When you say you support the troops but oppose the war …

[aadler]

 
… make sure the first part isn’t just lip service to cover the second.

One thing that everyone knows, but that never seems to be fully considered in discussions regarding our current prosecution of the campaign in Iraq, is that the U.S. now operates with an all-volunteer force. There is no draft; there are no inductees; everyone wearing the uniform made a deliberate choice to do so. The maximum enlistment period is six years (and that mainly for Reserve and National Guard members); the average would probably be more like three to four years.

We’ve been in Afghanistan since December of 2001. In Iraq since March of 2003. Six years and four years, respectively. This means that practically all of the people now serving in America’s armed forces either enlisted or re-enlisted at a time when the U.S. military was actively engaged in combat operations, and they knew that they could — and very likely would — be assigned to some phase of those operations. Furthermore, the new-enlistment numbers continue to hold steady, meaning that many who have never before served are choosing to do so now.

Think about those facts. Every time we hear that Americans are tired of feeding their sons and daughters into the mess in Iraq, characterizing it as endless, pointless and futile, what isn’t being said is that those sons and daughters are stepping forward to commit themselves to exactly that service.

It goes farther than that, though.

(Henceforth, speaking of those actually fighting the war — primarily Army and Marines, though Navy and Air Force personnel fill a lot of slots in-country as individual augmentees — I’ll say “we”, because I’m among their number. I did tours in Iraq and Afghanistan both, and I expect and intend to return a few times before I reach retirement. I can’t speak for everyone at the tip of the spear, but I can certainly speak as one of them.)

There is no fixed uniformity of belief and attitude in the armed services, which is why it’s always possible to find someone willing to speak out against current policies, but there are undeniable trends and tendencies. We tend to be more conservative, more apt to recognize and accede to lawful authority, more actively patriotic: not simply because the profession demands that of us, but because people with those attitudes are more likely to enter military life in the first place. We tend to be more hawkish, and we tend to vote Republican. (Remember Al Gore trying to exclude military absentee ballots from the Florida recount?) In sum, we’re somewhat more likely than most other Americans — and considerably more so than the average Democratic senator — to support George Bush, support his current policies, support continuing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and oppose withdrawal without victory.

If you disagree with us, that’s fair; we disagree with you. You think we’re wrong, we think you’re wrong, and clearly at least one side must actually BE wrong. Naturally, I believe my side is the right one, but I recognize that it might — just might — not be.

The thing is, if we are in fact wrong, it’s honest error. We have reasons for believing as we do, and those reasons are valid even if the conclusions should turn out to be incorrect.

If you oppose the war, check your own reasoning. If that reasoning still holds solid, then you pretty much have to follow your conscience, even if it takes you in a direction I’d rather you didn’t go. Be careful, though, regarding the flavor of your opposition. If you accuse our current President of stupidity, mendacity, criminal conduct, even insanity (I’ve seen it done), based on his prosecution of this war … if you do, keep in mind that the troops you claim to support 1) mostly support him, 2) mostly agree with the majority of his decisions, and 3) mostly believe in what we’re doing under his direction.

If the President is a lying, mentally deficient criminal lunatic, then are the soldiers who agree with him equally beyond contempt?

If we have honest reasons for believing what we believe — even if we’re wrong — then is it inconceivable that our Commander in Chief might be equally honest in his beliefs and intentions?

Ultimately, those are the only choices available:

1. He’s evil and despicable, and we know it and throw in with him anyway, which makes us just as bad as he is.
2. He’s evil and despicable, and we’re too stupid to realize that he’s using us as witless pawns.
             or,
3. He can disagree with you without being evil or despicable. He might simply be wrong. Or — who knows — it might be you who’s wrong.

If you pick #1, you’re not supporting the troops. Why should you support a bunch of mercenary thugs who deliberately lend themselves to something they themselves believe to be evil?

If you go with #2, your ‘support’ assumes that they (we) are too naïve and misinformed to make responsible choices, and so someone has to do it for us. For our own good. Thanks, no; I’d rather be considered a mercenary thug.

And if you settle on #3 … well, then, congratulations. We may be able to deal respectfully with one another, even if we never agree.

Be clear on one thing: we, the troops, believe in what we’re doing. Furthermore, it’s not theoretical for us, but a matter of direct relevance. Your opposition may be sincere, it may be honest, it may even prove to be correct … but you can better afford to be wrong than we can, because you have nothing at stake that doesn’t apply equally to us. Following our beliefs, on the other hand, requires that we put our own lives at risk, yet we still choose to take that path. Even if that doesn’t automatically make us right, it definitely means we’re committed.

