Support our troops
March 13, 2008I was just watching State Secretary of Defense Jack de Vries (is that a Tom Clancy name or what?) on TV, explaining how he wants the Dutch people to show more appreciation and respect for our military and its personnel, despite whatever you might think of our mission in Afghanistan. And I couldn’t agree with the guy more.
I’m against us being involved in the mess the Americans and Brits created over there. It’s not our war, let them sort it out.
But, that’s a political issue. Our democratically elected politicians have decided that our men and women of the army should be there, and even though I fully disagree with that decision, it was not made by the army itself. They get stuck with doing the hard, dangerous, and intensive work over there, trying to do their goddamn best to help the people there, to create better living conditions. They are putting their lives on the line every day, and they do it with such commitment, passion, and determination that I can feel nothing but respect and pride for the work they do.
It of course helps that one of my best friends is in the Royal Military Academy (cavalry). The way he details life at the Academy, what they learn, the toughness of the job, the intense preperation they receive for being officers in the Dutch armed forces makes you realise more than ever how much respect these men and women deserve.
It’s easy to stand on the sideline, and critique our military. It’s easy to sit in your lounge chair, bag of Doritos, a beer, and 6 remotes to control your DVD, Blu-Ray (or, HD-DVD if you’ve been stupid), 50″ plasma, and whatever, while knowing you have to get up at 7am the next day, only to start up your 1.4 Opel Astra, to traffic jam your way to your boring 9-to-5, for the rest of your life, ever and ever, until you die.
Our guys and girls in the military are doing their very best to deliver, and they work hard, much harder than most of you will ever realise. And because of that, I support our troops in Afghanistan. Good job, guys.
I have a hard time finding sympathy for NATO soldiers, American in particular. You can argue that they have no choice in where they’re deployed all you like, that’s fine. However, these aren’t conscripts, they volunteered to fight, and it doesn’t take someone with more than a 5th grade education to realize more often than not, Western powers use their armies to fight imperial wars. They can cry “this isn’t what I signed up for!” all they like, but it amounts to playing the ignorant victim card because it’s plain to anyone that’s opened a history textbook, how they’d be used.
You can stereotype those who disagree as playing armchair general, but it isn’t valid, I’m not discussing tactics or strategy, and I’m not telling them how to do their job, I’m simply stating the ignorant get bitten.
Comment by Andrew — March 14, 2008 @ 1:56 am
There is nothing easy about doing 9-to-5 for a whole life. The troops are doing their jobs, and we are doing ours. Each one is fighting a different battle, but a battle nonetheless. Nobody told them to join the army anyway. If nobody would join, maybe there would be fewer wars, who knows.
And there is no “I support the troops, but I don’t support the war”. You may say “I feel bad for them and I would like them to come back home”, but that’s no “support” of what they do over there or what they go through. Don’t fall for these stupid words that hold no exact meaning of what you want to actually express.
I will now go enjoy my 50″ plasma TV, Blu-Ray and 6 remotes. Thank you for yet another bitter comment from you obviously directed to my likeness, like I had some decision power to stop wars or something. Besides, my husband works very hard (6 AM to 8:30 PM all this past week), so why the fuck NOT should he enjoy our new plasma? Isn’t this why he works hard for? To enjoy his free time? Why do we have to make him depressed by thinking not only his work, but also how some idiots are killing each other somewhere in Asia - a situation that he can’t change. Sorry, but the best we can do is vote for the right person to end the war, nothing more. In fact, we can’t even do that, because we can’t vote for our presidents of our countries anymore from afar (the Greek consulate removed the ability of voting outside of Greece a few years ago — I was going to vote in my consulate, 60km away, when I heard the news). So basically, I, my husband, or you, can’t do nothing about it. We are all powerless. If you want to see some better democracy, go check Switzerland’s system, which seems to be the fairest to me, as such matters are actually voted BY the people.
If people are voting for fucking idiots who get on power and then start imperialistic wars, I care not for them, neither the ones who fight their wars. You are either a pacifist or you are not. There’s no in-between. Soldiers are trained to kill and they would kill you if you come into their way during a battle. So why support them? Just because they think they were doing the right thing when they signed up, or because they were good church boys before joining the army? Give me a break. If you are going to support YOUR troops just because “they are victims of the current situation”, then you should support the OTHER SIDE’s troops too. But I didn’t see you doing so. I am sure their mothers are crying too when they come back in pieces.
