'Stop saying "Support the troops"'

[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.

There was a draft. What other legal options did the troops have at that time.
There was no choice other than to leave the country.

Or jail.

Unless I am not understanding your point, then how would Viet Nam era troops be subject
to criticism if their only choices to avoid were illegal.

Because civil disobedience is a valid option as a principled action.

Agree with you on Iraq, obviously. They are not bystanders to the politics.

Civil disobedience is a valid option as a principled action against immoral actions. Do you believe it is a principled action against mistaken policies? Or are you arguing that our involvement in Vietnam was immoral?

I'm taking no such stance. I'm merely saying that if you accept the premise that our involvement in Vietnam was immoral, then the soldiers' culpability is at least in play for discussion. It at least gets balanced against other factors - their age, their alternatives, etc., etc. You can't just say they were following orders and end the inquiry there.

You must have missed the part about soldiers not having the option to disobey orders.

Sure they do.

 

[SpeedTchr]

Given the REALLY right opportunity, I would be happy to spit on plenty of them.

Says it all.

 

[Bradley Guire]

And who signs up for volunteer military service, war or not? It's the economically disadvantaged. They sign up for military service because it's that or a dead end minimum wage job or living off government assistance. I'm guessing the fact that we are at war or who we are at war with has very little impact on the decision to join.

I see you've met my brother.

 

[Riptide]

The Vietnam cluster****, coupled later with Watergate and a disgraced presidential administration, is what brought civil disobedience out in the open in mainstream America. Those events were catalysts for what came later, generally speaking. So to say that soldiers of that era could just refuse to follow orders is misleading. It just wasn't done back then.

Most people followed orders as a structured way of life in America until all the **** hit the fan in the Sixties. It was uncommon for most of us to question authority – police, government, drill sergeants – back then, so you can't blame the soldiers now in hindsight. Civil disobedience became a product of those times, but the military backlash came after that. Vietnam was the "bad" war, fought with kids who got thrown into hell, and they paid a huge price in the name of "fighting for democracy," or whatever. They were sold up the river all along.

Everything changed after that.
People stopped blindly trusting authority.
But you can't lay the blame on soldiers of that era.

 

[deskslave]

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.

There was a draft. What other legal options did the troops have at that time.
There was no choice other than to leave the country.

Or jail.

Unless I am not understanding your point, then how would Viet Nam era troops be subject
to criticism if their only choices to avoid were illegal.

Because civil disobedience is a valid option as a principled action.

Agree with you on Iraq, obviously. They are not bystanders to the politics.

Civil disobedience is a valid option as a principled action against immoral actions. Do you believe it is a principled action against mistaken policies? Or are you arguing that our involvement in Vietnam was immoral?

I'm taking no such stance. I'm merely saying that if you accept the premise that our involvement in Vietnam was immoral, then the soldiers' culpability is at least in play for discussion. It at least gets balanced against other factors - their age, their alternatives, etc., etc. You can't just say they were following orders and end the inquiry there.

You must have missed the part about soldiers not having the option to disobey orders.

I believe, if I'm not mistaken (which knowing virtually nothing about military law I might be), that soldiers have not only the option to disobey what they believe to be an illegal order but also the obligation to do so.

I will grant that when the order, so to speak, comes from the Commander-in-Chief, any disobedience is highly unlikely to be seen as following the obligation to disobey.

 

[Boom_70]

The Vietnam cluster****, coupled later with Watergate and a disgraced presidential administration, is what brought civil disobedience out in the open in mainstream America. Those events were catalysts for what came later, generally speaking. So to say that soldiers of that era could just refuse to follow orders is misleading. It just wasn't done back then.

Most people followed orders as a structured way of life in America until all the **** hit the fan in the Sixties. It was uncommon for most of us to question authority – police, government, drill sergeants – back then, so you can't blame the soldiers now in hindsight. Civil disobedience became a product of those times, but the military backlash came after that. Vietnam was the "bad" war, fought with kids who got thrown into hell, and they paid a huge price in the name of "fighting for democracy," or whatever. They were sold up the river all along.

Everything changed after that.
People stopped blindly trusting authority.
But you can't lay the blame on soldiers of that era.

Your timeline is a bit off but your overall thought process is correct. **** is practicing bit of
revisionist history in suggesting that Viet Nam Era soldiers had other options and should
have known that the war was immoral. The rallying cry of that time was the war was to
stop the spread of communism. The Cold War was in place. The Cuban missile crisis was fresh in
everyone's memories.

