The not blaming the troops thing [View All]

[Ignoramus]

I, of course, do not condemn people who are troops. But, I think there is confusion between "the troops" vs. "the invasion and occupation".

When I hear the phrase "support the troops" uttered by someone who doesn't mean support the invasion and occupation, I usually just ignore what I think the words mean in the abstract.

The phrase "support the troops" has bothered me since the first time I heard it. I think it is another marketing phrase, like "pro-life". They are both black mail.

If you say you are not pro-life, you are saying you oppose life.

"Support the troops" seems to mean, support what the troops are being ordered to do. If you say you don't support the troops, it doesn't mean the opposite, it means that you hate the troops (people's children).

Would it be okay to say support the foreign insurgents in Iraq? No, because people would take that to mean that you support suicide bombings. I bet that there are insurgents who think they are doing something noble. There are probably grieving families who have a feeling of pride for their terrorist son.

The point is, people are good. It's actions that can be bad. I "support" gang members who do drive-bys, in the same sense that I support the troops. Just thinking you are doing something honorable, doesn't make it so. So, there is no distinction between an American troop, and foreign insurgent (i.e. non-american, non-iraqi) in Iraq and a gang member in my mind, accept in terms of the separate issue of their actions, and political issues.

Beyond that, even though I let it pass when people say they "support the troops", but they oppose the invasion. I keep reading and hearing things that make me think they actually are buying it anyway, to some extent.

People thank troops for being honorable. It isn't honorable to be the human force behind the invasion and occupation. It's brave. Doing a drive-bye is brave. Being a sniper is brave.

If a soldier joins because he thinks he is fighting for "his country", that intention is honorable. Is it honorable if someone does a drive-bye for his gang because he thinks he's protecting his hommies? Ultimately, no. Neither is honorable.

I think people have a casual notion about killing in military actions. If you are not engaged in defending against an attack, or some other of a list of exceptions, if you kill someone, it is an atrocity. It's not an excuse that you are in the military, except as far as it would be an excuse that you were in a gang at the time.

Like, the entry on truthout about the soldier who opposes the war, but he's going because he has to. He's going to probably commit acts of violence and possibly killing. I don't condemn him personally, but somehow it's a somewhat casual issue in the minds of some people.

It's the same as someone saying, "I don't really want to go down town in Manhattan and start shooting people, but I really have to or else I'll be put in jail".

Being in the military in an illegal war and occupation, or being in a gang, or being in an "insurgent group", doesn't excuse you from your actions.

So, I don't support the occupation, and I don't support the actions of the troops. I do "support" people who are troops, as much as I support people who are gang members, or town snipers.