Chessie
Community Member
- 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?
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:
but seriously you have me thinking Chessie!
