Brandon Ferdig wants to give conditional, not unilateral, support for the troops. And he wonders if that’s okay.
I have a confession to make: I’m tired of the auto-response with which we’re conditioned to automatically assume an appreciation and respect for the “the brave men and women who keep our country safe”.
It’s not that I don’t respect and honor those who’ve fought and died for the cause of America. I make an effort this time of year to not take for granted this wonderful country we have. It’s that we lump together all the troops and all the missions spanning America’s history, creating a dissonance—between wars of defense and freedom vs. military action for power and corporate gain; between heroic soldiers and ones that kill for enjoyment—that is hard for me to sew together.
It’s a tricky line to walk: being respectful, a dissenter, a supporter, a Good Man.
Conversations about this have been going on for years, but it remains taboo to question the worthiness American soldiers are of our praise, and I don’t think it ought to be off limits.
In thinking about my conditional support, I discovered two reasons why unconditional is an erred notion:
1. Today’s soldiers aren’t our granddad’s soldiers
2. Today’s wars aren’t our granddad’s wars
1. I was in a bar while in college and a fellow from my German class and I were playing pool. He was a soldier and talked about a contest he and his fellow troops were having. It was to see who could sleep with the fattest girl and take a picture to prove it.
An acquaintance of mine recently lived with his girlfriend who is in the service. He found out just a few months back—by reading the sexting on her computer—that she had been cheating on him with other soldiers, and because of that, gave him chlamydia.
A friend from high school, now a real macho soldier who loves working out and drinking beer, was out with my brothers not too long ago when he had a couple too many. He started a verbal altercation with a Native American. In his racist rant, he had to be restrained by many others.
Examples like these began to chip away at the unquestioned gratitude with which I was suppose to address these men and women. Then of course, there are the examples of malfeasance, abuse, and murder detailing horrific cases of rape, torture, mass killings that have only been more public in recent years.
It all got me asking, “What kinds of people are we saluting?”
Me not being alive in the days of my granddad prohibit me to know the true nature of those soldiers. I’m sure things went on amongst them that would appall me, too, that the squeaky clean image we have of them is a residual effect of favorable media and legend. I also need to be careful not to commit the same error that I’m criticizing: lumping all soldiers together. So I know those mentioned above are bad apples or even good people doing bad things. But I maintain, from knowing my grandpa and those in his generation, and by seeing the footage of soldiers shooting civilians from the helicopter on Wikileaks, the photos from Abu Ghraib, and my own personal experience that acts like these didn’t occur then as they do now.
#2. I remember being in 3rd grade and talking about war with other boys in my class. “America has never lost a war”, one said. “Yeah, we’re undefeated”, said another. I went home and asked my father. He offered a slightly modified take, saying, “Well, except for Vietnam. Nobody won.”
Along with false lumping of the troops who defeated Germany with the troops who took Saddam, we mistakenly lump together the act of defeating Germany with the act of defeating Saddam. One was a declared war in America’s past against a clear enemy, the latter is an example of the constant military adventurism benefiting American corporate interests throughout our last 120 years.
Years after speaking with my father, I’d watch a powerful montage of American military adventurism in Michael Moore’s documentary Bowling for Columbine that would make Smedley Butler turn over in his grave and had me staring in wonder as I realized the same men who we’ve armed and held up as allies and heroes: Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, (and most recent, Muammar Gaddafi) are now ones we call villains.
I looked askance toward the script-shifting; and in mild disbelief that we’re fighting people we’ve armed.
Worse however, was the footage I saw of the innocent death along the way. From our coups in Central America throughout the 20th century, to our involvement in Iran overthrowing their democratically elected leader in the 1953’s, to today’s accidental drone targets blowing up schools and the children inside them.
“What are we doing?” I think to myself. “What are my tax dollars paying for?”
I know I’m just one person totally removed from the theater of war. I know an image and footage–and definitely a montage in a Michael Moore documentary–can sometimes be overly-influential to someone who hasn’t seen war with his own eyes.
