I don't support the troops :A philosophical question | INFJ Forum

I don't support the troops :A philosophical question

Chessie

Community Member
Apr 5, 2010
508
198
0
MBTI
INfJ
I've got a terribly controversial position to state and then an ethical question to pose, neither of which have anything to do with my political stance.

I don't support the troops.

There's an immediate gut reaction to a statement like that in most Americans and in most persons in countries with a strong nationalist bent. It is one of instantaneous attack against a perceived assault on a profane and sacred institution.

One may as well set a flag on fire as make a statement like that. Still, in large part a disagreement of philosophy or politics is based on how it is framed and the personal interests of the involved parties. I am going to deconstruct that statement and take it to two separate logical conclusions both of which will hopefully leave us questioning some things that are taken for granted in our interaction with our country.

If we say 'troops' we generally mean 'military'. This is the force which allows us to defend ourselves as an international power and to maintain peacekeeping operations across the globe. The military provides a familial support mechanism for millions and has prevented national crises of every kind.

Framed in terms of our attachment to family (My father and grandfather were both military.) and in terms of our attachment to our land, our life-styles, and our individual rights we necessarily say 'I support the troops' because the troops ostensibly defend those things. We support our family/rights/lifestyles so we support anyone by extension who would help us keep those things.

The military is a solid outlet for many young men and women who would otherwise have many fewer financially viable opportunities for education. Framed in terms of our attachment to our children and their futures, most people would say they support the troops because those children are given more opportunities if they join the military.

Now, to frame the discussion another way.

I support the deaths of over a hundred thousand people in the last ten years. I support the bankruptcy of the American nation. I support the destruction of three countries and the ouster of their leadership. I support violations of international law and the commission of war-crimes. I support torture and imprisonment of foreign nationals.

This may sound like a list of ultra-liberal ranting but it is an important recognition of consequences. To add our support to the institutions which give us family/lifestyle/rights/education we also add our support to the institution which gives us war/death/famine/collapse within this country. There is a distinct balance here.

If we attempt to separate out our support for individual soldiers from this (after all, I do love my father) then we are forced to separate what they do from who they are. Under the coercion that is national service (the threat of imprisonment) individuals choose to do that list of things I put up above. If they refuse they suffer immense consequences but if they comply they are likely to kill innocent people and commit all manner of what would, were it done for any other purpose but national service, be called murder and destruction of property (crime).

I may say 'No, I blame the generals and decision makers.' but this takes away the decision making capability of the individual. We could say that the individual has already had their decision making ability taken away by the threat of imprisonment and in the case of many persons I think you could check their brain chemistry and find that's true.

Within this frame of conversation most people would say they don't support the troops or rather, what the troops do. This is a case of 'love the sinner, hate the sin'. The decision making process is different however.

Attachment to the idea of ourselves as patriotic (supporting those close to us, those close to them, and by extension the rest of the country) leaves immense room for these kinds of situations where we are supporting criminal acts by both individuals and institutions if they attach themselves to the idea of the nation.

Equally, our own individual decision making is affected and afflicted by the list of means by which we personally are required to support the criminal actions of government. We pay taxes and benefit from public roads. Most of us were educated in some form of public education system. We breathe clean air because of government regulation. We enjoy the benefits of a legal system. To deny support to government (taxation, service) is to remove the ability of government to provide us with the things that maintain our lifestyle.

In this country we have what's called a 'military industrial complex' which is a corporate/government tie which dictates policy against the will and wishes of the public system. Still, we recognize the need for a military which provides the positive things mentioned above.

I'm going to pose a question which I haven't got an answer to yet. How do we strike a balance between the need for military and the need to keep a military from dictating our decisions?
 
Last edited:
Good question... I may need some time to think up an answer! (or I could leave it for someone else who's better informed, but that would be taking the fun out of it now wouldn't it?) :D but seriously you have me thinking Chessie!
 
I am kind of waiting on people to respond. I want to hear what people have to say about my ideas here.
 
[removed] brain was fried.
 
Last edited:
I mentioned this in the Bin Laden thread but I don't support the military yet will support an individual going through a war, even if I do not agree with it.
 
I'm going to add some things here that came from other places I posted this and some of my replies.

Posted elsewhere:

If you're not for the military then you must be against it! Therefore your stance is pacific, unless you're going to put on a uniform and go and do the umpleasant stuff. I didn't misunderstand your words; on the contrary I read everything you wrote, but your argument was a little weak. There was no analysis, just a tirade at stuff the government does.