Actually it’s simpler than that: It’s Darwin. The idiots or very poor who have to join the army for either financial reasons or because they are chauvinistic idiots, will die. That’s how it works. I don’t feel bad when a tiger eats a rhino, so I can’t feel bad for them either. The only people I feel bad for are the innocent victims of the war, like children, mothers and elders. No one else.
In other words: if you don’t support the war itself, you have no business “supporting” the troops. I have no problem “support” our troops if MY country was INVADED out of the blue. But in this case, I would support the WAR. But in our case, you have people joining the army when an immoral war is going on and they KNOW where they are going (either for faith or money reasons). This makes them immoral in my eyes and they don’t have my support at all.
Comment by Eugenia — March 14, 2008 @ 3:23 am
Of course, the above does not apply if the troops where drafted in the army without their wishes.
Comment by Eugenia — March 14, 2008 @ 4:29 am
The world doesn’t revolve around you… I actually wrote that characterisation partly ABOUT MYSELF, as I was staring at my jenga tower of 8 remote controls. Seeing you’re not Dutch, and also not living here, you have absolutely NOTHING to do with all of the above. I also don’t know what your husband has to do with this… There’s no need to take it personal. I’d say lay down on the caffeine, but you don’t do caffeine :).
Uhm, we didn’t start any war. America and Britain did. We Dutch didn’t. We only came in afterward to stabalise. Not to kill like your Americans did. I disagree with the invasion, just as much as I disagree with us being there. But our men and women had no influence in that decision.
If you can’t see that, then, well, that’s not my problem. The world isn’t black and white to me, as you know.
Comment by Administrator — March 14, 2008 @ 4:53 am
As long as the Dutch troops joined the army BEFORE the war, or they were drafted without their consent, I am good with what you said. Otherwise, it would be their fault to join the army when there was such a big NATO operation going on. You don’t join a company when their stock is going down fast, you try to find a better job. Same with this case.
I mostly replied to this because of the American version of “we support the troops” (there are bumper stickers everywhere over here). Which of course, is a slogan that I just can’t agree with, not for ~60% of the US troops at least, that are currently serving in Afghanistan & Iraq. I can’t support someone who signed up while THIS war was going on. If this was the Independence War against the British or against the South, I would have gladly support them. But not for this.
Comment by Eugenia — March 14, 2008 @ 6:12 am
This doesn’t really go for The Netherlands. We haven’t been the aggressor in any war for god knows how long (except for our despicable behaviour in the East Indies right after WWII, but that wasn’t really a war). The Dutch military missions are exclusively peace-keeping, and that, to me, is worlds apart from offensive warfare like the US has employed.
Note that my knowledge on military history isn’t spotless :).
Comment by Administrator — March 14, 2008 @ 6:27 am
It’s worth noting, Eugenia, that most of the American armed forces are lower class, undereducated, and from heavily unemployed areas. Given the harsh social structure of the US, they’re largely doomed to a life of poverty, crime, and an early death. For many, joining the military was a risky way to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and achieve the American Dream (due to the GI Bill). They probably didn’t learn in their substandard schools that the US likes to engage in generational wars. And their recruiting officers probably didn’t emphasize all the killing and the endless deployments.
Most of these “murderers” you rant about signed up before the invasion or assumed it would be over as quickly as the first Gulf War. Have you not read about our overextended military, our triple-duty reservists, or stop-loss? Hell, recruiting classes in the US are so low, they’re offering $40,000 cash to poor kids to join up as reservists… and there are still hardly any takers! At the rate we’re going, we won’t have enough voluntary military personnel left in 2012 to guard the Bunnieh Mosque.
That these kids were deployed to the killing fields is not up to them (nor would any sane person choose to go). They come home disillusioned, psychologically scarred, abandoned by their government, and reviled by unreasoning hate mongers like yourself. Your characterization of them as steely-eyed killers deserving of death is more heartless than the attitude of any soldier I’ve ever met.
Count yourself among the excessively fortunate that you have a sugar daddy who provides for your every whim (”You’re making my husband feel guilty about his extravagant tech fetish… boo hoo”? Give me a break!) while you can surf the net all day and take potshots at 19 year old kids with post traumatic stress syndrome. Real big of you. I’m interested, how did you magically come up from grinding poverty to be the shining beacon of humility and exemplary service you are today?
