Wednesday's Washington Post featured a heart-wrenching article by Greg Jaffe on Marine Lt. Gen. John Kelly and his son's death on the battlefield in Afghanistan's Helmand Province. The article clearly struck a chord and was among the most widely shared articles of the day. Although not its central theme, the article extensively quotes the speech in which Gen. Kelly addressed the meaning of "support" for soldiers in combat.
From the article:
"Their struggle is your struggle," he told the ballroom crowd of former Marines and local business people. "If anyone thinks you can somehow thank them for their service and not support the cause for which they fight -- our country -- these people are lying to themselves... More important, they are slighting our warriors and mocking their commitment to this nation."
And speaking of the soldiers, "They hold in disdain those who claim to support them but not the cause that takes their innocence, their limbs and even their lives,' he said.
In addition to the issue's emotional weight, part of what makes the conversation about supporting soldiers in combat so difficult is the absence of a shared understanding of "support." Effective communication is nearly impossible without at least a mutual understanding of how the communicating parties define key terms. Even if the two sides don't agree on one definition, they must understand what the terms mean to one another. In this case, this understanding is all the more important given the emotional character of the issue, and the sensitivity of both sides to perceived judgments.
Soldiers have a unique but generally shared understanding of the term, not widely understood by those without a personal connection to those in uniform. While not uniformly held, in my estimation this is the view of the majority of servicemen with combat experience.
Soldiers go where our country's civilian leaders tell them to go, in pursuit of the objectives those officials determine to be in our country's national interest. To those soldiers, the time for spirited debate is before they are ordered into combat. Up to that point, one can legitimately claim to be supporting the soldiers by vociferously opposing their deployment, by lobbying political decision makers, and by attempting to demonstrate a lack of public support for the mission's objectives.
At that point, there is no congruence between supporting the soldiers and supporting the mission, because if the opposition is successful in its efforts, the soldier doesn't go to war. The opposition's success does not undermine the soldier's efforts, encourage his enemy, or demean his sacrifices.
That is not true once the government sends the soldier into combat. Once our volunteer soldier deploys, his sole purpose is to achieve the objectives he is ordered to secure by our elected leaders. In fact, every soldier swears an oath that defines their duty, to "obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me." The soldier, more than anyone else, wants these orders to be well-considered, valid, popular objectives that are worthy of his sacrifices.
Once he receives these orders, he wants to accomplish these objectives as quickly and as decisively as possible. Every delay exposes him to further danger and risks the mission. Once he is so engaged, "supporting" him necessarily means sharing this desire for victory, defined as successfully fulfilling the mission.
At that point, if the opposition is successful in its efforts, there are very real negative consequences to the soldier on the battlefield. Such opposition actively interferes with his pursuit of his objectives and makes an already dangerous and difficult mission even more difficult and dangerous. Undermining public support for the effort, delegitimizing the mission, and declaring victory unattainable make it tougher for the soldier to decisively achieve his objectives by emboldening the enemy, damaging morale, and undermining political leadership. Therefore, from this perspective, there is a logical and inherent contradiction in claiming to "support" the soldier while taking actions that undercut his efforts.
This is particularly true for the protracted, unstructured war in which we are engaged, where public and political support are critical elements of success.
One might argue that this is an idealistic and naive vision of the process by which our leaders decide to send soldiers into harm's way. That may be true today, but it need not be. Regular elections remain the greatest check on our country's leadership and government policy, and voters should demand consideration on matters of such importance.
It may not always be possible to hold extensive debates, as with preventive strikes, true emergencies, or covert actions. But there is nothing that prevents opposition to the military's efforts, the political leaders responsible for the decision, or the objectives pursued. However, those active opponents should at least recognize that their "support" is likely not recognized as such by soldiers holding this view. To them, it just doesn't make sense to claim to "support" those whose purposeful efforts you undermine, even unintentionally.
This seems unfair to those who feel they "support" the soldier because they don't want him to suffer any harm for a cause they don't believe is worth the sacrifice. They contrast their stance to the Vietnam-era demonization of soldiers and object to the perceived blurring of that line. There are many patriotic, good-hearted Americans who feel this way, and who won't accept the perspective described here. They don't have to. But if we're ever going to close this "great divide" between the military and civilian worlds, we must first understand each other.
Follow Gabriel Ledeen on Twitter: www.twitter.com/gledeen
I support them. And I support them being successful and returning home whole.
But I will not stop lobbying our elected government to stop spilling our blood on behalf of billionaire criminals. Or just out of stupidity. And I cannot support a war policy that ties the hands of our service men and women instead of letting them act.
I'm sorry, but expressing this view seems *really* naive when- as is the case in U.S. politics- the electorate has no true truly "anti-war" option to choose from. Thanks in no small part to this notion that anything less than unqualified 'support' for the mission undermines the troops; with that mentality being promoted, no prospect for executive office will risk being seen as "the cut-and-run candidate" by promising an end to the war as a sworn plank in their platform, no matter the rational case or public sentiment against its continuation. Never mind the influence of the military-industrial blood-profiteers who fund friendly or unfriendly campaigns and insist that cancelling that order for ten-thousand missiles over the next four years will kill *jobs* and hurt the economy.