You can disagree with us, but don’t patronize us. We’re not victims. We’re not pawns. We’re not helpless dupes or unwitting cannon fodder. We’re volunteers, and we went into this with our eyes open.

And, if you presume to speak for us, be sure and listen to us first.

Comments

[agilebrit.livejournal.com]

Wow, Alix. VERY well said. Do you mind if I link to this in my own LJ?

[aadler]

Feel free. Heck, spread the word. This is a message I wouldn’t mind more people hearing.

[http://users.livejournal.com/opalescence_/]

Excellent post. I'd love to link to it in my LJ, if you're not friends-locked.

And...

You can disagree with us, but don’t patronize us. We’re not victims. We’re not pawns. We’re not helpless dupes or unwitting cannon fodder. We’re volunteers, and we went into this with our eyes open.

Amen.

[aadler]

I’m not friend-locked. If you want to link, by all means link. And if you agree, tell people about it. Too often, we let our opponents own the stage; now and then, we need to be loud in our arguments.

[sylviavolk2000.livejournal.com]

Excellent post, Aadler. Canadian that I am, I'd never thought about the implications of the U.S.'s all-volunteer army. My own country's armed forces are also all volunteers, of course. But our involvement is only in Afghanistan, not Iraq as well ...

[lmzjewel.livejournal.com]

I like your post. Very well said. As far as in Afghanistan goes, I'm for the War in Afghanistan. I'm for taking out the training camps and safe havens in Pakistan. I don't have any love for Iran either. They've more than proven over the years that their in bed with terrorists up to their eyeballs. And their actively trying to get nukes. Those prospects are pretty scary to me. In my opinion, their the ones who invented suicide bombing. As far as Iraq goes, I could never connect the correlation between Iraq's leadership and Al Quaeda on the basis of Iraq's leadership knowingly backing Al Quaeda. As far as Iraq having weapons of mass destruction, well, Saddam Hussein wasn't our friend but he wasn't stupid about what providing Al Quaeda with material and it being traced back to him would get him. He didn't have any friends in the region at that time, either. Pakistan has weapons of mass destruction and an unstable government that could be taken over by Al Quaeda sympathizers. But, George Bush chose Iraq over Pakistan that never made any sense to me why he did that. With that said, I really don't think we can just pullout now until we know that we've taken Al Quaeda out first. So, when it comes to Iraq I disagree with the President. I think he made a mistake there. Because we're not just fighting countries like Iraq and Afghanistan we're fighting Ideologies and thats a war we really need to win. Because a world that is sympathetic to screwed up causes of militant muslim terrorists won't be a good world to live in for anybody. And those people (militant muslims) think the world belongs to them just like the Nazi's did. They want a Muslim Empire and we're in the way of them achieving that goal. And I don't think the average American, European, or World citizen really appreciates just how dire the situation is or how serious these people are. So, even though I don't believe that we should have ever been in Iraq I support the troops who are there. Ours, Britians, and anyone else whose over there. Because I know how important it is that we win. But we can't just win on the ground we need to win in the hearts and minds. And in alot of ways I feel that the longer we stay on the ground over there the more we lose the hearts and minds of people, not just in Iraq but all over the world, to show them that the militant muslim terrorists are the ones to fear and not us. And I do believe some Sunni's who have worked with Al Quaeda in the past but are fighting them now are starting to see it. I know they have no love for us but I hope their beginning to see how radical Al Quaeda is and how bad a world dominated by them would be.

I've never forgotten who killed those people in the World Trade Center, The Pentagon, Spain, and London. It was Al Quaeda. It was militant muslim Terrorists. So the thing is, I'm not against the fact that we fight. I don't see that we have a choice. And anyone who has any question about it take a good long look at Darfur cause that's what an infidel under Militant Islamic Rule has to look forward to. I'm just for picking the wars and where and how there fought better. And that's where I feel Washington isn't doing so well. But thats NOT the troop's fault. You guys work so hard to defend us and go on multiple tours of duty when I know you'd really love to be home with your families and I can't say enough about how much I appreciate what you guys do for us and what you sacrifice to keep the rest of us safe.

LMZ

[aadler]

And your appreciation is appreciated in turn.

[aadler]

Was it you I told about how a Canadian PRT was the first-responder when one of our vehicles was destroyed in a grenade attack during a convoy through Kandahar? and how happy I was to see a maple-leaf shoulder patch that day? Either way, it bears repeating; they were there when we needed them, and I’m grateful.

