Kevin Drum links Spencer Ackerman’s recent Washington Monthly feature, arguing against the use of “support the troops by bringing them home” rhetoric:
Haunted by Vietnam, Democrats are determined to express support for the troops. This is admirable. The truth of the matter, however, is this: many troops in Iraq, perhaps even most of them, want to stay and fight.….Democrats have made the decision — rightly, I think — that withdrawing from Iraq is the least bad of many bad options. But they shouldn’t kid themselves into thinking that a majority of the troops doing the fighting agree with them. For soldiers like Lieutenant Wellman, this will be hard to accept. As he told me of war doubters back home, “I don’t want them to just support the troops. I want them to support the mission.” This matters, because pretending that in ending the war they’re doing the troops a favor hurts Democrats politically. They risk looking condescending, and, worse, oblivious — which has the broader effect of undermining public trust in the Democrats to handle national security. More basically, it does a disservice to those who serve. For soldiers who are optimistic, being told that the war can’t be won is bad enough. But to be told that politicians are doing them a favor by extricating them from a mission they believe in is downright insulting.
As far as this is a point about political perception, I’ll defer to Spencer’s judgment. But when it comes to the merits of the underlying idea, I find myself disposed to flex my atrophied paternalist muscles. Look, when you send a group of people into an abbatoir on a doomed mission, where they must face constant, unpredictable risks and see their friends and fellow soldiers maimed or killed in mounting numbers, they have two options. They can convince themselves that their fight is both vitally important and winnable, or they can go mad. So while I’m prepared to believe that “many troops in Iraq, perhaps even most of them, want to stay and fight,” I’m somewhat less prepared than I normally would be to see this as a reflective take on their interests—or, for that matter, ours or Iraq’s. (Spencer himself makes a similar point later in the piece) I imagine I’d believe the same thing in their shoes, because under the circumstances, I couldn’t afford not to. In a war zone, despair is a dangerous luxury. But the situation may be desperate all the same.
10 responses so far ↓
1 Klein's tiny left nut // Jun 4, 2007 at 10:25 pm
That’s really well said. The troops have got to believe in the mission in some sense or they would end up in despair. It is our responsibility as a citizenry though to see that these lives are not wasted or destroyed in vain in our name.
If that’s paternalistic then so be it indeed.
2 Adam // Jun 4, 2007 at 10:33 pm
While I do agree that the men and women in the armed forces believe (or want to believe) that what they are doing matters, what is the “mission” that Lt. Wellman asks our lawmakers support?
The conflict in Iraq does not resemble anything Congress voted for, nor what the American people were told would come about. This mega-conflict between a thousand different factions in Iraq is not going to settle down any time soon (or even within the next decade, depending on which expert you talk to). When it appears that the “mission” is not accomplishable, then you need to withdraw to avoid needless casualties.
I’ve always detested “I support our troops” magnets and flags, etc. Unless the profits of those products go to fund homeless veterans, amputees, and parent-less children scholarship funds, I really do not think that displaying your support by exercising your purchasing power does very much to help our nation’s finest. I wish instead of waving the flag, we would support our troops by writing our politicians to support an adequate funding of the VA, and to carry out wise foreign policy decisions.
I have not concept of what it must be like to see war. I hope I never have to. Whenever I see a service member/veteran, I thank them. Usually, they are surprised someone noticed. I really hate that they are being hosed by the Bush Administration in a foreign policy venture gone wrong in every way imaginable.
3 Dave W. // Jun 5, 2007 at 10:44 am
Maybe the soldiers enjoy the fact that they get to kill a lot more (as a group) than they get killed (as a group). There are not many places where Americans can go and shoot people they don’t like to death. That may very well be a thrill for them and why they want continued support of the mission. I still have not seen any journalist directly ask a soldier about this possibility, but I am hoping that they will start asking. As rude as the line of questioning may sound, it is important for American voters to know what we are turning our daughters and sons into over there.
Tags: “Dr. Laura’s son”, “Lynndie England”
4 Brian Moore // Jun 5, 2007 at 11:46 am
I’m against the war, but I agree with the sentiment of the article on political grounds. If you say “I support the troops by bringing them home” and the troops say “but we don’t want to come home” and then Dave W. says “well, maybe that’s just cause you like shooting foreigners so much” then you can see where your lack of political traction comes from.
The soldiers are soldiers first. Respecting their wishes as individuals is important, but not decisive in determining policy. They can and do criticize and complain about policy (good and bad), but they do not determine it. They understand the chain of command and will follow orders, even if that order is: leave Iraq. It is for elected officials (their ultimate commanders) to determine, and it is our job to elect ones that will make the best policy with regard to the troops.
