiresome, but that’s not its primary danger. A nation that continuously publicizes appeals to “support our troops” is explicitly asking its citizens not to think. It is the ideal slogan for suppressing the practice of democracy, presented to us in the guise of democratic preservation.

He also hits on something that we have discussed on here before, which is the NFL's co-opting of the armed forces, particularly at the Super Bowl:

No televised sporting event escapes celebration of the troops. Networks treat viewers to stars and stripes covering entire football fields, complementing the small-but-always-visible flags the studio hosts sport on their lapels. The national anthem is often accompanied by fighter jets and cannon blasts. Displays of hypermasculine prowess frame the reciprocal virtues of courage and devotion embedded in American war mythology.

I would recommend to everyone here last year's novel "Billy Lynne's' Long Halftime Walk," which depicts brilliantly what a group of soldiers deal with after being lionized by the public.

 

[cranberry]

As long as we get to keep the phantom jet flyovers.

 

[nmmetsfan]

To say that asking someone to support the troops is asking them not to think is false equivalency.

If you blindly throw money (or attention, or whatever) at something just because "Support the troops" is invoked, then that is on you.

This story jumps to a lot of conclusions that aren't necessarily accurate. For instance:

To support the troops is to accept a particular idea of the American role in the world. It also forces us to pretend that it is a country legitimately interested in equality for all its citizens.

That's simply not true.

 

[Boom_70]

At this point I think we should support and thank the workers who make the drones.

 

[LongTimeListener]

To say that asking someone to support the troops is asking them not to think is false equivalency.

That's exactly what it was asking when the slogan made its debut during the first Iraq War. The whole "spitting on soldiers" myth was strong at that point, and a voice questioning whether and why we should invade Iraq was lumped in with the anti-Vietnam feelings of 15 years earlier. Over time, and especially with the second Iraq war, it became a standard and popular way to discourage dissent.

It's also a Komen-esque way to raise funds for groups with undefined purposes. If you don't give to Komen, you don't care about cancer; if you don't give to "Support The Troops" groups, you don't care about soldiers.

 

[The Big Ragu]

Such troop worship is trite and tiresome, but that’s not its primary danger. A nation that continuously publicizes appeals to “support our troops” is explicitly asking its citizens not to think. It is the ideal slogan for suppressing the practice of democracy, presented to us in the guise of democratic preservation.

This is absolute nonsense. It would be a suppression of the practice of democracy, if the person who asked him for money was a government agent. Presumably it wasn't; it was a private charitable organization of some sort with a mission that has to do with troops.

When you are hitting up people walking by for money, what else would you say, except "support the troops"? Is the person who says, "Support breast cancer research" using an ideal slogan for suppressing the practice of democracy?

My bigger problem with people with cans in the street is that there are more scam artists out there than legitimate causes. I never give cash to random people in the street. If you have anything that allows me to learn more about your charity, your programs and most importantly, the percentage of fundraising expenses and overhead (including salaries) to the money that actually goes to funding your programs, I will take a look at what you are doing and if I like the cause, I'll write a (tax deductible -- I don't think it should be a deduction, but as long as it is, I am going to take it) check.

 

[Cosmo]

This is an old story. Several alumni friends of mine wrote a letter to Virginia Tech's vice president demanding the author be fired for this take, but they're the sort of hardcore conservatives who would be pissed off by such rhetoric.

 

[Big Circus]

This is an old story. Several alumni friends of mine wrote a letter to Virginia Tech's vice president demanding the author be fired for this take, but they're the sort of hardcore conservatives who would be pissed off by such rhetoric.

I didn't realize this was the VT piece - I saw it on his website a few weeks ago. Some of the reaction (not speaking of your friends here) probably has to do with Salaita's ethnicity.

 

[TheSportsPredictor]

I would recommend to everyone here last year's novel "Billy Lynne's' Long Halftime Walk," which depicts brilliantly what a group of soldiers deal with after being lionized by the public.

Great book. Skewers everything, even the troops.

 

[Boom_70]

I have a problem with anyone retailer asking me to support a
cause while at cash register.

Petco does that and it drives me nuts. "Sir do you want to
support cats with no feet today?"

CVS does it also if you pay using atm card. Not only do you
have to enter your code but then a prompt comes up asking if you
would like to donate to whatever the cause of the month is.

 

[Starman]

As long as we can sing 20-minute versions of 'God Bless America' at every New York Yankees game to help The Official Team Of 9/11 defeat terrorism, and stuff.

 

[Boom_70]

As long as we can sing 20-minute versions of 'God Bless America' at every New York Yankees game to help The Official Team Of 9/11 defeat terrorism, and stuff.

Suppose to thank the troops for "defending our way of life" . Whenever I hear it it always makes me feel a bit sheepish as I sit in a ridiculously priced seat eating ridiculously priced food and then sit in hours of traffic getting home. Maybe "our way of life" is not
always what it is cracked up to be.

