Supporting the Troops

"This so-called 'supplemental' isn't about supporting troops," writes Laura Flanders for The Nation, "this blank-check bill is about sacrificing them." Similarly, I was recently invited to join the Facebook group "Support The Troops, End the War", a John Edwards initiative that also has a conventional website here.

The messaging point here is pretty clear. "Support the troops," has proven to be a useful slogan for people who really intend to demand support for the incumbent administration's foreign policy. The point that it's odd to support the troops by indefinitely prolonging their exposure to a hazardous and futile situation has, moreover, real merit. However, as Spencer Ackerman writes in The Washington Monthly, liberals can ill-afford to fool themselves into thinking that by pushing for an end to the war we're supporting the actual expressed desires of the troops.

There are, of course, anti-war soldiers who want nothing more than to come home. But the evidence suggests that they're a distinct minority, and that support for continuing the war is much stronger among active duty soldiers than it is among the general population. If liberals ever do succeed in ending the war, we can expect that many of the soldiers who actually served in the war will happily embrace the right's stab in the back theory, that the war was lost by its opponents rather than by its architects.

Comments

I think it's more likely the troops will blame the A-rabs rather than the liberals. Though maybe the Right will succeed in helpfully eliding the two in the coming years.

Posted by Marshall | May 24, 2007 10:26 AM

I'm guessing that my preferred slogan, "Screw the troops", is not a political winner.

Am I the only one who is totally sick of all the sentamentalization about those sacred troops of ours?

I think we need to take a step back, and focus on what is best for our country (and the world) as a whole, of which the troops are a small minority.

Who cares what the troops think? Are they suddently foreign policy experts?

Posted by Jim W | May 24, 2007 10:27 AM

But the evidence suggests that they're a distinct minority,

Really? What about this Military Times poll:
For the first time, more troops disapprove of the presidents handling of the war than approve of it. Barely one-third of service members approve of the way the president is handling the war, according to the 2006 Military Times Poll.
Just as telling, in this years poll only 41 percent of the military said the U.S. should have gone to war in Iraq in the first place

And if so many of the troops support the war, how come among new Iraq War veteran candidates in 2006, the ratio of anti-war vs. pro-war candidates was at least 10 to 1?

Posted by Dan the Man | May 24, 2007 10:31 AM

Am I the only one who is totally sick of all the sentamentalization about those sacred troops of ours?

Not at all, but in a country where jingoism and glorification of military might is the order of the day, we're in the minority. America would certainly be a saner country if it didn't lionize soldiers as larger-than-life heroes-cum-saints, but as long as it does, we're not going to win any friends - or political fights - by pointing out that there are much more important considerations here than "supporting the troops."

Posted by Christmas | May 24, 2007 10:35 AM

how come among new Iraq War veteran candidates in 2006, the ratio of anti-war vs. pro-war candidates was at least 10 to 1?

Because Democrats put a lot of effort into recruiting vets to run for office, and because anti-war soldiers have a much higher level of motivation to get involved in politics than do pro-war ones.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | May 24, 2007 10:37 AM

Spencer seems to have been unduly swayed by his anecdotal experiences. What else accounts for him hailing a poll finding that 50% of the active-duty military thinks success is likely in Iraq as though it were GOOD news? And even this figure is inflated - it represents an inflated number of officers and career folks and a comparatively lesser number of front-line troops, and it also includes a lot of active-duty people who have never been to Iraq or Afghanistan and thus lack firsthand experience.

Anyway, as Jim Webb often says, it is inverted logic to claim we should continue to fight the war on behalf of the troops. Whatever we do, some will be happy and some won't be, but we have to make the decision we think is right for the country. The military serves the country, not vice versa.

Posted by Steve | May 24, 2007 10:40 AM

How about "Save the Troops"?

Posted by neil | May 24, 2007 10:41 AM

I think a lot of war supporters think "support the troops" means "provide emotional support to the troops by giving them pep talks". In other words, telling the troops that they are doing good things and they are going to win and we're all behind them. Obviously, if we are calling for an end to the war, we are not supporting the troops in that sense, and that's the reality we should accept.

So in other words, I totally agree with Ackerman's conclusion.

Posted by cs | May 24, 2007 10:43 AM

Re: "provide emotional support to the troops by giving them pep talks".

Oh, the poor dears. How will they feel when they realize the war is just a huge mistake? I know, lets not tell them! Let's just pretend everything's ok. Problem solved.