Watergate really came after the war was winding down. The hearings were not held until 1973 and Nixon did not resign until 1974

 

[Dick Whitman]

The dirty, smelly hippies chose not to go. There were options. At some point during the '60s, you knew what you were getting into. Now, going may have been the honorable thing to do, even in an immoral war. We can argue that until the cows come home. But to release soldiers from even the possibility of culpability because of the draft is patronizing. They did have a choice. Arguments to the contrary here seem to acknowledge that, but just add that it wasn't much of a choice for most 18-year-olds in 1965-71 or so. And they would be right. But they did have a choice. Soldiers aren't automatons.

 

[Boom_70]

The dirty, smelly hippies chose not to go. There were options. At some point during the '60s, you knew what you were getting into. Now, going may have been the honorable thing to do, even in an immoral war. We can argue that until the cows come home. But to release soldiers from even the possibility of culpability because of the draft is patronizing. They did have a choice. Arguments to the contrary here seem to acknowledge that, but just add that it wasn't much of a choice for most 18-year-olds in 1965-71 or so. And they would be right. But they did have a choice. Soldiers aren't automatons.

I believe the event that really changed the landscape on Viet Nam happened 1971 when The Times published
The Pentagon Papers.

 

[Nathan Scott Phillips]

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.

There was a draft. What other legal options did the troops have at that time.
There was no choice other than to leave the country.

Or jail.

Unless I am not understanding your point, then how would Viet Nam era troops be subject
to criticism if their only choices to avoid were illegal.

Because civil disobedience is a valid option as a principled action.

Agree with you on Iraq, obviously. They are not bystanders to the politics.

Civil disobedience is a valid option as a principled action against immoral actions. Do you believe it is a principled action against mistaken policies? Or are you arguing that our involvement in Vietnam was immoral?

I'm taking no such stance. I'm merely saying that if you accept the premise that our involvement in Vietnam was immoral, then the soldiers' culpability is at least in play for discussion. It at least gets balanced against other factors - their age, their alternatives, etc., etc. You can't just say they were following orders and end the inquiry there.

You must have missed the part about soldiers not having the option to disobey orders.

I believe, if I'm not mistaken (which knowing virtually nothing about military law I might be), that soldiers have not only the option to disobey what they believe to be an illegal order but also the obligation to do so.

I will grant that when the order, so to speak, comes from the Commander-in-Chief, any disobedience is highly unlikely to be seen as following the obligation to disobey.

That's sort of true. But it doesn't come down to "what they believe to be an illegal order." It has to actually be illegal, probably to the point where the guy disobeying the order has to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt in his court martial. Disobeying something that sounds questionable would usually be a really bad idea.

 

[Key]

Questioning the actions and decisions individuals made 40 years ago would seem both callous and arrogant. Even the author of the original piece doesn't seem to do this. He questions "The Troops" as a monolithic idea. Not from a "Johnny is culpable for My Lai because he was drafted and decided to serve his country instead of going to jail" perspective.

“Support our troops” entails a tacit injunction that we also support whatever politicians in any given moment deem the national interest.
...(E)ven if the military as an institution often does bad things, the individuals that comprise the military do not have to become bad people.

I don't see why I can't actually support the troops - the indivduals who have decided for whatever reason to serve their country - while not falling in lockstep to the political ideology that you and the Salon writer think "Support the Troops" means.

In other words, I was against the Iraq War from the beginning, but still support the individuals who were sent there.


Edited to fix the quote function.

 

[Dick Whitman]

Questioning the actions and decisions individuals made 40 years ago would seem both callous and arrogant. Even the author of the original piece doesn't seem to do this. He questions "The Troops" as a monolithic idea. Not from a "Johnny is culpable for My Lai because he was drafted and decided to serve his country instead of going to jail" perspective.

“Support our troops” entails a tacit injunction that we also support whatever politicians in any given moment deem the national interest.
...(E)ven if the military as an institution often does bad things, the individuals that comprise the military do not have to become bad people.

I don't see why I can't actually support the troops - the indivduals who have decided for whatever reason to serve their country - while not falling in lockstep to the political ideology that you and the Salon writer think "Support the Troops" means.

In other words, I was against the Iraq War from the beginning, but still support the individuals who were sent there.


Edited to fix the quote function.

What is the statute of limitations on analyzing decisions? Is LBJ henceforth pardoned, as well? Is Napoleon? Is Pontius Pilate?

 

[deskslave]

I just think sentiments like "I oppose the war but support the individuals who were sent there" don't have any intrinsic meaning of their own. Only the biggest of assholes would actively root for those soldiers to be wounded or killed, so why do we even need to say we hope they aren't? Of ****ing course we do.

