Asymmetrical Information

Agreed. This is just vile market positioning. Frankly, you cannot support the troops while you oppose the operation. Indeed, opposing the operation simply encourages the enemy to persevere and discourages the opposition from rising up. The consequence of vocally opposing the war is to increase the danger our troops face.

On a more anecdotal level, the same people who make this troops/yes war/no claim are highly unlikely to have anything but the deepest contempt for the troops as individuals should they ever find themselves in the same bar together.

They are hypocrites. They oppose the war on a cultural level and despise the troops because they are deeply rooted in the mainstream culture.

Murphy,

Agree. WSJ has a piece by a Harvard B school prof whose son is a Harvard grad in the military. She points out how incredibly rare it is for an Ivy League grad to be in the military and warns that this hurts the military. She seems to feel that support from Ivy elites is necessary for the military.

I think she has it backwards. The service academies rank in the top 5 or 6 among the most competitive schools in the nation. Their students have great academic records and are fully the equal of the Ivy kids. And they represent the values of mainstream America.

It is the Ivys which are increasingly becoming marginalized in our society (see e.g. Columbia). As Americans become more and more disgusted with the blatant hatred of America and its values and the condescension toward middle Americans, it will be the Ivys which ultimately suffer.

If you truly believed that what we were doing was wrong, but at the same time *truly cared* for the people carrying it out, then you would be in a lot of mental pain. Consider the case of anti-Nazi Germans during WWII. Colonel Hans Oster, one of the earliest and bravest of the resisters, gave information about the German attack plan to Dutch intelligence. If Dutch had acted on this information (which they didn't), then it would have resulted in the deaths of a lot of Oster's friends. He told a friend that it was the hardest thing he had ever done, harder by far than charging a machine-gun position or taking a pistol and shooting someone.

These are the feelings of a man of true moral seriousness. By comparison, most of our "antiwar" protestors stand revealed as pygmies.

Once again, the lone voice of decent...

I'm not a big proponent of the war. Sure I didn't rally against it while accepting my Oscar this year, nor have I demonstrated at any peace march here in NYC (or anywhere else for that matter), but really, I think the whole thing has been handled badly and while I certainly have no love lost for Saddam, I think there are better ways to utilize our resources.

I'm bringing this up in a cursory fashion because a discussion of this topic will take me hours and, more to the point, people generally have decided for themselves how they feel about the war.

But I do support our troups. None of them would be over there "firing deadly wepons at complete strangers" if it were not their duty to do it. I support thier decision to enlist (and they did not enlist when this war was even a twinkle in anyone's eye...well, maybe Cheney's, but I digress) and to protect our country as best they can.

I may not support murder, but doesn't mean I don't support the death penalty, or abortion, or even the kid who whacks his parents for abusing him.

I support our troops. I support the motives that got them to become soldiers. I support the noble cause for which they are fighting for, which is peace and freedom and democracy. I don't support their boss for sending them to war. I just don't think this is the right way to go about giving peace and freedom and democracy. I'm glad they do.

"The speaker may be against the war, we are solemnly told, but they still Support Our Troops. My question is, why?"

Doesn't that depend on what is meant by "support the troops"?

In the weak sense; it could mean hope the troops come to minimal harm. As you say, anyone to the right of the the anarchists at Indymedia can support this. You can even see billboards with "Support our troops - bring them home".

In a stronger sense: it means you hope for a quick, rapid resolution to the war. This would include not only the ~40% who, pre-war, supported a unilateral war, but the ~30% who swung behind it now it is a done deal. So, not only administration supporters, but liberals and (also) conservative realists skeptical that the benefits of a war pursued outside of the post-WW2 multilateral institutions is worth the price price in damage to said multilateral institutions (which is where I fit in).

In an even stronger sense: it means you support the "endeavour" the troops are backing; the whole PNAC/neo-con reshaping of foreign policy towards unilateral exercise of overwhelming military power.

On another note, some (like Murphy below) seem to be putting the anti-war folks on a version of Merton's fork:
1) If they oppose the troops, they're traitorous anti-Americans outside the mainstream
2) If they "support" our troops, they're hypocrites outside the mainstream.

Murphy wrote:

"They [anti-war protestors] are hypocrites. They oppose the war on a cultural level and despise the troops because they are deeply rooted in the mainstream culture."

If I decide to become a conservative, do I also get the ability to read the minds of my political opponents for free, or do I have to pay extra for the telepathic implant? Is the operation under local or general anesthetic?

Tom

Lovely Tom. Thank you.

Would the people equating Bush to Hitler say "Well, I'm against the war of aggression, but I support the Wehrmacht."

In the usage most of them are making of it, it's meaningless. "I want the war to be over" is supportive of the troops in the sense that "I want there not to be a massive epidemic of smallpox in Iraq" supports them. Support implies approval, which ignores the fact that those claiming they support the troops believe that they are voluntarily fighting an unjust and cruel war of which the troops themselves approve. Those people do not permit argument of motives elsewhere, in discussion of civilian casualties or reconstruction of Iraq. It's flaming stupidity to on the one hand, say you think that this is like Hitler rolling into the Sudetanland, but on the other hand, you're with the guys in the tanks.

The best way to support our troops is to bring them home, not to send some of them to die for a trivial cause.

I used to respect this site, since I thought the proprietor generally didn't impugn the motives of those who disagreed with her. I see now that you are no different than the bigots who populate LGF and Freep, who fantasize about shoving liberals into the ovens.

Steve - the proprietess did not impugn anyone's motives, she merely questioned their intelligence in light of their observed behavior. You, sir, are impugning motives and making vile statements.

...In celebration of Jane's return from an overly long hiatus...I mean - 4 days without a thought provoking post, what's a guy to do?

Steve - You are not being fair to Jane. She is asking a very straight forward questions: If you think the war is morally wrong, and if you assume the troops volunteered to participate in the war, how can you maintain the troops are not culpable? Yes, the troops would not be there if George Bush did not send them, but they would not be there (sticking with Jane's premise) unless they WANTED to be there.

Of course, Jane's premise could be wrong. Some of the troops were in the military before it became clear we might go to war with Iraq. In that case, you could logically hold Bush responsible for an immoral action but absolve the individual soldier -- they joined up (and could not leave) before Bush sent them to war. You could support such members of the military without supporting the war.

Most of the military supports the war -- even those who might have been exempted from moral responsibility because they joined up before it was clear just how evil a man Bush would become. Since they now support the war, are they STILL exempt from reprobation? If so, why?

To me, the only way to hold a position that the war is immoral but not hold individual members of the military guilty of willingly participating in this immoral activity is to believe that they have been duped (or otherwise cannot control their actions). The president has lied to them (just as he has lied to everyone else) about WMD, terrorists, etc. These poor dupes don't have access to the same information the president does, if they did they would know what they are doing is wrong and they would not do it. (That must be the reasoning. Mustn't it?)

Of course, like Jane, I support both the war and the troops. And, like Jane, I find it very hard to imagine how anyone can do the mental gymnastics to oppose the war AND absolve the troops from any moral responsibility. I submit it's possible, just not likely.

This supposes that the opponents to the war value logic. There is not much evidence for this supposition. For those of us who do value logic and constancy, this is a hard puzzle to resolve.

First, my own view on the war was that it was a mistake to invade, but it would be a much bigger mistake to leave at this point. This viewpoint is missed by the yes/no polls and, I suspect, is one of the many degrees of opinion that can be mistaken for uncommittedness - like "supporting the troops, opposing the war".

As for people who mean exactly what they say about supporting the troops while opposing the war, most antiwar protesters don't compare Bush to Hitler, any more than most supporters of the war want concentration camps for European and American Muslims. The veteran leaders of antiwar Democrats, by and large, were not drafted but volunteer soldiers, like today's Army, who lost their innocence about war very quickly. Beyond this, antiwar protestors, like pro-war protestors, tend to be influenced by those they know who've served in the military. Those against war, not from any prejudice, just tend to happen not to know anyone serving. Their experience, if young, is a) their poor high school or, occassionally, college classmate who might lose his life or, God forbid, take one, or b) uncles, fathers, cousins, anyone who has served in a past conflict, many of whom regret their days of Service.

We're winning, OK. But, would you have supported the invasion of Iraq if you had known that fragging would return to the U.S. Army?

this is precisely where Jane's post comes from--

"I support our troops. I support the motives that got them to become soldiers. I support the noble cause for which they are fighting for, which is peace and freedom and democracy."

The troops, their cause and their motives are all backed, yet...

"I don't support their boss for sending them to war. I just don't think this is the right way to go about giving peace and freedom and democracy."

They're not. Putting aside the non-support of Bush for a moment, the second sentence here contradicts the initial support. The second sentence says that what the volunteer troops are doing is not the right way to do this.

Can you not understand how this looks? It's orwellian doublethink plain and simple. Cognitive dissonance be damned, it's nothing more than a weasely oxymoron, allowing the holder of this 'opinions' to profess support for two entirely contradictory ideas.

Returning to the anti-Bush line, I think that is where all the weaseliness lies. It is a didain for Bush that seems to power s their protests--and their opinions. As has been pointed out repeatedly, these same people had no qualms about these same policies--when the were articulated by Clinton.

