If I could kill people with my mind, I would still probably stay my hand mind hand. But if I could wound with my mind, then we’d be in business. Assuming I had that power, one of my first targets would be the Republican pundits and supporters who assume that, to support the troops, one must support the war that they’re engaged in.
I fear that the heart of the problem is a small misunderstanding of what “support” means. When I say that I “support” our troops, I mean that I favor serious thinking, a resort to all other available alternatives, planning in excruciating detail, over-committal of resources to ensure a quick victory, and an exit plan in mind, before I would put any American soldier in harm’s way. So when I say I “support” our troops, what I mean is, I want them to not risk their lives if it could be avoided, and if they must, I want to ensure that they risk their lives safely and with the assurance of all possible support and forethought.
That, to me, seems like an expansive and fair definition of “support.” Sadly, the phrase “support our troops” has been co-opted to mean, “support our war,” and has been twisted into a rhetorical device used to cast doubt on the patriotism of anyone who doubts our mission in Iraq. This twist of the phrase misses the point of the citizen’s role in a democracy.
To fail to question our military leaders in the run-up to, and during war, is to abdicate the citizen’s essential right and duty to ensure that the lives of our fellow-citizens are not risked in an unsafe or avoidable manner. In Roman times, a citizen would receive the civic crown (corona civica) for saving the life of a citizen-soldier in battle. What better way is there to discharge this solemn duty than to think before committing to warfare? As Augustus earned his civic crown by ending war – thus saving all soldiers and indeed all citizens – we can earn our own by negotiating as speedy an end to Iraq as is possible. After all, isn’t bringing the troops home the ultimate show of support?
I do not for a second imagine that I’m saying anything revolutionary here: anyone who has seriously thought about the matter can separate “support the war” from “support the troops.” And anyone with more than a third-grade education knows that even if one opposes the war, one must always want the best for our troops, and treat them with the respect they deserve. But the worrying repetition of “support our troops” as an injunction against criticizing Bush and the war drives me to comment here again. The troops need our respect, and keeping them in our thoughts and prayers (if you’re the type to pray) is one way to “support” them. But support through political deeds and vigorous democratic debate, rather than words and thoughts , seems to me to be better.
Hi, Ames. I came over here via Orac’s link to your vaccine-and-autism posts, and hung around to look at other posts. So far, I rather like what I see. This post in particular stirred me enough to comment, since it’s a topic I care a lot about.
I fear that the heart of the problem is a small misunderstanding of what “support” means.
Probably. A great many political problems are really no more than problems in communication.
When I say that I “support” our troops, I mean that I favor serious thinking, a resort to all other available alternatives, planning in excruciating detail, over-committal of resources to ensure a quick victory, and an exit plan in mind, before I would put any American soldier in harm’s way.
We agree on this, mostly. (So, incidentally, do most of the curent and former military people I know.) Consideration of other alternatives, detailed planning in advance, and use of all available resources are, or are supposed to be, standard aspects of planning any military campaign. In fact, pretty much the only thing I see that we might not agree on is the last component: having an “exit plan” in mind. And the reason we might not agree on that is simple: in a war there is only one viable “exit plan”: victory. Any war, any battle that doesn’t end in victory must perforce end in defeat. Do you agree?
To fail to question our military leaders in the run-up to, and during war, is to abdicate the citizen’s essential right and duty to ensure that the lives of our fellow-citizens are not risked in an unsafe or avoidable manner.
Also agreed. However, this suggests another question to me, which lies at the heart of my disagreement with most ‘antiwar’ people. Granted that it’s right to ask “is the case for war valid in this case?”, are you willing to accept the possibility that the answer is “yes”?
Posted by wolfwalker | June 11, 2008, 4:29 pmHey Wolfwalker! Thanks for visiting. I hope you and others that came here through those links do stick around, and thanks also for contributing.
Anyways, I disagree to the extent that victory and defeat are not exit strategies: they’re goals to be accomplished. An exit strategy is how one leaves a conflict, for better or for worse, and one must have that in place to guarantee that war doesn’t deteriorate into nebulous nation building. I think that’s our problem here.
And as for whether I’d accept it if the war was valid, the answer is a definite yes. I support the process of rational decisionmaking and deep planning; I’m not married to any specific result, so long as it comes from a thorough inquiry.
Posted by Ames | June 11, 2008, 10:26 pm