[sylviavolk2000.livejournal.com]

I don't think it was me, Aadler. I'm very glad to hear about it, though. *flourishes patriotic pride*

[aadler]

Be as proud as you want. The last thing I expected in Afghanistan — the absolute last thing — was to have an honest-to-God Mountie ride to my rescue. There was one among the relief party, though, different uniform but the “RCMP” was there to see. Won’t be forgetting that event any time soon.

[texanfan.livejournal.com]

I'm one of the few people in my circle of friends who still supports the war in Iraq. I just can't see us leaving the job half done, and I fear political pressure will force a premature withdrawal that will leave the Iraqi people worse off than they were before.

It's always enlightening to hear the views of those who are actually there (or have been there) rather than the pundits who have no first hand experience.

[aadler]

As I indicated, those views aren’t monolithic. In my own unit, I know one person who specifically believes the invasion was done badly, and another who strongly believes we have no business being there at all. They both did honorable service, and their opinions are just as honestly held as my own … but they’re also outnumbered something like twenty-to-one by the rest of the unit, whose stance is roughly the same as mine.

My objection wasn’t to disagreement, but to misrepresentative or dishonest disagreement. Not finding out how we felt (i.e., speaking for us without checking the facts), or cherry-picking the tiny minority who agree with the left-leaning pundits, would both qualify.

[fenchurche.livejournal.com]

That was extremely well said.

I'm here via agilebrit's LJ (although I'm pretty sure I've bumped into around the fandom from time to time) and I also wanted to let you know how much I appreciate what you've done and what you do for our country.

[aadler]

Thank you. Keep us all in mind; I’ve had easier duty than many.

[bojojoti.livejournal.com]

I've popped over from agilebrit's LJ. I had a cousin serving and my brother-in-law works in security in Iraq. From them and many others who have actually been in Iraq, I hear a very different story than those played repeatedly on network news.

From those who have been in Iraq, I hear positive stories. Not everything is positive, but to listen to the news, one would think that 100% of everything in Iraq was negative. From them, I hear that some of the Iraqi people are grateful we are there and don't want us to leave. I never hear that on national news. I hear of the good things that are being accomplished, also something never reported on the news.

I appreciate your rational argument.

[aadler]

I’ve been out of Afghanistan for over a year now, and left Iraq three years ago, so my own experiences aren’t exactly current. Like you, though, I have conduits of information that are systematically overlooked, ignored, or downright suppressed by the mainstream media. The people on the ground are far from being a unanimous cheering section — complaining is probably the #1 GI sport — but their objections are to problems and inconsistencies within a mission that they continue to support.

That’s one of the things that burns me about the ‘growing unpopularity’ of the war. The unpopularity is primarily expressed by people who aren’t fighting it, aren’t involved in it, and don’t have any immediate stake in it (except for actual Democrat office-holders, whose fortunes now rely on the war being a failure), and the opinions are based far less on facts than on general sentiment and media propaganda.

As I said, I recognize that I might be wrong. But, damn it, I at least want to be heard.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

(except for actual Democrat office-holders, whose fortunes now rely on the war being a failure)

This is, incidentally, an idiotic strategy on their parts. They have created a situation in which the only way they can come to power or retain power is for America to lose, which automatically puts them at odds with the vast majority of the American people -- to the extent that the people grasp that this is so. But worse: if they do come to power, they will come to power in an America suffering the consequences of defeat, and hence be less able to govern or carry out diplomacy effectively.

Don't they remember what happened to Jimmy Carter?

[aadler]

Too many of them, in my opinion, are still responding to a radical base that identifies the forced-by-legislature defeat in Vietnam as their glory days. That’s on the off-chance that they (the office-holders) don’t feel that way themselves, which is hardly an ironclad assumption.

Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy were dedicated to victory. At least two of the three had social ideas that were considerably more liberal than mine, but that’s a matter of ongoing disagreement; at least they knew that losing was NOT in the best interests of their country. My reason for constantly criticizing the Democrats isn’t that I’m anti-Democrat (or even inherently pro-Republican); I criticize them so bitterly because they’ve descended so far from three Presidents with whom one could honorably disagree, while continuing to respect their leadership and personal grit.

[trinfaneb.livejournal.com]

I can't remember where exactly I read it now, but some author said that occupation is the toughest long term duty for a soldier and a nation to support. Its not fast moving like an invasion and its hard to tell who the enemy is and some people and politicians at home tire of it and some seek to profit from the situation. But still its a job that needs to be done. And I trust our soldiers to do it. If the politicians bungle this, I will never forgive them.

[aadler]

Don’t just blame ‘the politicians’. Pay attention to which politicians, and which party supports them. Spread the word and demand an accounting.