It appears that partisanship is more important than the lives that will be saved when Saddam is gone.

Jane said:

"Would the people equating Bush to Hitler say "Well, I'm against the war of aggression, but I support the Wehrmacht.""

Why don't we ask Mr. Godwin himself? He might have a better uplink to the anti-war hive-mind. (My uplink seems to be faulty - maybe that's why my regular straw-man deliveries seem to be late.)

I'm sorry to take the piss here, Megan, but you're normally too sensible to put out this kind of stuff.

If you switch the channel from a Denbestian view of the anti-war folks as being monolithic Worker's World line-chanting automatons to an ad-hoc coalition of disparate groups with even more divergent points of view (just the same as the pro-War folks like you and, reluctantly, me), you might find a more productive line of inquiry.

Like: why are nice but mindnumbingly naive folks like Medea Benjamin of the Green Party and Global Exchange, making common cause with repulsive Trots-turned-NeoStalinists like the WWP?

Tom

David:

Where Jane is being disingenuous it that for most liberals, it is not the ends for which we are fighting in Iraq that are immoral, but the means by which we went to war, choosing to avoid (and even sabotage) peaceful and diplomatic solutions to the problem. A soldier who is sent into harms way to overthrow and disarm a dictatorship, even if the war is in violation of the Constitution and international law, and one who is sent to install a dictatorship or conquer an unarmed people, are both fighting immoral wars, but the immorality in the first situation lies only with the government that sends the soldier into battle, while the immorality in the latter permeates all who acquiesce.

Sorry, that penultimate paragraph should read:

If you switch the channel from a Denbestian view of the anti-war folks as being monolithic Worker's World line-chanting automatons, to a view of them as an ad-hoc coalition of disparate groups with even more divergent points of view (just the same as the pro-War folks like you and, reluctantly, me), you might find a more productive line of inquiry.

(Apologies for the earlier twisted syntax - forgot to keep parallelism)

In response to this:

"They [anti-war protestors] are hypocrites. They oppose the war on a cultural level and despise the troops because they are deeply rooted in the mainstream culture."

Tom wrote this:

"If I decide to become a conservative, do I also get the ability to read the minds of my political opponents for free, or do I have to pay extra for the telepathic implant? Is the operation under local or general anesthetic?"

Sadly, Tom, no mind-reading is required. Large numbers of "anti-war" people have made their feelings very clear:

1) The CU prof who hoped for "a million Mogidishus"
2) The woman in the Mercedes who insulted a Navy guy's mother, saying that she had raised a "baby killer" (see www.rachellucas.com)
3) The "hope we loose" comments by people like Chrissie Hynde and Tom Robbins
4) The sign that says "we support our troops when they shoot their officers."
5) The inability of so many "anti-war" people to say what they actually think we should *do,* leading one to believe that their primary interest is in the denunciation itself, rather than in any kind of good result. (see discussion at www.truthlaidbear.com)

There is so much of this kind of thing that it can't be disregarded as some kind of outlying phenomenon. There are clearly a significant number of Americans who obtain their self-esteem from a feeling of moral and cultural superiority to their fellow citizens, and this feeling easily spills over into self-righteous cruelty.

I think the problem is that 'support the troops' is a very vague term. What do people mean when they say 'support'?

But I also don't see a contradiction, if you think about the long term. I support the troops: that means that I don't want to see them put in harm's way under dubious justification or dying for conflicts that could have been resolved through negotiation. I want the president to go the extra mile to get them international backing, so that they aren't reviled in whatever countries they find themselves. And I want the military planners to be competent, so that injury and death are minimal. If the war is not conducted well, if the aftermath is a disaster, that's bad for the troops. I know the troops wish our country the best and I admire them.

But I don't support the war as it is being conducted. I don't trust the president to carry it out correctly. I fear that the contracts for the aftermath will be handed out to their cronies, at cost to the taxpayer. I fear that diplomatic incompetence will mean our involvement in future wars that could have been averted, causing more troops to be unnecessarily called away from their families and to die. This war sets a terrible precedent.

So to my mind, supporting the troops-- seeing that their lives are not sacrificed in conflicts that could have been averted, seeing that they can defend our country with minimal bureaucratic and strategic incompetence-- means opposing this war and the Bush Administration. Encouraging the Iraqi opposition is in this case a small price to pay for averting future conflicts. I support the troops in the context of our greater foreign policy in the long term, not just in the context of this war.

If we're talking about why we respect this blog, Jane, you really lost me when you lied and said that the Estrada filibuster was preventing all Senate business from being done. Shame on you for spreading disinformation. It was dishonorable.

You know, after reading all your reasoned comments I've come to a change of mind.

From now on I support the war, but not the troops.

I kind of got distracted from the central point-- I don't have a problem with the troops and their attack-Iraqing actions because I'm not 100% sure that attacking Iraq, that one single thing alone, is a bad thing to do, morally speaking. I oppose the war as it is being carried out because I think that messing up our diplomatic relations, setting bad precedents, being incompetent in how we do the war and the aftermath, and letting your friends make a lot of money off the reconstruction are all bad things to do, both morally and practically. So I oppose the president's actions. The troops aren't responsible for this kind of planning and diplomacy, so I can't really blame them for it.

I was misinformed, 90210, and said as much. This isn't a professionally edited publication; this is me with an internet connection. If you're going to cast all of your opponents mistakes as knowing lies, you're going to have a hard time getting anyone to talk to you. And if you've lost respect for it, why are you reading it?

The troops support Bush. They support what they are doing. They believe in it. If you think that Bush is Hitler, than they are as guilty as any Nazi party member. Individuals may not be, but the overwhelming majority seem to be squarely behind the president.

What does the word "support" mean? Would you say you supported your kid if he'd decided to become a drug dealer? You care about your kid, you want him safe, but supporting him implies standing behind his activities, which I think most parents wouldn't. Nor would I stand behind our troops if I truly believe that this war was not merely of questionable benefit, but absolutely evil.

I think it's designed to deflect the perception that the left is anti-military, contemptuous of the troops and especially the officers(and let's be honest: by and large, when there isn't a war on, they are, unless they can find one to say the US commits war crimes), and reflexively against US military action. This perception is created by the fact that many of the most prominent groups and people protesting the current action have protested every single military action by the US, including the bizarre but hardly imperialist Haiti action, using pretty much exactly the same arguments, since Korea. Those are defensible positions, but they are not popular. Your formulation avoids that problem, 90210, only by embracing another: the belief that for some segments of the anti-war movement, this is not about the war but about the 2000 election, a position which is, if anything, less popular.

David wrote:

snip: list of antiwar idiots>

Look, you haven't grasped the point: Don't assume ideological unity where none exists.

Frex, for a mental exercise, one could take Ken Pollack's thinking on the war (which is closest to my own) and point out how his views are inconsistent with Rummy's, Perle's and the PNAC posse, and use that to show the hypocrisy of the pro-war side. If one wanted even more fun, I could dredge through FreeRepublic or Yahoo Boards to come up with suitably repugnant rejoicing in deaths of "ragheads" to spice up one's stereotyping of the other side. But that would be to make argument based on false assumption: that the pro-war side is monolithic on ideology, aims and means, and that subset Y is representative of all of set X.

"I support the troops but not the war" is inconsistent and irrational. But I tend to think of it as a "useful hypocrisy"- in the same way that many everyday courtesies are useful hypocrisies. The goal is not to make a philosophical point, but simply to help people get along with each other.

To put it another way: I'd rather have hypocritical protesters who claim they support the troops, than logically-consistent protesters who scream "Baby killer!" at returning veterans.

There's a lot to be said for inconsistency in the antiwar movement, if it helps drain some of their venom. That tradeoff is an improvement for them, for veterans, and for the American body politic in general.

Why don't you just say what you mean by 'support'? Your drug-dealer analogy doesn't make it very clear. I don't happen to think supporting someone means standing behind their activities or agreeing with everything they do. Supporting means recognizing that good people can differ in their conclusions about the world, and that the troops are acting in what they believe to be America's best interests. Like if my sister became a right-winger-- I would still support her, love her and think she's a good person, just really really confused. I don't agree with the troops' conclusion to participate in this war, but I recognize that they are good people and am grateful for their willingness to give their lives. I don't think they are bad people just because they disagree with me-- that would involve the assumption that I am right in some infallible way, rather than just right as far as I can tell. Anyway that's what support means to me-- recognition and appreciation of good intentions. Maybe it means something else to you. So I guess you could say that at some level this is semantic.

The President, I fear, is not acting in America's best interests, but in the GOP's, or his own, or that of his oil-business friends. So I don't support him. I don't extend to him the agree-to-disagree thing that I do to the troops. So I oppose the war, because it is being undertaken by the president against the common good, but support the troops, because I recognize that they are acting in what they believe to be the common good. It's a matter of intent.

And I still think that emboldening Iraqi opposition is, in the long term, a small price to pay to get rid of the Bush war doctrine and Bush himself. I think he's bad for America. Call me partisan, but I guess that's what makes me a Democrat. Opposing this war and Bush is, I think, the best thing I can do for all Americans including the troops.

