On what it means to actually support the troops
Paul at Celestial Junk puts some people's expression of "support" for our troops in perspective:
I do think you can support the troops without supporting the mission - it's a fine line to walk, but it's possible.
But I also believe that most of those who say they do, don't. Not really. They don't support the use of armed force - which is what the troops signed up for. Or they support it in the abstract, but would have such ridiculous ROE in place as to completely handcuff the commanders on the ground - hence this ongoing myth propagated by the likes of Stephane Dion and Jack Layton that you can separate security and reconstruction in Kandahar.
No, before you tell me you "support the troops," I need to be convinced you a) understand what they can and can't do in real life, and b) are willing to let them do it when the situation warrants. Because only then can you convince me that you just don't think they should be doing it in this particular case.
Anything else is empty and misleading rhetoric.
...in fact, they try to hide their hatred behind shallow slogans like, "We support the troops by wanting to bring them home."
Of course, any thinking person understands right away that "wanting to bring home" volunteers who wish to be where they are, is insulting to those very same volunteers.
"I support firemen by preventing them from fighting fires ... because it's dangerous" "I support police officers by keeping them from fighting crime ... because it's dangerous."
I do think you can support the troops without supporting the mission - it's a fine line to walk, but it's possible.
But I also believe that most of those who say they do, don't. Not really. They don't support the use of armed force - which is what the troops signed up for. Or they support it in the abstract, but would have such ridiculous ROE in place as to completely handcuff the commanders on the ground - hence this ongoing myth propagated by the likes of Stephane Dion and Jack Layton that you can separate security and reconstruction in Kandahar.
No, before you tell me you "support the troops," I need to be convinced you a) understand what they can and can't do in real life, and b) are willing to let them do it when the situation warrants. Because only then can you convince me that you just don't think they should be doing it in this particular case.
Anything else is empty and misleading rhetoric.
posted by Babbling Brooks at 9:42 a.m.
7 Comments:
So basically, you have the right to call anyone who opposes any particular mission for any reasons, troop-hating hippies who wish only for death and destruction of the armed forces until they prove otherwise to you?
Do you require letters of reference? Loyalty oaths?
Nice trick, that; it's your right to demonize opponents until they prove -- to you -- they are worthy.
And it's the left who is supposed to be full of invective.
No, Jon. Contrary to the words you've tried to put into my mouth, you're wrong on a whole pile of counts.
I choose to hold anyone who says "I support the troops, but not the mission" to a fairly high standard, because I think that's a very difficult thing to do, and because, in my experience, their "support" is generally nothing more than an empty slogan.
As I see it, supporting the troops means supporting what they exist to do: protect Canada's interests at home and abroad, with deadly force when necessary.
That's not demonizing anyone. It's asking for something to substantiate the slogan.
As far as the left vs. right being more full of invective - well, I'd say you get pretty equal doses of idiocy and vitriol on both sides of the political spectrum. Paul at CJunk is a lot more adamant about his political views than I am. I know quite a few Dippers I'd rather share a beer with than quite a few Conservatives I know. This blog tries to be as non-political as possible, but sometimes we play whack-a-mole with the more idiotic things politicians say.
And in this case, based on my experience, I view anyone who spouts off about "supporting the troops, but not the mission" with suspicion until they can show me they actually mean it.
bb, I know this is might be a bit late in the game, but you really have to understand where jon (and I, to a lesser degree) are coming from.
Basically since 9/11 anyone who has even suggested that maybe we should slow down, and think things through or, heaven forbid, suggested that we're doing things wrong over in Afghanistan or that no one should be in Iraq but Iraqis, has been branded a terrorist loving, appeasing, camp fire singing hippy. I have lost count of the number of times I've been called a neo-Chamberlainite (or variations on that theme - I'm thinking of changing my name to Neville to make everything simpler for the lazy) .
So while jon may well have put words in your mouth, I think that the language you used, in the context that those of us on the left (even those, like me, who think we should be in Afghanistan) have been living for the last near decade buys him some slack.
His line about letters of reference and loyalty oaths especially was to the point. There are people I no longer talk to, people I considered good acquaintances, bordering on friends, who basically required that at the beginning of every political or military conversation that I reproved that I met some benchmark.
I know that those who wish for more education and understanding of and about the CF and it's various missions know the feeling of being demonized, and I know that you all have felt the sting of blanket statements.
Fair enough, Cam.
I linked to Paul's post, not because I agree with him that all lefties are disloyal scum, but because I have found the phrase "I support the troops, but not the mission" to frequently be an offensive and misleading fig-leaf offered up by people who don't really support either in any meaningful way.
That's not the case 100% of the time, but in my experience, it's the case often enough that I thought it warranted comment.
Thanks for helping me clarify my sentiments on this.
bb, a pleasure..
Was it you or Mark who posted about how you wished there were "I support our troops" rather than "Support our troops" stickers?
This discussion reminds me of something, an old friend of my Mom's (she's the last of a cancer survivors support group and the only one who refused treatment - a total aside, but an interesting one) is pretty much to the left of me on just about everything. Which is to say she's probably on the left edge of the NDP range...
We got to talking about Afghanistan and the deployment and she said "I don't think we should be there, I'm not sure that we are doing the good I'd like us to, but as long as we're there we better be spending lots and lots of money to make sure out troops have the best gear possible."
I've heard this time and time again from people who are firmly on the left.
Now, clearly, this is anecdotal, but it does add a layer of complexity...
Was it you or Mark who posted about how you wished there were "I support our troops" rather than "Support our troops" stickers?
I don't recall discussing that, but I did think about it just the other day. I wear red on Fridays, normally one of a number of collared golf-shirts from the CANEX I've bought and been given with a yellow ribbon on the left breast. I've long thought that going to work and telling other people how to think or feel, especially if you're in a supervisory position, is a questionable practice.
So, for a couple of years now, I've had my answer prepared should someone at work object to my red shirts, with the "Support Our Troops" slogan and ribbon: "It's meant to express my support of our troops, nothing more. But they don't have shirts that say that."
Interesting that you'd go down that same road...
Language matters and has fairly precise meanings... so those stickers etc do indeed bother me.
I'm quite uncomfortable with the idea of being ordered to think one way or another by anyone..
Another thought, to add to the complexity, my mother-in-law is as pure laine as they come and (I guess) a soft sovereignist. Everything about her, and media reports about Quebec, would tell us that she'd be against the CF deployment to Afghanistan.
Do you know what she's really pissed about? Caveats. Not that we're there. But that we seem to be doing more than our share of the heavy lifting.
Post a Comment
<< Home