But "support our troops" becomes a lot more problematic when it's uttered by, say, a Congressman opposing budget cuts that would close a military base in his district, even if that base is outdated, even if that money could be better spent on, for example, rehabilitation of soldiers injured in Iraq. It's all right to say you can oppose the war and support the troops ... but can you say you oppose the entire military-industrial complex AND support the troops? Knowing that dismantling that complex would leave a lot of those hard-working, patriotic sons of the heartland out of a job?

Or, to put it another way, can you say "I support our troops by believing that they shouldn't be put unnecessarily in harm's way," knowing that if we're not fighting a war somewhere, we don't need as big an army?

 

[Key]

****,
Men and women in a position of power can most certainly be criticized for the decisions they make. You've been criticizing the powerful subset of "Drafted 18-year-olds from 1968."

But "support our troops" becomes a lot more problematic when it's uttered by, say, a Congressman opposing budget cuts that would close a military base in his district, even if that base is outdated, even if that money could be better spent on, for example, rehabilitation of soldiers injured in Iraq.

Totally agree with this.

Or, to put it another way, can you say "I support our troops by believing that they shouldn't be put unnecessarily in harm's way," knowing that if we're not fighting a war somewhere, we don't need as big an army?

Yes, I think you can.


Edit to Add: For full disclosure, I come from a military family.

 

[Dick Whitman]

Again: Some 18-year-olds chose not to go. We revile them to this day as draft dodgers. You can't have it both ways. You can't indict draft dodgers while arguing that those who did go are exempted from independent thought because of their age. Age mitigates it, for sure. So do the circumstances. But a draft card is not a talisman. They chose to go, and that at least subjects their participation to a weighing of the competing factors they faced, draft or no draft. To argue otherwise is an insult to the participants.

 

[Boom_70]

Again: Some 18-year-olds chose not to go. We revile them to this day as draft dodgers. You can't have it both ways. You can't indict draft dodgers while arguing that those who did go are exempted from independent thought because of their age. Age mitigates it, for sure. So do the circumstances. But a draft card is not a talisman. They chose to go, and that at least subjects their participation to a weighing of the competing factors they faced, draft or no draft. To argue otherwise is an insult to the participants.

Most draft dodgers did not skip the war because it was immoral. They wanted to save
their own ass.

 

[Key]

I don't remember any indictment I made of draft dodgers. Having been of draft age during the first Iraqi War, I was terrified of going to war. As someone from a military family, I would like to think I would have served me country...but I didn't volunteer, either. So it's hard for me to critize either side for the decisions individuals make.

I'm just not sure what you're arguing. If this is another thought exercise, then great. But you've strayed pretty far from the original piece, and I'm not interested in arguing about the decisions of individuals.

If you want to argue that YOU would have gone to jail as an act of Civil Disobedience, that's fine. I just don't know why you would want to analyze the decisions of faceless individuals you don't know. That wasn't the point of the original piece.

 

[Dick Whitman]

It's in response to another poster's earlier post about how the troops are just following orders and, thus, exonerated.

 

[User 11148]

Again: Some 18-year-olds chose not to go. We revile them to this day as draft dodgers. You can't have it both ways. You can't indict draft dodgers while arguing that those who did go are exempted from independent thought because of their age. Age mitigates it, for sure. So do the circumstances. But a draft card is not a talisman. They chose to go, and that at least subjects their participation to a weighing of the competing factors they faced, draft or no draft. To argue otherwise is an insult to the participants.

Run with this a (very) little and you'll be arguing that pro-lifers who don't blow up abortion clinics are culpable for abortions. Rather Starmanesque of you **** ...

 

[Dick Whitman]

Again: Some 18-year-olds chose not to go. We revile them to this day as draft dodgers. You can't have it both ways. You can't indict draft dodgers while arguing that those who did go are exempted from independent thought because of their age. Age mitigates it, for sure. So do the circumstances. But a draft card is not a talisman. They chose to go, and that at least subjects their participation to a weighing of the competing factors they faced, draft or no draft. To argue otherwise is an insult to the participants.

Run with this a (very) little and you'll be arguing that pro-lifers who don't blow up abortion clinics are culpable for abortions. Rather Starmanesque of you **** ...

Of course they are, in theory. But other interests serve in counterweight, and it is an ultimately indefensible action.

 

[Boom_70]

For Viet Nam era soldiers there was a legal option between going to war and draft dodger. An estimated 170,000 registered as Conscientious Objectors on the grounds that they were opposed to war based on religious / moral beliefs. In return for deferment they were required to perform civil service duties.

**** perhaps those are the folks you should be celebrating for making a moral / legal decision.