It's banal market positioning meant to appeal to the greatest number of constituents. Clinton was a master of this like when we said abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare." Why rare? Does that even make any sense? Would you say that about bypass surgery or administering CPR?

Frankly, when something sounds like double-talk it's because the flat out truth is a little too unpleasant to mention.

Whoah there, back up with that broad brush there.

If the people who opposed this war were the same number or composition as the people who unthinking marched against Haiti or Afghanistan or Kosovo, or hell even Grenada or Panama, or for that matter the first Gulf war you wouldn't even be posting about it, because their impact on American politics would be minimal at best.

Jane, I think I may be misunderstanding you, so lets see if I get this straight. You're saying that anti-war protesters equate Bush with Hitler. I've certainly heard a few protesters say that, but I doubt that more than a very small percentage of the 25% (or whatever it is) of Americans who don't "support" the war. Your statement is:

If Bush = Hitler then Soldiers = Third Reich

but the anti-war protesters support the soldiers then the Anti-war protesters:

and since Soldiers = Third Reich then Anti-War Proetsters = Support for Hitler.

This is like the:

Love = God
Love = Hate
Therefore:
God = Hate

Obviously there is some faulty logic there as well.

I don't like this particular war. I don't like the way we went about it. I don't like the motives that went into it. I don't think it's evil. I don't think it's entirely unjustified. I'm not against war as a matter of principle. I was all for going into Afganistan. I also certainly wouldn't like to think that our armed forces would ignore their commander and cheif just because they didn't agree with him. It's their job to do The President's bidding, that's what they signed up for.

I support my troops because they deserve to come home safely and victorious. I have given blood on their behalf. I support the troops because they did not make the policy decisions which led to this war.

How can I support them if I disagree with their beliefs? Well Jane, I support you and yet I disagree with you.

" Why rare? Does that even make any sense? Would you say that about bypass surgery or administering CPR?"

Makes perfect sense. Clinton didn't want to see people wanting abortions in the first place, but wants them to get them if they want them. He was hoping to preempt them through better family planning/sex-ed services. You could say the same about exercise initiatives for cardio health.

Why? Cardio health should be rare? (just kidding)

What's wrong with wanting an abortion?

There's nothing wrong with wanting one (according to me, although some would disagree), but it's not a fun position to be in. Most people who want abortions wish that they had not gotten pregnant in the first place, and that's what Clinton was hoping to accomplish.

Bypass surgery is just as un-fun yet you would never say let's make cardiovascular surgery a rare occurance unless there was a sizable number of voters who believed for whatever reason that such procedures were wrong.

Rather than explain why there is nothing wrong with wanting an abortion and possibly alienating people, Clinton chose to conceal his position.

The same is true of many in the anti-war movement who claim to support the troops.

What would change my mind would be the sight of these people enjoying a round of beer with a bunch of Bush-loving, working-class, NASCAR enthusiasts from North Carolina.

Why would you inflict Damn New York Liberals (of which I am one) on "a bunch of Bush-loving, working-class, NASCAR enthusiasts from North Carolina"?

Seriously, that's an insulting statement to anyone who loves Bush, drinks beer, watches NASCAR and is from North Carolina. The implication is that somehow the anti-war elite refuse to break bread with po' white trash because they're inferior.

Sorry. That's just dumb.

He said 'safe, legal, and rare'. How is that concealing that he wants abortions to be legal?

You're missing my point-- I think everyone wants bypass surgery to be a rare occurence. Why would anyone want more bypasses? Far better to have better cardio health and make bypasses unnecessary. See? Clinton hoped to prevent unwanted pregnancies, so that abortions would be rare, but he still wanted them to be legal.

How can one be against the war but support the troops?

I'll try to give you the perspective on an elected official holding this seemingly contradictory stance (myself working for one, even though I disagree with him). There are some who opposed this war not for moral reasons but because to them its a bad foreign policy move that will hurt our security long term. I don't need to go into the logic of holding this position, but its basically the view of people like Scowcroft and Powell, neither of whom one would acuse of being against the war because they hate Bush or because its "inmoral". Now, once the desicion has been taken to go to war, for my boss its simple. He wants the US to win the war and to do all the follow-up work as best as can be done so that none of the things he feared this war would create come true because he knows losing would be even worse for our security.

That last sentence was very long.

Mmm. . . Kate, c'mon, you've heard more than one New York liberal refer to Bush voters, Rush Limbaugh listeners, or fundamentalist Christians as "those people", complete with the requisite comments on their clothing, intelligence, and morals. And don't tell me you lived on the Upper West Side during the Clinton years and didn't hear those same people enthusiastically echoing Carville's comments about trailer trash.

90210, that would be a nice position, if it weren't that the people having abortions tend to have rather a lot of them, even though their exposure to a Planned Parenthood clinic means that they have about as much birth control education as we can give them. And it would be more on point if someone else got the heart attack after you ate too much and didn't excercise.

And Kate, what I'm doing is rather less serious than shooting people.

Jane,

At the risk of repeating a bunch of previous posters:

1. The "Bush=Hitler" contingent in anti-war partisans is vanishingly small, although they might seem larger in the echo chamber. They can't be bigger than the Little Green Footballs posters or the "protestor=terrorist" contingent on the right.

So the number of people who might have to struggle with the "American troops=Wehrmacht" is also very small.

2. Do the troops support this war? You seem pretty sure, but it's unknowable, isn't it?

3. There are probably some of your readers who have a strongly negative opinion about Waco and/or Ruby Ridge. Are they required to hate the volunteer military as well, for the sake of intellectual consistency?

The vast majority of anti-war protestors have learned a lesson from Vietnam. They've learned that individual soldiers are not an appropriate target for their protests. Maybe they're just calculating- they don't want average Americans to hate them and their goals. Maybe they really feel that individual soldiers can't responsible for the situations they're put in, volunteer army or not. In any case, it's better for the country, for the debate, and certainly for the troops. I don't see why you would deny them this.

Perhaps support for the troops but not for the war means this:

Anti-war supporters understand that soldiers don't make policy, they are merely the institution of that policy. They don't question orders when given, they merely accept and execute them. They further recognize that the act of volunteering to join the military is the soldier's implicit agreement with the chain of command and military tradition of the United States.

It is this chain of command and military tradition that makes our military powerful and historically successful. Perhaps what anti-war supporters are saying by "supporting the troops" is that they agree with a soldier's decision to recognize the authority of the chain of command because it makes our military successful, not just in this conflict (which they don't support) but in future ones (that they might).

Just a thought.

Wow Jane, you really have dropped the standards here.

I now remember fondly when we could argue about how you misunderstood what happened in the CA energy crisis (did you see the FERC report, btw?).

But now this?

I mean, what's the difference now between you and Luskin or Sullivan? Doesn't the web have enough of that trash?

You had a pretty good economics website and, aside from your Krugman bashing, ran a fairly serious shop here. But now you've become a RNC mouthpiece.

I can't believe that you really think that the only way to 'support the troops' is to support the war. That is the kind of illogical emotional arguments we can get from the National Review.

Did you read Salon's piece on how Rumsfeld, back during the Kosovo crisis criticized the war? I assume he supported the troops back then, don't you?

BTW you wrote: The troops support Bush. They support what they are doing.

This is not true if by support you mean 100%. Many newspapers have carried articles of troops that expressed misgivings and even outright rejection of the war while making it clear that they would do their duty.

There is no contradiction between supporting the troops and opposing the war.

Guys, anyone who wants to comment on what an appalling mess I am and how much they hate me is invited to not read my drooling idiocy. I'm not twelve, and patronizing remarks neither impress me, nor dispose me to act upon your suggestions.

I don't care how big or small a number it is, those are the people I'm writing about. Y'all are the ones getting sensitive about how it reflects on your support for the troops.

Jane, we're going to get into one of these debates again.

GI Joe and I differ in our opinions. I am against the war. I don't want GI Joe to shoot people and kill them, Ney, I would like him to stick a little daisy in his riffle and prance about waiving a white flag.

Oh wait, no I wouldn't, because now that we're in Iraq, if he did that, people would shoot him (or videotape him and send it into Iraq's funniest home videos). If we're in the midst of the war, I support a swift resolution. I support the soldiers doing whatever they can to end the conflict. To depose Saddam. To get out alive and well and in one piece. And yeah, that means shooting people. I never said I had a problem with soldiers shooting people. It's the nature of their job.

Just as blogging here is the nature of your job.

So disagree with the motive behind the war...yes. Support the troops? yes.

or to put it another way

Disagree with the majority of the sentiments expressed on Jane's Blog? yes. Support Jane to have a successful blog? Absolutely.

What does shooting have to do with it?

Also, my point with the NASCAR thing is that, when I was down in the south I heard equally pejoritive comments about damn liberal new yorkers. My point was not that NYers don't say insulting things about people from NC, just that people from NC (some of them) say the same types of things about NYers and to imply otherwise is dishonest.