Posted by Jim W | May 24, 2007 10:47 AM

The troops are there to carry out orders. I give them all the credit in the world for continuing to stay in that hellhole. But honestly, supporting them is not letting them keep doing whatever it is they are doing just because a 55 or 60 percent still want to stay. Supporting them is making sure they are doing good work and not sacrificing their lives for BS and political points.

I am not saying this in the pejorative sense, but the armed forces are a tool in the government's toolbox. Troops don't set policy and start wars, they execute them. It's ultimately the government's job to use that tool the best way it could. And if it's not being used in that way, it's time to change. No matter what the soldiers themselves might say.

Posted by J | May 24, 2007 10:49 AM

At the end of "The Deer Hunter" (1978), the survivors of the war, friends, and family gather together, hoist tankards of beer, and sing "Deutschland Uber Alles" -- sorry -- "God Bless America".

Soldiers will always try to pin defeat on politicians. Civilians always blame entry into the war on the politicians.

Trust the civilians here.

And keep out of unnecessary wars.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | May 24, 2007 10:51 AM

Active duty personnel are banned from speaking on political issues. Moreover, the military culture does not support whining. But when the White House steps in dogshit, the community knows how to express its displeasure.

When you have a sizable number of retired officers calling for the Secretary of Defense to be fired -- and the President fires the Sec Def -- that might be a small indication that the troops are not happy.

The real problem is that Washington politicians --in both parties -- have lied to and deeply deceived the American people about why Sept 11 occurred and why we went into Iraq. They've snowed the soldiers as well.

With the exception of Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean, the Democratic leadership is the LAST bunch of people that could ever afford an honest discussion of the agendas that led to this mess.

Posted by Don Williams | May 24, 2007 11:11 AM

I cannot think why anyone could ever believe those vicious claims that liberals hate the military.

Posted by pimp hand strikes! | May 24, 2007 11:19 AM

Where's the evidence that they want the war continued?

You fail to cite any.

Posted by Armando | May 24, 2007 12:07 PM

One distinction-
If the war ended today, the soldiers could just as easily blame Bush, as he is so obviously at fault for the way the war's been handled.

The tragedy is that the Democrats won't push hard to get out while it's pragmatic (less war fatalities, strife, etc) and politically expedient to do so, as the pullout could be framed as supporting the troops by saving them from Bush (to expand on Neil, "Save the troops ... from Bush") Bush's unpopularity would temper the allure of the stabbed in the back meme.

However, the Democrats want to re-unite the GOP by electing Hillary, and then have her run the quagmire for four awful years. Makes no sense.

Posted by Chris_ | May 24, 2007 12:18 PM

I cannot think why anyone could ever believe those vicious claims that liberals hate the military.

Posted by pimp hand strikes! | May 24, 2007 11:19 AM

Neither can I, fella. Perhaps you'd be good enough to enlighten us, old fruit?

Posted by Alex | May 24, 2007 12:24 PM

There were many more anti-war veterans on the Democratic side because those guys *got out*. The others are still there, reenlisting and fighting.

Posted by Eric Blair | May 24, 2007 2:09 PM

"If liberals ever do succeed in ending the war, we can expect that many of the soldiers who actually served in the war will happily embrace the right's stab in the back theory, that the war was lost by its opponents rather than by its architects."

This is true and more or less inevitable. Democrats should stick to substantive reasons for ending the war and avoid treading too heavily on the American's people's love affair with a heroic military. We shouldn't cede rhetorical ground to the cretins who would prolong this war merely to shore up the "morale" of the military.

Posted by scott | May 24, 2007 3:04 PM

I think people on both sides really overstate the amount of political concern among soldiers and veterans.

I know four Iraq veterans personally, and all of them are remarkable for their complete ambivalence on political questions. And mind you, these aren't reservists or rear guard support troops or something. Two are Marines, and one is an Army sniper who has confirmed kills.(nice person to have when your hosting college parties)

And no, this is not to say that 'soldiers are dumb' or whatever other false insinuations that are miraculously heard only by right-wing ears.
The apolitical nature of the military is not shocking. Most people in America are apolitical, and that may even be true for issues as important as Iraq. Also, I would suppose that military culture - with its emphasis on uniformity over difference and acquiescence over debate - would leave more people detached for politics. Remember: it takes a certain personality to care about things that don't affect you in a close, immediate way.

Whatever happens in Iraq, one political side is going to recruit some veteran to hide behind and channel their complaints.