But I still have my reason and morals, and I have a right—perhaps an obligation—to speak out if I see something wrong. I have a reaction to seeing a Vietnamese girl running naked burned by napalm. I react to the execution of an American citizen and his 16 year old son without a trial.
Regarding the Saddam and Gaddafi, maybe the support-one-day, killing-them-the-next process is just part of the game necessary to play in our imperfect world. Maybe I shouldn’t expect more from our leaders. Maybe I’m being quixotic in thinking that the U.S. wouldn’t and shouldn’t flex its muscles—cause it’s certainly not as though they couldn’t. And as I learn more about history, the deaths of innocents was so regular an occurrence, maybe one can even applaud the U.S. for limiting collateral deaths via economic warfare and drone strikes.
But I can’t. I don’t believe our country or the world would be worse off today if we hadn’t intervened in the countless regions as we’ve done so repeatedly. And the disingenuous nature with which these missions are wrapped as deeds of freedom, righteousness, and good! Tell us you’re bombing Gaddafi because his attempted hold of power threatened Europe’s oil interests. Tell us you’re going to sabotage the rise of a leader in Central America because it’s bad for U.S. business.
I think the lesson to take away is to honor responsibly. I will continue to stand in awe when I hear and see depicted the kinds of conditions endured, the courage mustered, the lives saved, and the honor exhibited by these men and women throughout America’s past. I was recently taken in, watching a documentary, by the significance, intrigue, and conditions surrounding the oft forgotten War of 1812.
It is extremely unfortunate that the institution that all the historic and honorable men and women have fought for has been tainted by the orders of those who would seek power and profits over people; and that the soldier’s reputation has been tainted by the actions by those among them.
To much of America, a soldier is a soldier is a soldier and a war is a war is a war. This false association keeps us in blind support for men and women who don’t always deserve it either because of their character or because of their missions. This unflinching support doesn’t allow for the malleability that life is—that America isn’t always the good guy, that sometimes there never is a good guy, that as my father said about Vietnam, sometimes nobody wins. Under the weight of this support, we keep supporting a military budget of a size practically incomprehensible and almost certainly unsustainable.
We shouldn’t break the rule that respect is something to be earned, and the degree to which people dismiss what troops have done to truly earn their respect—positively or negatively—indicates the degree to which we’ve lost touch with who and what our troops and military are all about.
Photo—soundfromwayout/Flickr
Brandon, I like your article and I agree with most of it. It’s about time we talk honestly about those “hypocrisy wars”. Let’s call a spade a spade (but, perhaps, most people are not that adult). For me, the only “honourable” war is a defensive war, when a country has been attacked. There’s no honour in fighting for oil or copper, for greed or status. And no, the so-called “war on terror” is NOT a defensive war, because no country openly attacked the USA; the 9/11 was just an excuse for something else (that I won’t go into now; let’s… Read more »
Training is a sacred cow in all discussions of this kind, because it saves soldiers’ lives and allows them to do a job most of us could not stand to do. (Necessary or not, I won’t go into.) But to do that training, conscientiously and well, you have to crush a little bit of your humanity. And it may not grow back, or grow back in the right places. Whether one sees combat or not, just being military can change a person in ways they may or may not be able to cope with. It’s a side of our wars… Read more »
I was walking through my town centre a few months ago, and saw hundreds of policemen. I asked one of them what was going on, and he told me that the town’s army regiment had just come back from Afghanistan, and would all be going out tonight. I said shouldn’t our soldiers be disciplined and respectable. The policeman just laughed…
The late Paul Fussell wrote a great essay on the realities of war, which can be found via longform.org. He addresses everything from atrocities to the frequently inferior weapons that our side went to war with. Ever wonder where “FUBAR” came from? Aside from the points he makes, it has always irritated me that most Americans think the European war was won at Normandy. Granted, that was a desperate affair and nobody from Ike on down was sure it would work. But the decisive blows against Hitler had happened 12-18 months prior, first at Stalingrad and then Kursk. Through some… Read more »
+1
I really could say more, but +1 or “I concur” pretty much says all I need to say.