Face it, your callousness is no different from that of the people who wage these inhuman wars in the first place. Learn a little compassion.
Comment by Brian — March 14, 2008 @ 6:31 am
>This doesn’t really go for The Netherlands.
Maybe not. But while you as a Dutchmen, and I a Canadian can reasonably expect our countries to not create a war, it’s more than likely that when one of our bigger ‘friends’ decides to dance the Jingo we’re going to join in. Sometimes we manage to avoid it — Iraq, and sometimes we don’t — Afghanistan. Dutch soldiers could’ve reasonably expected they wouldn’t start the war, but would’ve been naive to think there wasn’t a good chance they’d get dragged along in America’s adventure.
Comment by Andrew — March 14, 2008 @ 6:48 am
That’s a valid point (sadly). But still, it would mean that people joining our (as in, Dutch or Canadian) military would realise they’d be sent on peace-keeping missions, not offensive missions. In fact, advertisements and the military itself even stress this - a lot.
And I still think that’s a major difference.
Comment by Administrator — March 14, 2008 @ 6:52 am
Brian, I know where these kids are coming from. But as I said, that’s social Darwin for you. They are poor. They are uneducated as you said. They are coming from difficult situations. And yet, it is these kids who have killed many thousands of Iraqis in the last 4 years. There have been only (yes, ‘only’) 3800 US troops dying in this Iraq war. But there are over 100,000 dead Iraqis. So who killed all of these people? The Iraqis themselves only killed some of them. The rest is because of these ‘poor’ kids and their generals.
NO, I have no compassion for kids who join up the army for THIS war just because they couldn’t make it in life. I would prefer them to die at home out of malnutrition than join an immoral war where INNOCENTS are killed. Then, if no one would join, maybe, just maybe, the US president will decide to fix the problems at home instead of leading this wave of imperialism. But as soon as people join up, I don’t feel bad for them, no. It was THEIR CALL. If they wanted change, THEY, as citizens, must do that change. And that change can be done via a strong NO to their president about these wars. And the way to say NO in USA (given that no one actually voted for a war), is to NOT join up.
And be careful, I made it clear above: I only feel this way about these who joined after the war started or drafted with their consent. Not the rest who joined on a peaceful time. The rest, are indeed victims of the situation (well, somewhat).
You accused me of having no compassion. Let me tell you something my friend: I have lots of compassion. Just not for (most of) your troops. I have compassion for the mothers, children and elders who died in this war just because they happened to be in the middle of this circus. So DON’T YOU DARE telling me that I am not compassionate. Maybe living 12 years away from your country as I have (I’ve lived in 5 countries in my life so far), will give you a more “international community” kind of mindset which will help you see that the world should be one single peaceful place. And when shit like this happen, then it doesn’t matter if your passport says “USA” or not, because after all the years away, you would have grown beyond the borders of a single country, and instead you would risen to be an international-minded citizen, as everyone should be. And such a person, would never join up an army, even if he has no food on his plate.
I wasn’t always middle class you know. I’ve been poor, I’ve lived on $3 a day. But I didn’t join no army. I took a cleaning job instead, cleaning people’s homes and toilettes. Beats killing innocents and using poverty as an excuse anytime. Tell that to your troops who joined THIS war for sweet money.
Sorry pal, but it doesn’t fly.
Comment by Eugenia — March 14, 2008 @ 7:04 am
Thom, with all due respect, but I’m having the feeling you’re a bit naive.
There is no “supporting the troops” and criticising the mission at the same time.
This is a corrupted mission, and “the troops” should feel fucked up for having to go there. Sad for them, but that’s how it works.
The only reason the Dutch are there is to assist the American agenda.
Which has nothing to do with human rights or whatever, but with protecting opium production, gas/oil pipelines, and stability of the military presence in Iran’s Eastern and Western neighbours, which keeps up the pressure on Iran not to start dealing oil in euros which will in the end kill the dollar and lead to the collapse of the Empire.
Remember the Dutch elite’s interests: Royal Dutch Shell, for instance.
One of the reasons we’re there.
After 9/11, Anglo-American oil profits doubled, tripled, quadrupled.
You’re a tad naive Thom. You’re not the only one, so I don’t blame you.
You’ve been very vocal in your uninformed rejection of the really fundamental criticism of US/UK policies after 9/11, and the “war on terror” itself, even refusing to discuss it, but you do keep criticising US policy from the superficial point of view that they “made a mess” of it.