Speaking from the perspective of a soldier, I think there are valid points on both sides of the fence. I do believe that the majority of anti-war protestors would prefer not to see American soldiers killed, and so, in that respect, they support the troops. On the other hand, by demonstrating against the war the protestors do embolden the Iraqi government to hold out longer and to take whatever measures they can imagine to try and prolong the war long enough for the peace movement to hand them the win. From that perspective, clearly anti-war protests will result in more dead soldiers (and more dead Iraqis). Supporting the troops? In words, yes. In deeds, certainly not.

Jane's questions is a good one -- but it's also a trap. Many liberals would just as soon save their breath and just say that they oppose the way, without having to assert that they also support our troops.

The problem is that the warrior class for as long as I've been alive has always countered war opposition with accusations of lack of support for the troops. This is, of course, tantamount to calling us unpatriotic.

When countering anti-war protests, the jingoists don't chant "Let's go to war! Let's go to war!" They say "We support our troops."

It's a red herring; a trick. The warrior class wants the public to believe that we are unpatriotic, so it throws out that "support the troops" question, and the liberals are left blubbering about "well, we want them to be safe", "they shouldn't be there", or "bring them home."

The truth is that the warrior class doesn't believe that someone can be patriotic and also oppose a Republican president's war. So you're all just wasting your breath.

confusing typo:

Many liberals would just as soon save their breath and just say that they oppose the way ...

should be: war

Well, it's good to see that everyone is so convinced they know what the other side thinks. Hell, I didn't even know what I believed until Amitava was kind enough to point it out to me. Thanks, big guy. What would I do without you?

Jane wrote:

"Guys, anyone who wants to comment on what an appalling mess I am and how much they hate me is invited to not read my drooling idiocy. I'm not twelve, and patronizing remarks neither impress me, nor dispose me to act upon your suggestions."

Well, you do seem to be slipping into a bit of a Fat Elvis stage, i.e. on the declining end of a career marked by flashes of genius, decaying into sad rehashes of overplayed material for the fanatical faithful, rather than the brillant melding of disparate threads into a novel new form of art that marked your youth.

I'm expecting next a blog with a photo of you at Vegas in white jumpsuit with sequins (with a pop-up ad for an online gambling site and a $3.99 surf & turf dinner special).

Avoid the fried peanut butter sandwiches.

Andrew Olmsted:

Fair enough; I shouldn't be trying to read your mind.

Then please explain to me why people who believe that this war is a total disaster from every perspective -- including US national security -- should have to explain whether or not we support the troops? Why does the press routinely describe pro-war demonstrations as demonstrations "in support of troops?" Why not engage war opposition on the merits and leave the troops out of it? Why accuse liberals of being objectively pro-Saddam. These are common tactics and means to discredit not only the arguments of the opposition, but also their character.

Supporting the troops, but not the war is a rhetorical device precisely akin to "Saddam is awful dictator, but war is never the answer to anything." It involves a claim, and a distractor. In both cases, the clause before the comma could be removed without fundamentally changing the statement.

That is not to say that it is impossible to truly believe (on an emotional level) that both clauses are true.

Jane, you are trying to deal with the question of the argument behind the slogan. The real purpose of slogans is emotional, so attacking the argument sort of misses the point.

Andrew wrote:

"Well, it's good to see that everyone is so convinced they know what the other side thinks. Hell, I didn't even know what I believed until Amitava was kind enough to point it out to me. Thanks, big guy. What would I do without you?"

You missed out on the Telepathic implants too? Damn, I thought it was just me. Can we sue?

Tom

Pardon me for saying it but I believe the Left is anti-war/pro-military for two reasons:

1. It was a successful tactic used by the peace movement during the Vietnam War.

2. For the anti-war left, "Peace" is not an ends but a means. Therefore, they've chosen to side with the group that is the object of establishment exploitation: the soldiers.

It's a tactic otherwise known as a spoonful of sugar. While it may make the timid feel better about being anti-war, what they're swallowing is no less amoral.

Pardon me for saying it but I believe the Left is anti-war/pro-military for two reasons:

So exactly when can I oppose a war without being unpatriotic?

Javier wrote:

"How can one be against the war but support the troops?

I'll try to give you the perspective on an elected official holding this seemingly contradictory stance (myself working for one, "There are some who opposed this war not for moral reasons but because to them its a bad foreign policy move that will hurt our security long term. I don't need to go into the logic of holding this position, but its basically the view of people like Scowcroft and Powell, neither of whom one would acuse of being against the war because they hate Bush or because its "inmoral"."

Same position as Eric Alterman, who thinks, like me, that the war is imprudent but not immoral.

Scowcroft and Alterman on the same side. Whodda thunk it. Maybe Bush is a uniter after all.

But I'd put your boss in the "conditionally & critically pro-war camp", rather than the anti-war camp. I feel the same way as your boss, but now feel that, given we've already paid the price in loss of goodwill and in damage to multilateral institution, that there is no turning back (sunk costs should not influence future decisions). But I'd call myself (critically) pro-war, not anti-war.

So exactly when can I oppose a war without being unpatriotic?

Proving my point about the desire for an easy pill to swallow.

There was a similar point that Retired Colonel W. Patrick Lang attempted to make last night on PBS's News Hour: that Colonels and Generals can't be expected to rock the boat because they have kids in college. Therefore we should go easy on them if they don't support the war but fail to speak up about it.

The point in bringing this up, Amitava, is that sometimes life requires hard choice. Sometimes for the sake of your country you have to renounce what is also dear to your heart. Whether its being unpatriotic or risking your kid's future in college, you gotta stand for something.

You want to be anti-war? Fine. But you also have to give something up. There are no easy pills.

Sometimes for the sake of your country you have to renounce what is also dear to your heart.

And here we hit the brick wall. I oppose this war for the sake of my country. Can't comprehend that can you? I can love my country and oppose an unnecessary war. I think fighting the Korean War was a good idea; the Vietnam War was a bad idea. World War II was a good idea; Panama was a bad idea. Gulf War I was a good idea; Grenada was a bad idea.

Ad up the points. Have I made my choices for the sake of my country, or have I betrayed it?

Why can't you see my perspective at all? What if W. started a war against some other country, like Syria or N. Korea or Iran? Can I oppose a war against one but oppose a war against the others "for the sake of my country"? Am I duty bound to follow whatever lousy policy W. puts forward, even if it's a policy that will bring doom to my nation?

Matt wrote:

"The point in bringing this up, Amitava, is that sometimes life requires hard choice. Sometimes for the sake of your country you have to renounce what is also dear to your heart."

So, was Mark Twain a patriot, then? Or a traitorous, troop-hating, objectively pro-Spanish anti-American? I mean, he was head of the anti-imperialist league.

Should copies of Tom Sawyer be going the same way as Dixie Chicks CDs? Don't be a wimp now. Hard choices. No easy pills.

GT: You will notice, however, that whatever your opinion of the content -- Jane IS still running a blog.

Jane,

I think part of it is simple cognitive dissonance. But, while I support this war, I didn't support many of the military operations of the 1990s. I still hoped that we would win and that our soldiers (who, while they volunteered, don't get to pick and choose their missions) would come home alive.

Further, I think you can hold this kind of inconsistent view without being intellectually lazy. I, for example, support the outlawing of abortion. I think abortion, certainly abortion after viability has been reached, is tantamount to murder. Do I therefore support Operation Rescue and those who murder abortionists? No. Now, logically, from a purely utilitarian standpoint, killing one abortionist who would otherwise go and kill 100 babies that day is probably a good tradeoff. But I still think the one murder is immoral, irrespective of the good consequences that follow.

Jonathan,

> But, would you have supported the invasion of Iraq if you
> had known that fragging would return to the U.S. Army?

Sorry, but fragging holds no special horror for me. Your statement is just a specific case of the general statement, "Somebody might get hurt." And I already know that some US residents were quite willing to "frag" entire cities; why should I be surprised that one solitary convert to Islam decided to do the same at the front?

Steve Smith,

When you claim we

> [choose] to avoid (and even sabotage) peaceful and
> diplomatic solutions to the problem

it's unclear which solutions you had in mind--the ones that didn't work for twelve whole years, or some other totally untested means?

Amitava Mazumdar,

So you approved of the original phase of the Gulf War, but oppose this one? Why? Has Hussein become nicer in the meantime or something? Or does the approval of the UN (who did nothing in Rwanda or Kosovo, and downright harmful in Bosnia by putting in peacekeepers whose false promise of peacekeeping lured many to their deaths) really count for that much with you?

So, was Mark Twain a patriot, then? Or a traitorous, troop-hating, objectively pro-Spanish anti-American? I mean, he was head of the anti-imperialist league. Should copies of Tom Sawyer be going the same way as Dixie Chicks CDs? Don't be a wimp now. Hard choices. No easy pills.

Tom,

Mark Twain would be rolling in his grave at the very notion that he was a patriot.

http://www.twainquotes.com/Patriotism.html

This is all you have? Where's your game man?

Amitava, I don't think you've betrayed your country by opposing this war. I just think you want to eat your cake too. You don't stop being an American just because you oppose this war or any other.

But I tell you what, why don't you make yourself a little patriot badge and wear it down to your local VFW. You can explain your sense of patriotism to them.