“1. Today’s soldiers aren’t our granddad’s soldiers
2. Today’s wars aren’t our granddad’s wars”
Having spent more than 10 seconds reading about the great war and the second world war, this is horribly wrong. Failing to learn of the atrocities of the past, committed by British, American, German, Russian and all other participants, means you get to salute them in ignorance.
I would also suggest the likes of cheating soldier and racist soldier would not lose the cheating and racist label if they lost the soldier label. Where are the articles decrying the racist/cheating/inappropriate mortician?
+1
And PTSD is not a recent phenomenon, just a new word for a very old kind of casualty.
It’s the granddads who never came back or can’t talk about their experience who may have the most realistic lessons to teach us about their wars….
Glad to see that there are thinking people here. Glad to see disagreement with my comments. This give me some hope for our species, though I fear war and its minions will have its way with us for quite awhile yet. Perhaps until our specie’s last breath, but perhaps not. The peace of the dead may not be the only way out of war, though it certain is one of the ways out of war.
The Wet One
First of all, before I really can “support my troops,” I am going to need a ruling about who actually counts as “my troops.” It’s not as simple as it sounds. Of course, people serving in a uniform as active duty personnel in one of the official branches of the Armed Forces would count, but not all of those personnel are well-behaved. I refuse to say that everyone in uniform is all one way or all the other. They are still individuals responsible for their own actions. They are not all heroes just for wearing a uniform, and they are… Read more »
“It is extremely unfortunate that the institution that all the historic and honorable men and women have fought for has been tainted by the orders of those who would seek power and profits over people; and that the soldier’s reputation has been tainted by the actions by those among them.” It has always been this way. You seem surprised at this, but this is what war is. Power and profits over people – what else is the male disposability at the heart of who gets fed into wars? The civilians back home profit from this – they all profit from… Read more »
Thanks, Ginkgo,
You’re right–almost. America was founded on a war not for riches, but–from what I ascertain–for a higher calling: the inalienable right for freedom and equality.
Am I getting swept up in American fairytales?
So I do believe there are other kinds of wars. (There are defensive wars, too.)
My criticism is that many Americans confuse every battle we fight as fights for freedom.
Thanks for your response; I appreciate the support!
Another way to look at the founding of the U.S. is to look at it as an act of treason, which in a technical sense it really was, an act of treason against the British Empire, the empire that George Washington as a colonial officer had earlier sworn to defend. The Declaration of Independence was in part an explanation of why sometimes treason is acceptable and even necessary. During the war of independence, what was Parliament’s message to the colonists? “Support your troops!” You could argue the colonists who really did “support their troops” supported the redcoats, not the patriots.… Read more »
Thanks. I would add that as a rule of thumb it’s a good for lefty-liberal types (of which I am one) to simply talk to vets and people that are currently enlisted and get a feel for what the military is/was like. Is it an opportunity? Were they drafted? Reserve call-up? Boring? Terrifying? If you happen to meet a CO, see if you can get their story. (It takes guts to be a CO.) Also, read a book or two of military history – it’s easy to condemn the atomic bombings, and they were terrible, but can we comprehend how… Read more »
In terms of avoiding the draft or other forms of military service, there is a long but underestimated history of that in American society going back to the Revolution. Many men during the Civil War turned draft evasion into an art form. (I’m not sure how Americans compare historically with other societies, but people have found highly creative ways of escaping military service at least as far back as written language has existed….)
Full disclosure: I’ve never enlisted, or been drafted. Back when I got out of high school, the Cal State system was still well funded, and the choice between a college dorm and a barracks was an easy one. My college life was austere, with plenty of ramen. No foxholes, sure. Otoh it was the late Eighties and my military tour would not have featured much in the way of shots fired in anger. And yes, I do place peacetime soldiers in a different bracket than soldiers who have been shot at. One tends to actually by more belligerent than the… Read more »
Nice observations, Pedro. I wasn’t trying to come off as being anti-military, and I like how you make points for either side and offer an objective take.
I agree with a lot of what you say. Thanks!