I was trying to contextualise what your remarks about the situation imply about the military v free and open society.
Incidentally, 'ethics and philosophy' come before politics, at least in the way I understand the term. You can't have one without the other, because they all relate to ideas about societies and the application of morals (and laws) to those societies.
 
Last edited:
My Reply:

That's a very two dimensional viewpoint. If a person is not 'for' something then they are against it.


Are you 'for' salt? If you choose not to personally use it then are you against it? Would you hurt someone who chose to have salt on their burger if you chose not to? I recognize that there are people who would. We call them extremists who view the world in black and white.


A person can wrap their belief structure around their personal choices and extrapolate that onto the world around them. It's not really necessary to instill animosity if a person's decisions don't coincide with your experiences of the world. Most often I find that beliefs are excuses for persons under stress or duress to express their emotions and needs.


I recognize the contributions of warfare and military minds throughout history. Much of our technology base was developed because of mutual aggression and conflict. I think without them we would be a lesser species. The invention of IED's has given gorilla warriors the ability to fight against super-powers while the invention of CROW's systems have given huge leaps forward in robotics and remote control.


Is it horrible that people die in these years? Of course. I certainly wouldn't want myself or anyone I know to die. I have friends who are soldiers.


Still, I am looking for answers to questions that I hope one day might lead us to lessening the consequences of our actions while still growing us as a species. We're seeing a middle ground. If black and white are the only options, we're very much doomed to repeat the mistakes that lead us to violence.


I don't think I made an argument. I just presented ideas.
 
I like to think that for the most part, the people who join the military are not the sort of people who would aim to kill civilians or torture prisoners, but at the same time, I find it very hard to reconcile the fact that more members of the military do not speak out about these practices.

I like the fact that our Australian military offers so many opportunities for people to gain a career and skills that they can use outside the military, andthat our military doesn't just fight in wars, but assists in natural disasters and so on, and I actually think this is a really important thing for a military to do, in order to stay in touch with humanity, to remind them of how precious life is.

At the same time I wonder if the military offers too much of an attraction to people, and perhaps this shouldn't be so, in order to stop people just signing up for all the benifits who may not be ideal psychological material.
 
Its really refreshing to see someone address this! I definitely think some people fear looking like the bad guy in acknowledging that they can't be both pro and anti the same unit. Its illogical, but I get why its comforting to do so and leads to never having to really be wrong and never disagreeing with anyone. Even saying that is unpopular, but I don't particularly care. Its something everyone needs to consider when analyzing their own views. I often ask myself, 'Do I believe this because I believe it, or because its easier to believe in politically correct compromises?' I think its an important question that nobody is above. I also think its rarely asked =/

I have moderate political views, but I strongly believe in small government. Government is for law and order. Not for education, medicine, business, etc. By making the government in charge of such things makes it into a massively overpowered money suck which it can defend with 'oh well you demanded this, so pay up.' The military falls under law and order (which is required by EVERY agricultural society). Its necessary and I respect that. I also believe that some people are so corrupt and desperate to destroy that they have to be destroyed first (as a last resort). I dislike that war has been necessary when dealing with some, but I believe there are strict criteria as to what make a just war. I also think it should be a last resort, but to say it should never be an option is suicide. That is seen as a severe weakness by many others and it would be sorely taken advantage of.

However, I definitely do believe the military has been misused before to promote the corporate and government connection. If the government were kept strictly in its appropriate sphere, I don't believe that would happen to nearly the same extent. Sadly they reinforce each other and manipulating the military causes each to become wealthier and more powerful. Obviously that's a lot of motivation. Anyway, I think a significant portion of problems would be resolved or at least helped by minimizing government (thus, government power).


If I'm not making sense, I had a few margaritas celebrating Cinco de Mayo and I'll try to clarify later :p
 
At the same time I wonder if the military offers too much of an attraction to people, and perhaps this shouldn't be so, in order to stop people just signing up for all the benifits who may not be ideal psychological material.

+1
 
so are you saying that there should not be publically provided education and healthcare in effect? sorry, it just wasn't clear.

I think the opposite, especially where education is concerned. I feel that governments should definitely concern themselves with education because children should be given equal opportunites, and this means that governments should provide education that is equal to what is available privately so that all children are judged on merrit rather than funds.
 
Our military's main goal is to secure "national interests," which in turn our national interests are directed by the uber-wealthy. National interests are hardly interests done in the benefit of the common citizen, and neither are our recent military actions. I think it's sad and it's shitty that the armed forces lure some people into joining with promises of education. If you're poor and looking for a way out, the military would love to send you half way across the world. It breaks my heart, to be all sappy, that it is seen as acceptable to fight bullshit conflicts for capitalist interests with the promise of later getting an education. Why don't we fix poverty and education...but then where would our soldiers be?