During Vietnam, I worked for a while at an anti-war coffee house at Fort Hood, Texas, called the Oleo Strut. We wanted to support any soldiers who hated the army, hated what they were being pushed to do in Vietnam. The slogan was FTA. But much of the anti-war movement looked on army grunts as depraved murders and torturers who napalmed Vietnamese women and children.

I think a large percentage of those who went to Vietnam today wish they had never been sent there. Same with many Gulf Veterans, suffering from Gulf War syndrome as well.

In this war, when we say we support the troops, we mean that we don't blame them personally for the atrocities and folly of the attack on Iraq--yes many are gung ho and raring to go. But some aren't, and those are the ones we can make some space for, by saying we support them. We certainly are trying to avoid some of the mistakes of blaming troops during Vietnam--even though some committed war crimes.

I think it is criminal to put young soldiers (American or Israeli) in the position of shooting down civilians because they fear for their own safety. Supporting our soldiers means holding their leaders accountable for putting them in such terrible situations.

Some are cowboys, like the A-10 pilot who shot up the british tank, or the pilot who bombed the Canadians in Afghanistan. Most are not--and they should not be put into impossible situations. This is what I mean by support our troops.

The truth is that the warrior class doesn't believe that someone can be patriotic and also oppose a Republican president's war.

Ah, but you can't be, if the reason you are opposing the war is because it's a Republican president's war. If the war would be fine with you if there were a Democrat in the Oval Office, then you're apparently willing to endanger the security of the country if it will only thwart and embarrass the Republicans.

If you object to this "mind reading", I suggest you try not to let your thoughts slip into what you write.

I also suggest you abandon thinking that there is such a thing as a "warrior class". This has no useful meaning.

The reason that anti-war people are challenged to support the troops is that, allegedly, troops returning from Vietnam were spat upon and called "baby killer" by "peace protesters". This is a vital bit of history---even if it's apocryphal---that you must know in order to speak sensibly on this subject.

Tom wrote "If one wanted even more fun, I could dredge through FreeRepublic or Yahoo Boards to come up with suitably repugnant rejoicing in deaths of "ragheads" to spice up one's stereotyping of the other side. But that would be to make argument based on false assumption: that the pro-war side is monolithic on ideology, aims and means, and that subset Y is representative of all of set X."

The difference is that the right condems and tries to stop that idiocy you stated, but the left is not condeming the "Bush is Hitler" or "the war is for his bank account" idiocy.

Amitava,
I don't feel that protestors should be required to declare their support for the troops. Nor do I object to discussing the antiwar case on the merits. However, I submit that one of the merits of the case at this point is the effects it will have on the troops and the country.

If we stop the war now, having already committed to it, I believe we will be worse off than if we hadn't gone to war at all. I can't claim to understand your point of view, because I haven't seen enough of your arguments to do so, but I can certainly understand people who choose to oppose the war. But it's not unfair to point out that opposing the war does help Saddam Hussein, because that's the truth. Do you deny that, if you get your way and stop the war, it will be beneficial for Hussein, assuming he's still alive? I'll agree that it's unfair to suggest that as the primary goal of the average protestor, as I don't think they see keeping Hussein in power as a positive goal, but they are willing to accept that as the price for stopping the war. As long as anti-war people are willing to admit that, I see no reason to tar them with the brush of being unpatriotic. I just think they're wrong.

Jane:
Logically, you're mostly right. To say, as many (but not all!) anti-war people do, "I support our troops while they're fighting, but I consider this war immoral," is like being anti-Nazi conquest, pro Wehrmacht.

But not all people who "oppose the war" are against it because they consider it immoral. Some (Jerry Pournelle comes to mind) think it's a bad idea for the U.S. to do this, but now that it's begun, think our winning is better than the alternative. Nothing inconsistent there.

And some, like Amitava, don't say anything one way or the other about supporting or not supporting the troops, so the question doesn't apply to them.

But many people do sincerely support the troops and regard the war as immoral. My telepathy implant is on the blink (repairperson's coming next week), so I'll speculate that:

Many haven't paid attention to the troops attitude (the Brit the other day who complained 'This is too much like a peace keeping operation. I came here to fight a war'). They aren't informed enough to be inconsistent.

Others haven't thought through what it means to volunteer to be a member of the armed forces: when the President says, 'Go shoot some foreigners in country X, I'll say "Yes sir!" ' They view the U.S. Armed Forces as being like those sods in Iraq whose families will be shot if they don't fight. They're too confused to understand that they're inconsistent.

Some do consider the war immoral, and what the troops are doing immoral, and still support them. It's because they're human, and blood is thicker than logical consistency. Those are our people over there, and they can't bring themselves to wish for their defeat.

But for some, you're right, it's consciously designed to conceal their real position. And here I don't have to speculate, because they're on record. When the anti-war protests started, they had no trouble showing up for rallies run by dedicated Stalinists who think Saddam's a great guy. Then they noticed that their association with the Worker's World Party was getting them bad publicity, so they created 'United For Peace and Justice' and 'Win Without War' to improve their image. They 'support the troops' because it pays.

Look, I can't speak for all anti-war protestors or anything. Heck, I haven't even been to any protests. I'll just try to explain how it is that I can oppose the war and "support" the troops.

My college roommate is in the Army. (Yes, we went to an Ivy.) He's currently stationed in Germany. He might get sent to the Gulf; he's not sure. I respect his decision to join the Army -- we both come from military families. And I believe that serving your country in any capacity is a noble thing. Even nobler if it involves putting your own life on the line. (Point of clarification: we're both 10 years out of college now. He's been in the Army since ROTC.)

It's his job to do what the the army tells him to do. I would hope that he would refuse to do his job if he were called on to do something immoral, or commit what he knows to be a war crime. But he doesn't believe (and I know this from asking him, not telepathy) that this war is immoral or a war crime. For the record, neither do I. I think it's a bad idea, for reasons of diplomacy, global security, and sure, my own personal safety (I'm a NYer, like our illustrious hostess, and I personally believe that this war increases the possiblity of another terrorist attack here.)

But it's not his job to set policy. The strength of our democracy stems, in part, from a de-politicized military. The military does not decide whether or not we go to war; that's the job of the Senate and the President, last time I checked. So I think it's logically consistent to say that you disagree with military policy, without disparaging those who are called on to carry out that policy.

So, what does it mean that I "support the troops"? Well, in the case of my roommate, I want him to be OK. I want our other soldiers to be OK, too, because they are doing their jobs, and they are risking their lives for us, and because they're Americans, damnit. I want them to win, and win quickly (which is why the "they'll-just-lay-down-their-arms-and-welcome-us-as-liberators" strategy is so enraging.) I support their decision to volunteer for the job of protecting our nation.

"Supporting the troops" doesn't mean "I believe that everything they're doing is a good idea." Because I recognize that it's not their idea to be there, it's Bush's idea. Sure, if everyone in the military decided to quit rather than fight, then we wouldn't be in this war. I think that's what you're getting at with the Wermacht example -- that to claim that our troops are "just following orders" violates the spirit of Nuremburg. But we're fighting a war against a foreign army here, not rounding up our own citizens in camps. And would we be really better off as a society if our ability to wage war were dependent on the agreement of every solider? I think not.

And, to quote GK Chesterton: "'My country, right or wrong' is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying 'My mother, drunk or sober.'"

To me, asking whether or not I "support" our troops is rather like asking whether or not I "support" taxi drivers. If I think on it a bit, then yeah, sure I support them. They serve a useful function. But it is not a very concrete sort of support - it is just a general feeling of acceptance of a useful economic function, combined with an acknowledgement that people make it happen.

Maybe "support" is strictly affiliational: do I feel sympatico to American soldiers? I do, and I have a long history of fascination with both soldiers (of all nations) and with Americans and things American. I am an American. I certainly identify much more with American soldiers than I do with, say, Iraqi soldiers, or even civilians. The Americans speak English (my language) listen to rock and rap; they eat burgers, Chinese, Indian, Thai, Tex-Mex, and pizza when they can; they know the Simpsons and Star Trek; and they understand in their gut the concept of individual liberty. In other words, they are like me. I get the feeling a good part of the "support" question is really cultural narcissism; conservatives can't believe that anyone would really feel closer to foreigners than to her own countrymen. I rather agree with them on that.

Or perhaps "support" strictly means financial. In that case, I have two answers. I do, perforce, support the troops; for I am taxed, and will be taxed in the future, to pay their salaries. Taxes are not voluntary. I don't want to be taxed for this purpose (and any others, for that matter). I'd willingly pay for a certain level of defense, but surely not one that tempts its executives to distant foreign adventure. So in that second sense - voluntary payment - I do not support ("oppose"?) the troops. In recent history, roughly one-third of the federal budget is the military. Another third or so is interest and debt, which has been run up in part by military spending in the past. So I'd guess that near to half of our federal tax dollars are paying either for the current military or for the costs of previous ones. So, here's another way to look at the question: if you were offered a choice to check a box on your 1040, "opposing" (and defunding) the troops, and in so doing would pay half as much tax - would you? I would. I invite conservative readers to think on that.

Do I think America is on the wrong track? Yes! But do I love America? Yes! Isolationism is patriotic.