Disregarding that the mess itself is part of the agenda.
For instance, the fact that it’s a mess in, say, Baghdad is because it’s not in their interest to stabilise it. They want to control the oil, and the oil is not in Baghdad. They control the oil, they built massive military bases near the oil and they’re not going to leave, and it helps that it’s still a f**king mess because then they won’t have to leave for the next decades.
You criticise US policy, but you support Hillary Clinton, a servant of the criminals, who voted for the invasion you tell us you consider a mistake; a hawkish lady interested in power more than anything, and who will, and I’m willing to bet lots of dollars on that, simply continue the present policy, the threats against Iran, the unconditional defense of Israel’s violation of human rights, etc.
I’m willing to bet lots of dollars on that.. well it helps that the dollar is vaporising quickly. :P
Comment by herman — March 14, 2008 @ 12:19 pm
Well, I’m pretty sure I just did. They are two completely different things.
Of course they shouldn’t be there, and of course they can feel fcuked for having to go there. Does that automatically mean we should drop those guys and girls like stones?
And she openly states that was a huge mistake. I respect honesty in a man. Or woman.
The rest of your post is too black helicoptery to respond to, I don’t waste my time on that nonsense. I don’t do crazy wild Hollywood conspiracy theories.
Comment by Administrator — March 14, 2008 @ 12:29 pm
First, let me note that I am speaking from an American perspective.
Each individual soldier that comprises the “troops” has made and continues to make conscious decisions about their actions in the military — even those who are conscripted (the difference being the result of those decisions — choosing not to participate for conscripts is more likely to result in being imprisoned, tortured, or killed).
When it comes to “supporting the troops” during a particular military campaign that one feels is not justifiable, the fact that each individual has made conscious decisions should be taken into account. A given soldier ‘S’ may have made decisions one considers “bad” may have been made for several reasons:
o ‘S’ had a lack of available information and/or false information.
o ‘S’ was too lazy to research the available information, and/or think about the ramifications of the decisions.
o ‘S’ considered (legitimately or otherwise) other alternatives to be worse.
o ‘S’ is “immoral” or “amoral”.
o ‘S’ is in fact only feigning the decisions (e.g., shooting to miss).
The concept of how to treat “the troops” becomes less clear given that the individual soldiers have different reasons for their decisions, with varying degrees of acceptability. A “one size fits all” decision is not really called for.
Further, the concept of “support” is also quite nebulous. Some would consider support to mean “enable to most efficiently achieve the stated objective” and others consider it to mean ‘enable to most effectively make better choices (including changing prior choices) which lead to abandoning the stated objective.” Other meanings are of course reasonable as well.
So what does “supporting the troops” even mean? For me it means I would enable the (NATO) troops and the Afghani’s to immediately cease damage to each other, and those who have made deliberate choices to initiate damage against others to be held responsible for undoing the damage caused. This includes remunerating me for the coerced financing of this debacle.
Comment by James Parker — March 14, 2008 @ 8:09 pm
As a Canadian, I agree with you to some extent - I live about 20 minutes away from CFB Gagetown, so I’m frequently in contact with people who are about to be sent to Afghanistan or have come back from there recently (and worked with a woman who read the casualty reports every day, dreading that her son’s name would be on them).
The individual troops are not the decision makers, they’re not the ones who are responsible for the armed forces presence in Afghanistan - or Iraq for that matter. I believe strongly in the concept of personal responsibility - to quote Noam Chomsky, “We are responsible for the predictable consequences of *our* actions” (emphasis: mine). Many of those people have gone through horrific experiences through no fault of their own, and there certainly needs to be consideration of that.
That said, however, I do have a problem with the way the “support our troops” meme is often used. Namely, the way it’s frequently invoked to dismiss or shout-down any-and-all criticism of military actions in the mid-east. The effect is that there’s a widespread fear of being perceived as someone who doesn’t support the troops - for one, I think it’s possible to “support the troops,” while still disagreeing with those who are responsible for the marching orders.
Comment by Irony is thy name — March 14, 2008 @ 9:03 pm
Well said
Comment by Adin Aronson — March 27, 2008 @ 3:47 pm
A better place? for whom?
there is no glory in this, there is no reason for this. is all a joke.
Comment by Leandro Moraes — July 26, 2008 @ 5:59 pm