When every would-be president knows that their opponent will never 'blink' and become a credible pro-peace candidate, throwing away the "pro-victory" vote, none of them has any practical impetus to campaign against endless war. And if you think that's bad now, just wait. As automated combat systems like weaponized drones and computer- or remote-controlled robots become increasingly common in-theatre, reducing human casualties, trivializing violence into a video-game, and *further* tying economic prosperity to the perpetuation of conflict, there'll be even less incentive for politicians to oppose war.
The fact that the writer's argument collapses under its own weight is lost on everyone who says "great article".
The author of this article needs to redefine his terms.
That seems like emotional blackmail. "If you really loved me, you'd love my war, too."
I don't accept this framing.
And irony of the second degree that you would reinforce this argument: "I'm here to tell you to be more sensitive to others' thoughts feelings. I'm not interested in what you think or feel!"
LOL
Every serviceman takes an oath to protect the constitution when enlisting and it says in Article 6 "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding" translating to any unconstitutional orders to soldiers. The problem is they have been conditioned they have given up all their right except to obey orders but that isn't the case, they have the power to reason weather the order is constitutional or not. Therefore, the Constitution supports the soldiers.
Amendment 2 say our military [militia] is for the security of the nation and securing is done on one's own territory, any fighting this nation begins on a foreign nation is unconstitutional. That makes every war of Union soldiers when taking this land from the natives and every war fought on none US soil unconstitutional. How can anyone knowing the reading of the constitution allow for the killing of US soldiers for anything other than securing our nation?
The Commander in Chief nor generals, who also have taken the same oath to protect the constitution, are not allowed to order our children to their possible death in "government building" as in Afghanistan, or for oil as in Iraq. Such actions is treason, Article 3:3, by aiding those wanting to eliminate our sovereign status and give the United States control of the world.
Amendment 10 require the people support our soldiers' efforts constitutionally and includes stopping the "industrial-military complex's" attempt at controlling the world.
We abhor the politics of endangering our friends and family, our kin, for corrupt political practices that line the pockets of these career politicians and corporate interests for no further cause than the least of human nature: GREED.
Most of the people on this particular site will never know the 'punch in the guy' a Marine receives when he is deployed overseas and watches privilidged American activists protest him and his mission back home. He knows that's their right as American's and that freedom of speech may be one of the reasons the Marine thinks he is there for. Still the lonley betrayal a Marine feels after watching those protests stay with him... immediately on the next mission and well into his tour. In my platoon and fire team, protestors at home were more difficult for me and my Marines to deal with than even the mission, deaths, wounded buddies or the stress of combat.
The time for opposition and protests is BEFORE declaration of hostilities, NOT after.
Semper Fi Devil Dogs
And then ask yourself, what exactly is the goal in the Middle East? You'll never hear a politician give a real answer. They'll just talk in vague platitudes, while our men and women continue to be injured and killed.
anecdotal but relevant -many of the villagers we confronted in both Iraq and Afghanistan who spoke english could (and would when given the chance) recite various news articles of Americans protesting the war-it was very encouraging for them!
The fact of the matter is that if we challenge the mission because we were LIED about the reason for the mission, then we are SUPPORTING the troops by trying to bring them home so they won't be in danger anymore!
And you know what, after the "Gulf of Tonkin incident" a majority of elected leaders voted to give the President of the United States virtually unlimited power regarding attacking Vietnam. Knowing what you know now, was that a good thing or a bad thing? And since you've admitted that it was a bad thing, wasn't protesting the mission a GOOD thing?
Now granted, too many of the hippies confused protesting the mission with protesting the soldier and treated our returning Vietnam Vets poorly. But FAR more dangerously, our Republican elected leaders decided that our Vietnam Vets don't need assistance and as such more of them are homeless than ANY other group of veterans IN HISTORY!
I'd be more worried about not supporting our vets than not supporting our current troops' mission!
While on active duty, I was trained to understand that it was my personal responsibility to refuse an illegal command: William Calley (or the commander-in-chief) could order me to execute civilians, but I was not just allowed but required to refuse that order.
Any citizen who supports me in such a refusal is supporting the troops; a citizen who roots for war crimes or victories in illegal/unjust wars--the only way to "support the troops", according to the author--is not.
Democracies don't write blank checks to their militaries. To support the troops is to recognize and support the necessity of their legitimate, honorable mission: to defend the Republic from the armed aggression of its enemies.
There is no greater support for the troops than to support their withdrawal from an unjust war.
#639
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Thompson,_Jr.
The message is that when you put on the uniform you have even MORE of an obligation to tell the people "leading" you that they are full of s**t. And it is even MORE SO for the rest of your life if you live through military service in a nation led by hacks who themselves never served and would never allow their own sons and daughters to serve. Their progeny are destined for lucrative careers on Wall Street. Fighting wars is for the dupe "little people". So for thinking veterans the moral duty of witness to the witless of the nation is an ongoing responsibility.
Fanned and Faved my brother. Much appreciated.
I wish everyone knew how carefully our military women and men are trained to be honorable warriors, and how important it is to support them in that and to demand that our civilian leadership live up to the same high standard.
#1274 for you, brother.