"Mark Twain would be rolling in his grave at the very notion that he was a patriot.

http://www.twainquotes.com/Patriotism.html

This is all you have? Where's your game man?"

Achh, don't crow yet.

So you don't think Twain loved his country? His friend Fuller said he was not an American, he was *The* American:

"We are called the nation of inventors. And we are. We could still claim that title and wear its loftiest honors if we had stopped with the first thing we ever invented, which was human liberty.
- Foreign Critics speech, 1890"

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."

I'd read that to say that here he means a critical Patriotism, a sense that America is, as Richard Rorty put it, an ideal to be achieved. I'd support this, using another of the quotes you gave:

"We have a bastard Patriotism, a sarcasm, a burlesque; but we have no such thing as a public conscience. Politically we are just a joke."

So for me; Twain was a patriot, a believer in American ideals; but no jingoist. So much so he had no compunction on raging against the decisions of its government or the idiocy of his compatriots when he felt they were betraying their country's ideals.

To finish off, one that you will like:

"The average American may not know who his grandfather was. But the American was, however, one degree better off than the average Frenchman who, as a rule, was in considerable doubt as to who his father was."
- quoted in "Stories of Mark Twain," C.

A couple thoughts from an active duty officer.

I have yet to meet anyone, in the military, who is against the war. Most thought we should have hit him sooner becuase of weather considerations. I see this as another action in the War on Terrorism. A lot of the discussion on the internet seems focused on Iraq as a singular item. On a strategic scale the Iraqi campaign makes even more sense - especially if we stay for the long haul like we did in Japan after WWII.

To Steve Smith - The war is legal and constitutional. Congress authorized it in the vote prior to the election and the president ordered it. (That's also why war powers does not apply, congress has been advised and consented).

Kate - The military does not fight for the President but for the Constitution of the United States. Its in the oath. This war is for the people of America. (note Iraq will probaby be the country that comes out of this the best!)

Lastly, I do not consider you unpatriotic if you opposed how we got into the war or if you believed that we should have not fought. There was intense debate about this prior to the war, but congress overwelmingly authorized this war. If you think are elected leaders are wrong you can vote them out (had one chance already in the 2002 elections, but the majority supported the road to war). But once the war was started "support the troops" means get off the streets with the protests. Stop interfereing with military or economic activity of the country. At that point you ARE giving aid and confort to the enemy (see Peter Arnett for a classic example). If you don't like the Pres there are plethora of Dems who want the job, organize and get your favorite candidate into office in the '04 election. (And PLEASE vote). That is the support the troops want!

Tom wrote "If one wanted even more fun, I could dredge through FreeRepublic or Yahoo Boards to come up with suitably repugnant rejoicing in deaths of "ragheads" to spice up one's stereotyping of the other side. But that would be to make argument based on false assumption: that the pro-war side is monolithic on ideology, aims and means, and that subset Y is representative of all of set X."

"The difference is that the right condems and tries to stop that idiocy you stated,"

Must have missed the bit where Tom DeLay got sacked for criticising Clinton and the Kosovo war. Damn, no telepathic implant, and now I find out I'm in the wrong parallel universe.

(OK, fair enough though: I've been impressed that the Republicans, at the highest levels, have been very pro-active in squelching Islamophobia, nor did Bush play the race card in 2000. In that way, he showed class.)

" but the left is not condeming the "Bush is Hitler" or "the war is for his bank account" idiocy."

Whaddya mean? We on the left just *love* to criticise each other. (At times, it's become a blood sport, c.f. Orwell's "Homage to Catalonia")

Try this one, in the American Prospect:

http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2003/03/penniman-n-03-21.html

Quote:

"One might have expected liberals to begin making the case for a lengthy and serious rebuilding of Iraq -- a process that is hugely complicated and that no one knows whether the Bush administration will commit to wholeheartedly. But neither of these things has happened. Instead, on the brink of the ouster of a dictator who is the very embodiment of illiberal values, too many liberals are on the sidelines throwing beer cans at the proceedings."

Todd Gitlin's expressed similar sentiments.

Or try Michael Walzer at Dissent Magazine, http://www.dissentmagazine.org/, like this essay from Mitchell Cohen:

"..it is perilous to invent politically comfortable choices and then define the world according to them. That is what today's "antiwar" movements are doing. I, too, opposed Washington on Kyoto and the ICC, but I find absurd the attempts to make everything Saddam Hussein does the fault of George Bush. I applaud Tony Blair for resisting these undertows."

http://www.dissentmagazine.org/menutest/articles/iraq/cohen.htm

Or especially this essay in 2002, after 9/11: http://www.dissentmagazine.org/menutest/archives/2002/sp02/decent.shtml, titled: "Can there be a decent left?"

Excerpt:
"We certainly need something better than the rag-tag Marxism with which so much of the left operates today-a Marxism whose chief effect is to turn world politics into a cheap melodrama, with all the villains dressed to look the part and one villain larger than life. . The spectacle of European leftists straining to find some economic reason for the Kosovo War (oil in the Balkans? a possible pipeline? was NATO reaching for control of the Black Sea?) was entertaining at the time, but it doesn't bear repeating. "

So, can we get away from the Hive-Mind hypothesis, please?

Tom quoted:

"The average American may not know who his grandfather was. But the American was, however, one degree better off than the average Frenchman who, as a rule, was in considerable doubt as to who his father was."
- quoted in "Stories of Mark Twain," C.

Just wanted to point out the context of this one, in case anyone hadn't heard it and concluded that Twain was taking cheap shots at random: a prominent Frenchman (I forget who it was--will have to Google it at some point) had made the comment that an American who had nothing to do could amuse himself endlessly by trying to find out who his grandfather was (implying that Americans were a mongrel people with no history). Bad idea to provide Mr. Clemens this kind of material, since he observed that a Frenchman who had nothing to could amuse himself endlessly by. . .well, you read the quote. :-)

Nothing like a few minutes thinking about Mark Twain to brighten up your day.

Scott wrote:

"Nothing like a few minutes thinking about Mark Twain to brighten up your day."

Agreed. Can we clone him and get him a blog?

Jane -

it's a problem of ordering choices:

1) No war in Iraq
2) US victory in Iraq
3) US defeat in Iraq

The pro-war folks, like me, order these 2, 1, 3.
Anti-war folks start the ordering with 1. The split is in how they order choice 2 and 3. The anti-war leftists order their preferences 1, 3, 2, while anti-war liberals order them 1, 2, 3.

One can complicate the scheme - introducing gradations of victory or defeat, or various scenarios under the umbrella of "no war", but the basic distinction between the leftist America-haters, and patriotic anti-war Americans (who "support our troops") is that the anti-war liberal really would prefer to see the US win, if we're going to fight.

After having read all the arguments, counter-arguments, ripostes, bashes, flames and babblings in this comment thread, I've come to one conclusion: you're all wrong.

How so?

Because each side in the firefight is ignoring one fact - that these "oppose the war, but support the troops" platitudes are meaningless. They have no real world effect.

The right claims that the continuing anti-war demonstrations embolden Saddam, or make him less likely to capitulate. Horseshit. He'd choose to go down in flames (NB: I think he already has) even if the entire US citizenry was rioting on the streets in support of the war, to the point of castigating Bush for not nuking Iraq from orbit.

The right claims that anti-war protests hurt the morale of the troops. Even smellier horseshit. As a former Marine with eight years under his belt, I known thousands and spoken lately with dozens. They support the war to a man, and the cries of the anti-war idjits bounce off their eardrums like rain off their helmets. Zero effect. Nada. Zilch. Goose Egg. Like being insulted by an ant. How can you get pissed? Just consider the source, and you can't.

Both the right and the left have an inflated idea of the left's power to influence either of the sides presently slugging it out on the roads the Baghdad, oddly enough.

On a related note, does anyone care to argue that the vaunted "Arab Street" is any more or less effected by the peace demonstrations than those Marines? Not me.

So protest on, peace-at-any-pricers. You may remain guilt-free on the charge that the protests will cause further loss of life.

However, you still should be horsewhipped. We're spending nearly a million bucks a day on the demonstrations. Mostly for overtime for the cops needed to keep the peace demonstrators from trashing the joint. This would be much better spent on ferreting out the Bad Guys that would love nothing more than to execute the next 9/11.

If I decide to become a conservative, do I also get the ability to read the minds of my political opponents for free, or do I have to pay extra for the telepathic implant? Is the operation under local or general anesthetic?

i got mine under local, and it hurt like hell. then they took it away when they found out i was a -- shudder -- centrist.

the grouping of the "other" into a monolith is useful, lazy, and, quite frankly, wrong. but it makes discourse much easier and coherent.

compare it to writing software documentation:

writing docs for some bit of windows software is fairly easy -- it's a "monolith" and can be treated and described in a fairly consistent manner.

writing software documentation for linux, however, is a freaking nightmare. "for red hat linux build xx.yy, do this. for slackware, you'll first have to do steps a, b, c, and d, but skip C if you have a build previous to mm.dd. for debian, just click the button labeled "click here". for ..." [50 pages later], "now for step two..."

you spend so much time dealing with each individual case it's impossible to make any kind of progress.

oh, it's easier to demonize the Other this way too.

media coverage tends to congregate and concentrate on that which is deemed "newsworthy", which means the hordes of "normal" peace protestors are passed over for the handful of clowns, or people carrying signs of questionable taste.

people have a tendency to believe that what they see is what there is (seeing is believing) -- and so the right tends to categorize the left as this bizarre multi-colored, multi-pierced, mewling, rioting biomass.

whereas the left may paint the right as soulless corporate moneygrubbers and/or white trash gun totin' nascar fans.