 

[Starman]

If I were opposing teams I'd be getting ****ing sick and tired of my players sitting around and getting cold during the interminable performaneces.

If I were an opposing manager, I would tell my players to go out and hit fungos and play catch in the outfield, and the pitcher toss warmup pitches on the sideline, while the song is going on.

 

[Morris816]

My only issue with some people who believe in "support the troops" think that if you oppose a war, you oppose the troops.

This seems to go back to Vietnam, in which many who opposed the war there treated the returning soldiers like they were bad people.

What those opposing the Vietnam War forgot was most of the soldiers were drafted and didn't get a choice in the matter. Plus it's not the soldiers who decide to go to war. Congress does, and it's usually the President making the request.

To me, "support the troops" is best served as a reminder of this: It's fine to oppose a war and to criticize the people who decided to go to war, but don't take it out on the soldiers who are simply doing what they are asked to do, whether said soldier was drafted or voluntarily enlisted.

 

[Dick Whitman]

This seems to go back to Vietnam, in which many who opposed the war there treated the returning soldiers like they were bad people.

Did they?

 

[Bubbler]

My only issue with some people who believe in "support the troops" think that if you oppose a war, you oppose the troops.

This seems to go back to Vietnam, in which many who opposed the war there treated the returning soldiers like they were bad people.

The myth that keeps on mything.

 

[Dick Whitman]

I think it's perfectly reasonable to oppose the troops, as well.

Even in Vietnam, they ultimately chose to go there in lieu of other options. Now, on my sliding scale of opposition between LBJ and Winnie Cooper's 18-year-old brother who has neither the experience nor the maturity at that point to consider world geopolitics in light of his own fully formed worldview, LBJ gets the lion's share of the wrath. But it is not unreasonable to target Winnie Cooper's brother for some criticism. It's patronizing to the troops otherwise. They are human beings with a functioning brain. Nationalism doesn't give them dispensation from using it.

 

[User 11148]

My only issue with some people who believe in "support the troops" think that if you oppose a war, you oppose the troops.

This seems to go back to Vietnam, in which many who opposed the war there treated the returning soldiers like they were bad people.

The myth that keeps on mything.

I don't think that's a myth. I have ex-military friends who were treated shabbily during that period. I wasn't there with them, of course, but I don't think these guys would lie about it.

 

[old_tony]

Thought-provoking piece in (on? at?) Salon.com, inspired by the subtle disapproval the writer felt when he elected not to donate to "the troops" at a local convenience store:

http://www.salon.com/2013/08/25/no_thanks_i_wont_support_the_troops/

Such troop worship is trite and tiresome, but that’s not its primary danger. A nation that continuously publicizes appeals to “support our troops” is explicitly asking its citizens not to think. It is the ideal slogan for suppressing the practice of democracy, presented to us in the guise of democratic preservation.

He also hits on something that we have discussed on here before, which is the NFL's co-opting of the armed forces, particularly at the Super Bowl:

No televised sporting event escapes celebration of the troops. Networks treat viewers to stars and stripes covering entire football fields, complementing the small-but-always-visible flags the studio hosts sport on their lapels. The national anthem is often accompanied by fighter jets and cannon blasts. Displays of hypermasculine prowess frame the reciprocal virtues of courage and devotion embedded in American war mythology.

I would recommend to everyone here last year's novel "Billy Lynne's' Long Halftime Walk," which depicts brilliantly what a group of soldiers deal with after being lionized by the public.

I wonder if he has similar feelings for slogans such as "for the children," "for the poor" and "social justice."

 

[Dick Whitman]

Thought-provoking piece in (on? at?) Salon.com, inspired by the subtle disapproval the writer felt when he elected not to donate to "the troops" at a local convenience store:

http://www.salon.com/2013/08/25/no_thanks_i_wont_support_the_troops/

Such troop worship is trite and tiresome, but that’s not its primary danger. A nation that continuously publicizes appeals to “support our troops” is explicitly asking its citizens not to think. It is the ideal slogan for suppressing the practice of democracy, presented to us in the guise of democratic preservation.

He also hits on something that we have discussed on here before, which is the NFL's co-opting of the armed forces, particularly at the Super Bowl:

No televised sporting event escapes celebration of the troops. Networks treat viewers to stars and stripes covering entire football fields, complementing the small-but-always-visible flags the studio hosts sport on their lapels. The national anthem is often accompanied by fighter jets and cannon blasts. Displays of hypermasculine prowess frame the reciprocal virtues of courage and devotion embedded in American war mythology.

I would recommend to everyone here last year's novel "Billy Lynne's' Long Halftime Walk," which depicts brilliantly what a group of soldiers deal with after being lionized by the public.

I wonder if he has similar feelings for slogans such as "for the children," "for the poor" and "social justice."

I don't know. He didn't write about that.