I'm rambling though. I don't support my military, and I do not support the troops any more than I support any other citizen. I don't think getting a gun makes one a hero, but I also don't think it makes one any less of a human being (who I might consider misguided, but that's irrelevant) I guess in short, I disapprove because of what the military currently stands for, and I don't support their actions, but I don't hate people simply because they are in the armed forces.
 
so are you saying that there should not be publically provided education and healthcare in effect? sorry, it just wasn't clear.

I think the opposite, especially where education is concerned. I feel that governments should definitely concern themselves with education because children should be given equal opportunites, and this means that governments should provide education that is equal to what is available privately so that all children are judged on merrit rather than funds.

I don't believe the government should have any say in what is actually taught in schools, no. That is up to the parents (of course there are always minimum requirements they must meet). Requiring children to go to school is also part of law and order so it is the government's business. Healthcare is more complicated (especially with disabled people and retirees), but mainly I don't think the government should have nearly as much power within the field as they do when it comes to situations like forcing doctors to perform abortions. I remember a poll in that situation showing that a huge percentage of doctors would refuse to practice if the government tried to force them to do that. I think it is the government's job to organize (the order part of the government function of 'law and order') those systems, not to dictate content.
 
however, I do support the war.
 
I tend to be with Chessie. I respect/support someone who VOLUNTEERS to defend my nation. I do NOT support the folk ordering them into harms way for false causes and profit motive, nor do I support war. We should always be trying to deal with everyone in the world as if they were us. Treat others as you want to be treated. Take care of each other. See that poverty and strife and desperation are minimized (eradication is a bit too high a hurdle as of yet, what with 7 billion people living on a planet on capable of comfortably supporting 2) and you will go a long way towards ending wars before they begin.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Galileo
I like to think that for the most part, the people who join the military are not the sort of people who would aim to kill civilians or torture prisoners, but at the same time, I find it very hard to reconcile the fact that more members of the military do not speak out about these practices.

I like the fact that our Australian military offers so many opportunities for people to gain a career and skills that they can use outside the military, andthat our military doesn't just fight in wars, but assists in natural disasters and so on, and I actually think this is a really important thing for a military to do, in order to stay in touch with humanity, to remind them of how precious life is.

At the same time I wonder if the military offers too much of an attraction to people, and perhaps this shouldn't be so, in order to stop people just signing up for all the benifits who may not be ideal psychological material.

Most of the people I know who get into the military did it out of financial distress. Debt, crap (or no) job, trying to find some way of getting money for college (sadly, a large percentage of those who went through with it STILL got gipped out of the college money in the end, too.) Sadly, the training/indoctrination involved really changes them, too. We can't afford to be a nation of soldiers.
 
I agree that if you dont approve of what someone is doing then you shouldn't support them. At least I think that is what you were getting at.
 
I think some kind of military will always be necessary...and people willing to join it should/have to be supported. They aren't the ones making the decisions you are unhappy with, they just follow orders. You'll always need people willing to do that no matter what your military goals are. I think you can separate support for troops from support for military policy.
 
I think some kind of military will always be necessary...and people willing to join it should/have to be supported. They aren't the ones making the decisions you are unhappy with, they just follow orders. You'll always need people willing to do that no matter what your military goals are. I think you can separate support for troops from support for military policy.

I tend to agree with this, too... I'd just rather they doubled as first responders. You know, a well trained national guard who CAN defend the borders from (an ever less likely) invader, but typically will be rushing in to help with disasters, etc. Maintaining hundreds of bases around the world, trying to influence countries, etc... it think it causes as many, if not more, problems than it solves.
 
I think some kind of military will always be necessary...and people willing to join it should/have to be supported. They aren't the ones making the decisions you are unhappy with, they just follow orders. You'll always need people willing to do that no matter what your military goals are. I think you can separate support for troops from support for military policy.

I think this is an important point.

I also think that it is a good idea to remember that those policies are part of a national agenda that is supported by the politicians that you elect (or choose not to participate with lack of voting). I also agree with [MENTION=1009]bamf[/MENTION]; that many of our national policies are influenced by corporate interest. Much of the turmoil in the middle east is due to oil. There is a lot of evidence to support that our involvement in Vietnam was due to rubber and the seizure of corporate assests by the communist regime. There aren't any easy answers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ~jet