(yes, my description of the right isn't nearly as interesting as the left. but then, isn't that true?)

-----

The best way to support our troops is to bring them home, not to send some of them to die for a trivial cause.

out of curiosity mr smith, what do you think "the cause" is?

-----

i'm sorry, this post is getting completely off topic.

wrt supporting the troops but not the war : sure it's possible. it's certainly possible to hope for the wellbeing of the indivual soldiers as human beings while objecting to the purposes for which the military is being used.

consider it the great modern mental disconnect -- that a person has an inherent worth regardless of what he is doing. there is one group of people that will judge a man for what he is, and another group that will judge him for what he has done.

a handy example : this kid in sf suspected of planting a molotov coctail.

"When everything comes out, it will show he has been falsely charged," said his attorney, Geoffrey Rotwein. "He's a very nice person, he's very intelligent, I just think these are false charges."

personally i'm wondering what his personality traits have to do with his culpability for his actions, but that's just me.

i'd argue the "pro-troops/anti-war" folks are of a similar stripe.

and from what you've written jane, it seems like you're more of the second type.

buffpilot said:
"But once the war was started "support the troops" means get off the streets with the protests. Stop interfering with military or economic activity of the country."

Marcus said:
"So protest on, peace-at-any-pricers. You may remain guilt-free on the charge that the protests will cause further loss of life.

"However, you still should be horsewhipped. We're spending nearly a million bucks a day on the demonstrations. Mostly for overtime for the cops needed to keep the peace demonstrators from trashing the joint. This would be much better spent on ferreting out the Bad Guys that would love nothing more than to execute the next 9/11."

There is a problem with just shutting up about being dragged into this mess by a president who was elected by the thinnest of margins. It reinforces the belief among politicians that it's easier to ask forgiveness than permission. Permission in this case would have been making a good enough case for war to create popular support BEFORE we started bombing Baghdad, and to round up a real coalition, instead of just our buddy Great Britain.

There's undoubtedly a lot of truth to the forgiveness/permission belief. I've already been told that the Iraq war is history -- another way to put it might be "lie back and enjoy it."

It would be foolish to make it easier for a president to wage a war we believe is wrong on moral, diplomatic, and economic grounds. We also believe he is making the world more dangerous for Americans by contributing to the conditions that breed terrorists.

We don't wish harm to the troops, and we know that the Iraq war is history. We could not pull out now without causing disaster to the Iraquis. We will be embroiled there for years to come trying to keep the old guard from making a comeback and trying to keep the various ethnic groups from slaughtering each other. Unless we are lucky enough to shove the problem off on NATO, as we are preparing to shove off the problem of Afghanistan. I don't think we should give the president the idea that he can take on another project like this without some serious support before the planes leave the ground.

Mary

"The troops support Bush. They support what they are doing. They believe in it."

Scuse?

This is probably true, but it is also irrelevant. If the war is legal and Constitutional (and this one probably is, albeit it's a close line at some points), the troops gotta be there. Their political views don't matter. I'm not sitting here saying "I support the troops who voted Democratic."

The Wehrmacht comparisons fail on one crucial point: our troops are not being asked to commit war crimes as defined by United States law. (If we use tear gas, that's a war crime under international law, but Congress made an exception when it ratified that treaty. Clever of 'em.)

So that's why I support the troops, whatever that means. I take it to mean "I hope they don't die and I'm really glad PFC Lynch was saved." I also take it to mean "I sent a bunch of extra books on over there." They're law-abiding citizens carrying out legitimate orders to prosecute a war that I think was a bad idea.

If I blamed the troops for carrying out orders, I'd be implying that I think soldiers should decide whether or not to follow orders based on their political beliefs. Which seems to me... fraught with peril. To say the least.

It seems from reading further comments that the missing portion of the syllogism is "the peace protestors and anti-war movement think this war is illegal and unconstitutional." May I suggest that if you don't want to be judged, you lay off the judging? If you get unhappy when people condescend -- and you have every right to, I do too -- perhaps you shouldn't condescend yourself.

Bryant wrote:

"Jane wrote:

"The troops support Bush. They support what they are doing. They believe in it."

Scuse?

This is probably true, but it is also irrelevant. If the war is legal and Constitutional ..., the troops gotta be there. Their political views don't matter. "

Yup. It doesn't matter whether the majority of troops believed Bush was being mind-controlled by eveeeil alien spiders from the Planet Zob. They're there to do a job; their opinions don't come into it.

Bryant wrote:

"If we use tear gas, that's a war crime under international law, but Congress made an exception when it ratified that treaty. Clever of 'em."

Tear gas, is only classified as a chemical weapon under treaty 'cos of the risk of it being *mistaken* for a more deadly chemical agent.

But tear "gas" is non-lethal (unless
you're a kid or elderly with respiratory problems, tear "gas" ) is non-lethal.

(BTW, it's not a gas, but a solid powder)

(God, I remember all this from the post-Waco flamewars on Usenet)

Megan -

do you ever speed? Do you think that some speed limits are too low? Do you believe that certain drug laws are too harsh?

Do you "support the police"?

Mary, come again?

> Permission in this case would have been making a
> good enough case for war to create popular
> support BEFORE we started bombing Baghdad,

What a hoot! What permission would be in this case is a Congressional resultion approving the war, and guess what? You're never going to believe this, but while you weren't looking, Congress did exactly that: and what's more amazing, it passed by a higher margin than the original one approving the start of the Gulf War in '91.

Popular approval, if that amorphous thing is what you're actually referring to, is just icing on the case, but in this case the government has plenty--an overwhelming majority of the population supports the war.

What more do you want? Other than to get your way regardless of others' view on the subject, that is...

In the short time since graduating college (3 years,) I have grown to dislike much about office politics, institutional bureacracy, and the seemingly illogical responses by my superiors. When I chose my vocation, reasons ranged from financial gain, interest in international commerce and travel, and general obligation to work hard. None of them had anything to do with who my boss was going to be.

For individuals to disagree politically is textbook democracy. To support a young man or woman joining the military is something that is far more complicated than pro- or anti-war sentiment. The possibilities to expand one's horizons with the G.I. plan, or to be part of an regimented, goal-oriented organization is something that appeals to many. These people donate their time, and in the extreme, their lives, for that rare chance at comprehensive erudition. It is a calculated bet on life, based on war.

Whether or not I agree with the political landscape that led to this war/invasion, to 'despise' a soldier for taking his/her chances and making a bet on life is ridiculous, as are claims that this thinking is 'Anti-American' or hypocritical. Jingoism has clouded many a pair of eyes in this debate.

I don't think we should give the president the idea that he can take on another project like this without some serious support before the planes leave the ground.

who is this "we" you speak for, if i may ask?

the president has (reportedly) the support of more than 70% of the united states. the president's first and foremost duty is to protect the interests of the united states -- this duty is not beholden to the citizens of other countries or the UN.

It would be foolish to make it easier for a president to wage a war we believe is wrong on moral, diplomatic, and economic grounds. We also believe he is making the world more dangerous for Americans by contributing to the conditions that breed terrorists.

again may i ask, who is this "we" you are spokesperson for?

and we could argue that this war is also about alleviating the conditions that breed terrorists. but first, may i ask, what "conditions" do you think "breed terrorists"? and how will removing an oppressive regime contribute to your causes?

(God, I remember all this from the post-Waco flamewars on Usenet)

careful tom, you're dating yourself ;)

Kirk wrote:
"What a hoot! What permission would be in this case is a Congressional resultion approving the war, and guess what? You're never going to believe this, but while you weren't looking, Congress did exactly that: and what's more amazing, it passed by a higher margin than the original one approving the start of the Gulf War in '91."
I despised Congress for being too spineless to take a chance on being called unpatriotic when they passed that resolution. I was quite aware of it. I'll do what I can to campaign for more courageous representatives, although they're scarce commodities. And yes I always vote.

But the fact is, even a president needs a certain amount of buy-in for a decision to be carried out without provoking the kind of anti-war demonstrations that are occurring. The Bush administration chose to go ahead with less than 50% percent of the American population supporting them, with vocal opposition from all sides. Therefore they are still getting vocal dissent. They deserve it

I read in our paper tonight comments from local high school students. Two of them said before the war started they were against it. But now they feel like they have to support the troops. A direct quote: "It's almost like I feel forced to support it." Bush counted on everybody just falling into line when he made the decision. But there was just too much opposition to quiet everybody down.

bkw wrote:
"who is this "we" you speak for, if i may ask?"
You are right--I used "we" carelessly. I meant to refer to American protestors against the war. I should not presume to speak for all of them. However I know that many who are out there with signs share my belief that this war is making the world more dangerous for Americans by inflaming hatred against us among Muslims in countries that have contributed a lot more money, people, weapons and training to terrorism than Iraq. Such as Syria, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. We've made it very hard for many governments to support us in our quest to root out terrorists because their populations hate us more than ever. This hatred will also tend to quash the slow movement in Iran toward a less repressive and religiously fundamentalist government.

