Why I don't support the troops.

Post Reply New Topic

Today, it is more or less expected, regardless of one's political leanings or opinion of the war in Iraq, that everyone at least pay lip service to the idea of "supporting the troops" and respect members of the armed forces. Well, I was recently dragged out of school for an attempted propaganda inundation from the United States Air Force because they were looking for more recruits and figured that a group of high school seniors would be a good place to go. While I was there (and at other points in the day) conversations I had with my peers, as well as my own personal reflections, led me to conclude that I, in fact, do NOT support the troops.

Why? Well, there are a variety of reasons. Part of it is the composition of the membership of the military, and their target audience in recruitment efforts- the Air Force area in our parking lot included video games and film of stuff getting blown up, and then any actual information was focused on the "opportunities" provided by the military. So, the military is primarily composed of two main groups.

The first consists of sadistic nuts who want to blow crap up, macho jerks who glorify war or think it's "cool" to be in the military, etc. I know a fair number of people who fall under this category. For these people I can feel nothing but contempt. Obviously I do not respect them, and how could I? They are the type of people who hurt small animals for fun, bully other people, and usually are too stupid to make any meaningful contribution to society.

The other main source of military recruits is the "economic draft." The military preys on the poor who have no opportunities and forces them to turn to military service in hopes of escaping their poverty. I have seen this in action; another school district neighboring mine is dirt-poor and has its walls lined with recruiting posters. These people are to be pitied, for they are forced into the situation of having to go into the military because they have been denied other opportunities, generally through no fault of their own. I may respect individuals from this group, but as a whole simply the fact that they are poor is insufficient basis to engender my admiration.

Perhaps there are also some who join out of a genuine sense of patriotism or duty to their country. I've yet to meet one, but I won't deny their existence. If they do exist, I still have little respect for them because they must be misinformed if they believe military service is the best way to help their country. It simply isn't. How can I respect delusional people?

I fully expect that several people will flame me rather heavily for this. Please don't even bother with jingoistic rhetoric about how the troops are "fighting and dying for my right to say this." BS. The United States military hasn't done crap in the past 50 years to protect anyone's liberty here in America. The war in Iraq has done nothing to advance my freedoms. The military is about imperialism. The only justifiable use of military force is in self-defense, and at a great stretch the defense of allies (as in the Korean war).

I've had ancestors who fought in the Revolution, in the Civil War, and in the Second World War. I appreciate and honor the sacrifices people made in the past to establish, preserve, and defend this country. I do not support people who contribute to wars of imperialism (World War One, Mexican-American War, Spanish-American War) or pointless and wasteful conflicts (War of 1812, Vietnam, Iraq).

Now, you've heard my views on the subject, and at a time of year where we traditionally stir up nationalistic sentiment. Let the lynching begin.

Well said - no lynching from me.

I do feel sorry for a lot of them who don't really have much idea of what they're getting themselves into, and for being caught up in the illegal war (because they're just pawns like the rest of us), but that's where it ends. I can't support them.

I definitely agree with you here....I even know one person who went into the Navy, because her GPA was too low to get into college.
As for the "serve my country" thing, I know one of those too. Well...senior year he didn't have enough credits to graduate, so I don't know if he's gotten his GED yet. Either way, it'll be sad to see on the news that he was blown up in Iraq under the delusion that that war is actually constructive somehow, as he was once a fairly good friend of mine.
Overall....military industrial complex FTL.

Faster than light?

what about the third choice of delusional patriot? that one who actually believes in the romance and duty of joining the military?


though i guess they fall under the same category as the economic draft. tricked into to it.


question: what about threats to israel? they're our ally but consistently entangle themselves in trouble due to their inability to live with their neighbors. should we carry their weight and siphon their hatred onto us? israel is an entirely imperialistic venture right down to conquering palestinian land and taking it as their own.

It is always sad to see lives wasted by the lies of militarism. Owen wrote an excellent poem about WWI. Here's the ending of it, the rest can be Googled easily- the title's "Dulce et Decorum Est."

But you should never refer to the military-industrial complex, as we all know only hippies and conspiracy theorists believe in that. When of course the term was introduced by Dwight Eisenhower.

EDIT: If anyone's interested, here is the full text of "Dulce et Decorum Est" along with some explanations. It's really a very good poem.

Last edited by Orwell on 25 May 2008, 6:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

for the loss.

If they take a "romantic" view, they fall under the first category of sick bastards worthy only of contempt. If they actually feel some type of duty, then they were fooled and I suppose that could be viewed as similar to the economic draft.