Posted by Neal M | May 24, 2007 10:13 PM

I apologize, but the above post contains one of the most epic non-sequiturs of all time.

"Remember: it takes a certain personality to care about things that don't affect you in a close, immediate way."

The reasoning holds true for civilians; but military personnel are indeed impacted in the closest, most immediate way possible.

Anyways, i still stand by my anecdotal, completely non-scientific argument.

I just wont post drunk anymore.

Posted by Neal M | May 24, 2007 10:21 PM

As a "troop" I can confidently say that many of my colleagues are as ignorant of public policy and politics as any American.

More so, I would imagine, as most of them are young.

Posted by guachi | May 24, 2007 11:13 PM

I cannot think why anyone could ever believe those vicious claims that liberals hate the military.

Posted by pimp hand strikes! | May 24, 2007 11:19 AM

Neither can I, fella. Perhaps you'd be good enough to enlighten us, old fruit?

Posted by Alex | May 24, 2007 12:24 PM

Here you are, Alex. It's pretty easy if you frequent more than Yglesias. Here's one example:

Deanie Mills's Blog
Misleading Propaganda--from the LEFT:
excerpt:
....stop to think how one of those 20-year olds might have felt, logging on to Huffingtonpost when he had a day or two on a base large enough for access to a computer, to see video from a war he's fighting, where he's being shot at and blown up on a daily basis, watching his friends die, trying to stay alive and keep his sanity--only to see himself and all like him called ape, stupid, evil , asshole, loser, and so on. For something he did not do, in the first place, and something he also knows is DELIBERATELY MISLEADING.

Which way do you think HE will vote next election?

Posted by artappraiser | May 25, 2007 3:52 PM

P.S. I find it extremely tiresome to continually see the disingenuous claim by self-identified liberals or progressives that there are not military haters among their ranks. C'mon, people, admit it, there are plenty enough of them and they are quite vocal. I consider myself left of center and am not a military hater but I believe in admitting realities.

Posted by artappraiser | May 25, 2007 4:20 PM

AA-- You're right, of course, although I'm not sure that seizing upon a comment by the great patriotic pundit "pimp hand strikes!" was necessarily the best way to make your point.

The difficulty lies in the simple fact that we hate what the troops are doing. I don't blame them personally... they're just doing their job. But I'm angry about the fact that they're doing it. By contrast, most soldiers believe in their mission... and all of them WANT to believe in their mission. People can't go put their lives on the line every day if they believe their work is foolish and counterproductive. There's no way to end the war without stepping on the toes of soldiers and marines who want to accomplish their mission, as they see it. I'd imagine that many of them consider sentiments like "bring them home" to be condescending.

When I was younger and less wise I used to say that I hated the military as an institution but I had no problem with the troops. As it happens, when you express that opinion, the troops have a problem with you. I don't really blame them... they take pride in what they do and the institutions they serve. As well they should. This naturally brings them into conflict with those of us who think their institutions are generally corrupt and are being used in dangerously stupid ways by politicians who are even more corrupt.

I find it tiresome that we're supposed to pretend all our soldiers and veterans are apolitical heroes, when there are plenty who call war-protesters things like faggot, pussy, America-hating leftist, cheese-eating surrender monkey, etc., and are quite vocal about it. Deferring to the feelings of servicemen, while expecting anti-war citizens to hold their fire, so to speak, is a recipe for authoritarian politics. These guys are brave and strong. They face death on a daily basis. They have been tested in ways that I can only imagine. I think they ought to be able to handle a little criticism now and then.

Obviously, progressives who toss insults at soldiers are not helping the cause, and should be called out by the rest of us for doing so. But let's not conflate that problem with the issue of whether a timeline for withdrawal constitutes a "failure to support the troops."

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | May 25, 2007 5:43 PM

The reason to pull out of Iraq is not because too many troops are getting killed, but because our presence in Iraq hurts our national security. If our national security demanded our presence in Iraq, then we should be willing to increase our troop presence there significantly. But if it does not serve our national security, then the soldiers shouldn't be there. It isn't up to front-line soldiers to make these decisions. It's up to the civilian leadership, which is ultimately accountable to the American people. Soldiers usually do - and absolutely must - believe in their mission. But the fact that morale hasn't collapsed is not sufficient reason to conclude that we should keep them in the current mission.

Posted by Elrod | May 27, 2007 12:04 AM