Again I say, Bush didn't go into this war with 70% of the population in favor--even though he tried to give the impression that Iraq was connected to Al Quaida. But once the war started, many Americans wouldn't speak up, since then they wouldn't be "supporting the troops" that they hadn't wanted to send in.

If the majority of Americans had thought a war against Iraq was a great idea and a top priority, there would have been crowds in the streets marching for war during the Clinton years. Or there should have been after 9/11. But with most Americans behind the effort, we went after the guilty parties in Afghanistan. We found them there, and we managed to kill some of them, and to damage their organization, with the support of the vast majority of the world.

Our pre-emptive strike shames me as an American and sets a dangerous precedent for countries such as Israel, which certainly has reason to feel threatened by many Arab countries.

Mary

the thing is, many people i know are over there. im not going to start calling them names and protesting them. they just joined the service to go to college or make some cash and see the world before starting a family. then bush comes along and jumps the gun on something that could have been taken care of better, just because he needs oil / reelection / vindication / whatever.

this war is unnecessary. the pop-culture patriots who degrade protesters dont realise the effects this war will have on the people over there. the people in the service support the war because that is what they are paid / brainwashed to do. supporting the troops has nothing to do with supporting the war.

you can love your mother and hate the person she works for.

Mary:
You are absolutely right in your last sentence. Before our evil and immoral attack, the Isrealis had nothing to fear. Although there was much hostility to them in the region, no one ever attacked them. Whenever they thought about it, the Arabs said, "Well, we might like to, but there's no precedent for just attacking another country that hasn't attacked you first, so we're stuck, we can't hurt them." This explains why Isreal has been at peace with its hostile neighbors since the day it was formed -- lack of precedent for anything else.

And now, all that is changed.

Well put, Tom.

Indeed.. to accept, even admire, soldiers who are carrying out a duty they signed on for - like it or not - and to hope they return safely to their families when all is said and done... is supportive.

To have questions about their Commander-In-Chief's decisions doesn't translate into contempt for the thousands obligated and brave enough to serve it.

Those of you who feel so qualified to paint the entire opposition movement with a single color brush, I'm going to make a suggestion.

Put the fucking brush down and make your own decisions, rather than running around saying that all the anti-war people are idiots, thus somehow trying to justify a pro-war stance.

Look at ALL the facts. Not just the ones that are convenient to your current opinion. If you think the only reasons to oppose the war are on the protest signs, then not only are you not thinking, but you're not paying attention. Read some in-depth articles, not just the front pages. Pick up a copy of this month's Harper Magazine instead of just repeating what the Bush administration tells you.

Look around you and honestly challenge your ideas, then make your OWN decision about what's right. Stop worrying about everyone else's opinions and concentrate more on your own.

As for myself, I have very serious questions about this war, and I've been asking around. I have yet to get ANYONE to honestly and thoughtfully counter my questions about this war. Instead, I get lectures about how I should 'support our troops', how it's simply 'an issue of national security', or how the antiwar protests are organized by a bunch of pinko communists.

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."

-- Theodore Roosevelt

OK then.

All the arguments that it is impossible to support the troops while opposing the war apply equally to the many Republicans who opposed the Kosovo action. (Or is there some tortured "logic" that says otherwise?) So they didn't support the troops, right?

Of course they claimed they did. Atrios (atrios.blogspot.com) has a nice collection of quotes from that time, and I wonder what those not quoted would have said about supporting the troops if asked.

So call it all "meaningless" statements, "vile positioning," "hypocricy," "inconsistent and irrational" arguments, etc. , but if you insist that your characterizations are correct, recognize that it's not just one side that's guilty.

So what about it? Did the Republicans support the troops or not?

It's pretty straightforward, really.

Regardless of what you think of this war, the fact remains we need a military who will fight when told to fight. It sucks, but the world still has people and countries in it who will attack others and take what they have if they cannot defend themselves. No, we don't help matters by pissing people off for no good reason, throwing our weight around and shooting first/using diplomacy later, but the threat would exist, regardless.

Soldiers (as I understand it) are under obligation to refuse unlawful/unconstitutional orders. Other than that, you really don't want a goodly portion of your armed forces refusing to fight when they see fit. Not only could that put us in danger from external threats, it would be a direct threat from within: having a military that takes it upon itself to do whatever it wants is terribly dangerous. If soldiers can decide on their own not to go to war, what's to stop them from deciding on their own to go to war?

War sucks by any measure, but if we're going to have a military, I want it firmly under civilian control. Making the decision whether or not to go to war, when and with whom (and disagreement over that policy) is the People's job.

"It's like saying that you're against murder, but simultaneously declaring your "support" for the DeGenovese foot soldiers whacking errant customers. "

not at all jane. please, you're smarter than that.

a murderer chooses to commit a crime. a soldier signs on to serve his/her country, and obey his/her superior officers.

i can simultaneously support the men and women who are serving our country and detest the orders they have been given, if i think the orders are not in our national interests, but only those of a select few.

in short, i support anybody who has committed themselve to serve their entire tour of duty. anybody who didn't, does not get my support.

life is not a "was/notwas" album. it always amazes me you are willing to think in three dimensions for the economy but choose to rely on "i'm rubber and you're glue" for political philosophy.

I supported Bush's decision to go to war, but I disagree with the premise that you can't support the troops without supporting the war.

It's the military's job to fight wars. Its the government's job to decide when we go to war.

I think it is un-American not to support American troops when they put their life on the line for our country (even if you don't support the decision to go to war).

Is it strictly accurate to say that the troops volunteered to participate in this war? I think that would be true only of those who signed up because they wanted to fight in Iraq. The majority of the people there signed up when Bush was still talking about "smart sanctions."

If you are morally opposed to this war, then it is no sillier to say that you oppose it while supporting the troops than it is to say that you support your local police force while opposing the drug war. The people doing the hard work are not defined by every objectionable practice in which they are engaged.
There is a lot more to our men and women in the military than the Iraq war; there is a lot more to police officers than the drug war.

I wrote a check today for a police benevolent association. I'd be happy to write one tomorrow for a veterans of Iraq association if the budget passed by Congress does end up screwing over veterans' services. Doesn't mean that I support every action taken by the people who will receive my money.
But I do recognize that their actions are determined by higher-ups who set the policies.

FWIW, I do know someone who is training as an Air Force pilot who is not in favor of this war with Iraq. However, if his training is finished in time for him to go, he will go. That's his job.

What utter drivel. Antiwar protesters fully understand that our troops are not culpable for the decision to go to war. In fact, neither is DOD. It's a political decision. The buck stops with Bush. Is that so difficult to comprehend?

Since you want to drag class warfare into this as well, note that many soldiers, Jessica Lynch included, got into the military as a way of escaping joblessness and making a better future for themselves. I don't know of any antiwar sympathizers who look down on them for that. Quite the contrary, actually. It's a shame though that some people who don't have a taste for combat are virtually forced by economic circumstances into it. That apparently hasn't occurred to you "mainstream" critics of the culture elite.

Personally, I'll take a culture elite over a despoiling elite any day of the week.

Jonathan Swift noted that reason will never sway a man from a position he was never reasoned into.

What many of you don't want to admit is that you deeply envy and feel personally threatened by people who are capable of nuanced, complex thinking. You take things black and white, like our Prez. Well guess what? So does Saddam, Bin Laden and all the other nasties.

The world would be a far better and more peaceful place without black and white thinking of any kind. If you don't like totalist thinking in others, don't practice it yourself.

Final thought: just as we musn't practice vigilante justice at home to eradicate evil, we musn't practice it abroad. To support legality at home and illegality abroad, is not just hypocritical... it's criminal.

Of COURSE you can support the troops and not support the military action being taken! Give me a break! Support doesn not mean you agree with someone.

I support the right of Nazis, hippies, the KKK, treehuggers and anyone else to march and speak freely, but I don't AGREE with any of them.

I support the people of the military and hope my friends and family and fellow Americans who serve there come home alive and unharmed either physically or mentally by the war.

The other side of the question is whether the people who support the war in Iraq actually support the troops. At the time they were parading around and screaming jingoinstic slogans and accusing Tim Robbins of being a traitor, Republican Reps and Senators were CUTTING VETERANS HOSPITAL SERVICES FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE PROTECTED OUR COUNTRY IN THE PAST!

Now, it is more support to oppose a war while believing we owe our veterans health care and a basic pension for putting their lives, minds and families on the line for our security -- or is it more support to SEND them into harms way and then cut their pay and benefits when they come back?

Many people who put out the ribbons and all of the people who call dissenters traiters do not support the troops.

These people support the right of the govenrment to send the military anywhere they want for any purpose purpose.

But the do not care that we pay our soldiers too little for the family they left behind to survive [many wives with children are barely making the rent and some have become homeless] and then forget them one they retire from the military and get old.

Comments are Closed.