The troops should be supported both as individuals and in their mission up until the moment the mission changes. I think the mission SHOULD change, and Democrats (or anyone else) shouldn’t fear saying that you do is “not supporting the troops.” The troops may not agree; but that’s okay. In that they do not agree they are speaking as voters, like we all are. You may respect their opinions more or less because they are also soldiers.
5 Dave W. // Jun 5, 2007 at 11:58 am
=======================================================
Dave W. says “well, maybe that’s just cause you like shooting foreigners so much” then you can see where your lack of political traction comes from.
If you are talking directly to a troop, there are more clever ways to get this point across.
One way is to ask the troop what her or his kill count is, or if she even knows. Another way is to ask th soldiers how she identifies an Al Queda target prior to firing. Another way is to ask them how heartbroken she was when Katrina hit and she was not here to help the hundreds who perished here on American soil. You get soldiers talking on these questions and they will make their real soldier motivations clear enough for you, probably without even realizing it. A good journalist knows these things instinctively, and I know that Mr. Sanchez is a good journalist.
I put the issue in plainer words here mostly for the purpose of keeping the writing nice’n’pithy.
6 Brian Moore // Jun 5, 2007 at 12:11 pm
I meant to add after “…up until the moment the mission changes.” … “at which point we should support them in that mission, which I hope will change to Leaving Iraq.”
The “haunting of Vietnam” that Ackerman is remembering is how some of the anger Americans felt over the war was directed at troops in addition to the politicians. Soldiers are not responsible for their actions under orders, outside of things like war crimes, and wantonly killing civilians, etc… So, they should never bear the brunt of criticism for a “bad war.” Any and all anti-war sentiment should be directed at those legally responsible — our government.
Let me repeat: soldiers are not political creatures. For them to be violates the way free nations are constructed. When a soldier says “we should follow policy X” he is speaking as a voter not a soldier. They should not be a feature of the debate over the war. They simply do their job; (within moral boundaries) it is up to us to determine what that job is. Once we have decided what that job is (remember that “we” as a nation chose to send them to Iraq, in the sense that we elected people who made that decision, no matter how poor a decision I believed it to be), we should support them in it.
We should support military policies regardless of the political opinions of soldiers. (We should, however, respect their functional opinions of such policies, like “we don’t/do have enough troops for that” or “we will need equipment X to do that.”
7 Brian Moore // Jun 5, 2007 at 12:17 pm
Dave, you’re asking questions everyone knows the answer to already. There are some soldiers in any war (even the good ones) who are killers. They join for the thrill, and the fact they get to kill people. Others are career guys, others are just volunteers who will go home to their families after.
Your line of reportorial questions would either be not answered by the hardened killer (who have no doubt learned to conceal their opinions on such things), or would offend the non-killers (and confirm any thoughts they had about reporters trying to pigeonhole them as hardened killers). They aren’t stupid, they know what you’re asking them.
8 Dave W. // Jun 5, 2007 at 12:22 pm
=======================================================
When a soldier says “we should follow policy X” he is speaking as a voter not a soldier.
I don’t think it is possible to separate the two. What people do in their professional life matters when they are consulted on political policy, especially political policy that directly and profoundly impacts their professional life.
It is possible to simply not consult soldiers on policy. However, once they are consulted, either directly as Mr. Drum has done, or indirectly (eg, support the troops bumperstickers), then it is incumbent to bring some balance to that discussion by asking them the hard questions about what it feels like to be part of a fighting force that inflicts a lot more casualties, both intended and collateral, than it receives. We shouldn’t assume we know the answer to that. Once soldiers start directing our policy discussion, then that is info we need to know.
Frankly, I am not thrilled that anyone on the government payroll (directly or indirectly) keeps the right to vote or make political contributions. Seems like a pretty serious conflict of interest to me.
9 Dave W. // Jun 5, 2007 at 12:28 pm
=======================================================
They aren’t stupid, they know what you’re asking them.
Whether they can hide their true feelings from readers and viewers is another issue entirely, though. I think the thrill killers would be unable to mislead, and that the ones who had reflected on these issues in a more Christian way would understand why they were being asked, and would probably have useful replies that I could not even begin to guess, but what like to see and read in the media.
10 bago // Jun 9, 2007 at 11:54 am
It’s a bit more complicated than the killer dichotomy posted earlier. It’s more like you have been put in a situation where you have had to blow 14 year old kids in half while defending your position. You see your common humanity in a blood stin on the sidewalk.
It becomes very hard to sleep. Your reflexes get hard wired into a form of paranoia. PTSD.
Onr of the ways you can deal with the angst is to believe that it was worth it. glom on to anything that lets you sleep at night, providing the comfort that you didn’t kill these people in vain.
Avoid the horrible truth that all of these kids are blasting their intestines all over the road for some smarmy politican using them as bait.