Well, those that take the romantic view or view military service as some sort of duty are probably happy in the military. I think it is fine if they are there, we might view them as fools, but many people make foolish decisions and are happy with them. Trying to tell someone who is very patriotic and in the military that they are being used or foolish and its like arguing on religion here (with an atheist and a Christian arguing).

There's also the type of people who seek "action and adventure", want to see the world, or have something interesting to do, which I'm not sure if they'd fall into any of your types. Another type is the ones that make their career the military (i.e. officers), which is not necessarily a bad choice either if you make it to be a General or Colonel (lots of perks).

Which Troops? I'm sure many of them are doing good work and I support that. The ones you hear most about are the ones stuck in an illegal occupation of Iraq, those I don't support.

Of course, that's in the area of moral support, I don't have any control over what they do with my tax dollars.

That's not an effective means of channeling their patriotism, though. They are actually harming their country. And if they take the romantic view, I echo my comments about sadistic jerks who just want to blow crap up. I don't care if they're happy with their choices, they are still worthy of nothing but contempt and hatred. The "action and adventure" types could oftentimes fall into the "I think war is cool" category, in which case see the previous sentence for what I think of them. There are other ways to see the world that don't involve killing people. In regards to the officer example you gave, I can't respect anyone who uses the military and killing people for their own personal career advancement. They also often fall into the gung-ho macho jerk category anyways.

Troops don't choose where they're assigned. I'm referring to people who enlist in the military, not what our military is actually doing. That's an issue I have with our leaders, and wouldn't be a reason to dislike the troops themselves. While many people "support the troops, but not the war" (and it is perfectly possible to do so in some cases) I support neither the war nor the troops, for the reasons outlined above and some other ones.


That's true. Thoreau's method of dealing with that isn't really plausible anymore.

Well, during the Cold War (excluding Korea and Vietnam), one could join the military and see the world without actually partaking in combat (somewhat still true today if you aren't in Iraq of Afghanistan). Pretty much most modern nations today do need a military for self-defense, and even a self-defense force needs an officer corps. Some might be the gung-ho types, but not necessarily all or even most (many officers are in non-combat positions and do research). There's also the Army Corp. of Engineers which mostly builds stuff and usually do not directly kill people.

Really. Our massive nuclear arsenal isn't sufficient to deter other countries from invading us? I mentioned earlier that war is justifiable in self-defense, but that's not what our current military is for. We would only need a much smaller military force if we were just using it to defend ourselves.

Well, I was referring specifically to troops in this post. Although some non-combat positions I would also look down on. Anyone doing research into developing more effective ways for the government to kill people has lost my respect.

I'm not sure you'd want to rely on nuclear weapons as your first and only line of defense....they are somewhat extreme. In many cases, nuclear weapons do not play a significant role in diplomatic or military disputes (in Korea, it did not matter which side had more nukes); for example, if Canada decides to annex 10 miles of Alaska, it might be a bit extreme to nuke them.

Yes, for self-defense purposes, the U.S. could probably use a smaller force (or even better, an army of giant robots ), and it is currently used for pursuits other than self-defense. If we were to use the military for just self-defense, we'd still need an officer corps, though.

Edit: There's also the argument that the military builds "character" and "discipline", which is true for some people I suppose (I'm not really a big fan of it though).

Last edited by Sargon on 25 May 2008, 10:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

First of all, "Support our troops," is one of those emotion-laden but substance-impoverished phrases certain interest groups use to control the national dialogue. It becomes necessary for those who oppose the war in Iraq to affirm that they "support our troops" while registering their opposition; this is a tricky balance which can be used against them by their opponents.

This is the fallacy of composition. Yes, the military does have some sadists and some pyromaniacs among its ranks, but there are people who join almost any profession for less than noble reasons. Such individuals deserve our acrimony and probably do not belong in a geo-political tinderbox like Iraq.

They're trying to make the best choice they can. Give 'em a break. This haughty talk about pity versus admiration serves no purpose. No one wants your pity. Maybe you should do something to help the poor like donate to charities, volunteer your time, or get involved in an activist group that works to change the political landscape for the better.

Well, I have, and when I was a little younger, I was like you in being disgusted by their choice in how best to serve their country. It's confusing outrage at policy with hatred of the person. These people are typically raised in families or traditions that strongly emphasize military service as the pinnacle expression of community service. They're usually a little naïve, but their intentions are good. They just need a little education.

Your arguments would do more to undermine support for the opposition to the war than bolster it. The best way to "support our troops" is to get them the hell out of Iraq!