Who Supports the Troops?
By Sheldon Richman
November 08, 2015 "Information
Clearing House" - A huge sign
outside a local tire store really irritated me a couple of weeks
ago. Its large letters blared: "WE SUPPORT THE TROOPS." I was
tempted to get out of the car and demand that the owner tell me what
he was actually doing besides displaying the sign, which probably
didn't cost much in money or effort. I suspected that posting the
sign was the extent of his "support," but I restrained myself and
kept going.I wonder if anyone ever asks the
owner that question. Probably not. People seem to think that
supporting the troops consists simply in displaying signs and bumper
stickers, and perhaps suppressing negative thoughts about what those
troops—including pilots—are
doing in the far-flung locations to which the imperial ruling elite
has dispatched them, That's all you need to do to be a citizen in
good standing of the Empire—that and pay your taxes on time. It's
funny because supporting the troops and declaring you support the
troops don't really seem to be the same thing. I can imagine a
conversation:
Troop supporter:
I support the troops!
Interlocutor: Okay, let's see how you support the
troops.
Troop supporter: You just did.
Interlocutor: I just did what?
Troop supporter: You just saw me support the
troops.
Interlocutor: No I didn't. I heard you say you
support the troopers.
Trooper supporter: That's right.
Interlocutor: Okay, then. Let's see how you support
the troops.
Troop supporter: You just did!
Interlocutor: No I didn't. All I saw was you saying you
support the troops. I want to see you actually support the troops.
Troop supporter: That's how I support the troops.
Interlocutor: To support means to
assist. How does your empty declaration of support assist the
troops?
Troop supporter: Why don't you support the
troops? Don't you love your country?
What's strange is that demanding an end to the
wars in which the troops are fighting, killing, and dying seems
not to count as support. You'd think that the ultimate expression of
support would be, "Bring them home now!" But that's not how typical
troop supporters see things. In fact, they think that's the opposite
of support—and even treason. Topsy-turvy.
While I believe their expressions of support are
sincere, I also believe they haven't thought things through. Good
intentions aren't enough. Their expressions in effect are
only in support of the regime that moves the troops to dangerous
spots on the map like pawns on a chessboard in the ruling elite's
geopolitical games.
I concede that opposing the wars—how many are
there today?—is also little more than a declaration not backed by
much action and therefore without immediate effect. However, I see a
difference. To the extent that declarations of support for the
troops reinforce the government's militarism, it endangers those
troops, and those not currently deployed—and that really doesn't
seem much like support. In my book, merely making the troops feel
better about what they are doing (if that is indeed the effect)
doesn't count as actual support.
On the other hand, to the extent that antiwar
declarations and public activities such as demonstrations change
government policy for the better, the troops are that much closer to
safety. That, I submit, would be of help to the troops.
So who really supports them: those who merely say they
support them while refusing to criticize the militarism that
imperils them, or those who vocally oppose militarism while trying
to convince families, friends, neighbors, and total strangers to
join them in opposition?
At some point during a discussion with an avowed
troop supporter, the matter of morale may come up. "I support the
troops but not necessarily the wars," he might say. "We've got to
keep the troops' morale up while they are away from home serving our
country."
Why do we want their morale high while they are
carrying out immoral orders—which does not serve the country but
only the regime? Remember, American troops are fighting aggressive
undeclared wars—in one manner or another—in more than half a dozen
countries, roughly from Somalia up to Syria and over to Pakistan.
Heaven knows where else the CIA (do their agents count as troops?)
and special-ops forces are? American military personnel—including drone
operators—routinely kill and injure noncombatants. As we know
too well, even hospitals and wedding parties are bombed.
Perhaps if the troops' morale was low, they'd
refuse to do the immoral things they do, like raiding homes,
operating killer drones, and flying bombers and gunships. Perhaps
they'd like to know that some Americans disapprove of what they are
doing. Some of the troops know that what they are doing is wrong.
What about their morale?
I know: they're just following orders. Does anyone
still think that's a valid excuse? One has no obligation to follow
an immoral order.
To be fair, troop supporters may do more than
merely express their views. They may send money to the Wounded
Warrior Project or a similar organization. I guess that's nice, but
I can't help thinking that for the mangled beneficiaries, the help
comes a little late. Where were their supporters before they were
deployed to hell?
Sheldon Richman keeps the blog Free
Association and is a senior fellow and chair of the trustees of
the Center
for a Stateless Society. Become a patron today!