” I wasn’t trying to come off as being anti-military, ”
You really don’t come of at all as anti-miltary, and you had to do more than avoid trying to sound that way, you had to make an effort, and I thank you for it, not to sound anti-military, because the vocabulary available to you for an article like this slants that way.
I don’t think being branded as “anti-military” is something to avoid no matter what. If criticizing some military policies and some military operations is anti-military, then so be it. I tend to think that modern-day military organizations are good at some things and bad at others. I tend to think they’re necessary for some things, unnecessary for some things, and disastrous for some things. I am also cautious about making broad sweeping just-so statements about “war” as this thing that is universally one way and never any other way. There’s no such thing as “War” with a capital W that… Read more »
Here’s something worth adding to the dicussion IMHO:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/are-all-fallen-american-soldiers-heroes/257809/
Of course this just confirms that we’re a bunch of liberal progressivists over here (because I won’t be completely flamed and utterly slagged for what I’ve posted), but I’m putting it up anyways.
The Wet One
Sadly I find this article as naive as the people who blindly support wars based off the need to inflict their culture and values on the world. Armies have always been a place for terrible people to go to because frankly it’s easier to train people kill the enemy if they are already lacking in empathy. Likewise wars have always been fought over and triggered by greed, stupidity, etc. To claim that these aren’t your granddad’s wars/soldiers/etc is to ignore the undesirables your granddad had to deal with (but didn’t mention to you because of the culture of his day)… Read more »
Hey Kim, thanks for writing. From the way you spell, “honour”, can I assume you’re not from America? I bring this up because I want you to better understand where I’m coming from. Over here, there’s this strong automatic demand that we thank every serviceman or woman for suiting up. My point was that we should challenge this social norm by questioning the people we’re lauding and especially the missions their conducting. I disagree that challenging the status quo as being the same as sitting in the corner and sucking my thumb. I know people like that, though, and I… Read more »
Needed to be said. Blind patriotism keeps us from being able to distinguish between the necessary and the unnecessary; to ask the hard questions. But then, ordinary citizens and young soldiers asking questions has never been what the military aligns itself with anyway, has it? Bravo.
Brandon, I’m not sure what you mean by “supporting the troops”. If you don’t want to buy a uniformed service member a drink in a bar, don’t. They make their own money. If you don’t like a conflict our government has involved them in, by all means protest it. They are willing to lay down their lives so that you can do that. If you are paying your taxes, then you are certainly giving them all support they expect from you. As far as troops of your grandfather’s generation being somehow better than the the ones today, they weren’t. Read… Read more »
Jim, I’m sure you’re right about finding out more about older generations and I believe every word you say about the humanitarian missions that are conducted today and the like. But still, there just seems a clear divide in the character of the soldier today vs yesteryear. Maybe I’m missing something; I’m open to be convinced otherwise, and as you suggest I’ll keep my ears open for other viewpoints on this. But now I have to come down on you for this: “…by all means protest it. They are willing to lay down their lives so that you can do… Read more »
Brandon, Thanks for your thoughtful reply. First of all, the military had nothing to do with installing the Shah during the 1953 coup. That was a CIA and British MI-5 operation. Secondly, Obama shaking Khadaffi’s hand hardly makes him a US “ally”. International affairs aren’t middle school. Eisenhower shook Kruschev’s hand too. Saddam invaded two neighboring countries and threatened to invade others, caused millions of dead in his war with Iran, dropped poison gas on his own people, repeatedly broke the treaty that he signed with us and the UN after the first Gulf War, and over all was a… Read more »
“But still, there just seems a clear divide in the character of the soldier today vs yesteryear.”
This is a misconception. Hindsight is rose-colored and there are plenty of people who have a vested inteerst, and you identify them, in seeing that this mythology is maintained.
“But still, there just seems a clear divide in the character of the soldier today vs yesteryear. Maybe I’m missing something” Brandon, how do you know what the character of a modern soldier is if you’ve never served in combat besides them? Can you articulate the basis of your opinion better? Today’s troops, myself included, have logged more combat hours and have done longer deployments than any American military men in our nation’s history; no time in our nation’s past has so much been asked of from so few, and all of them volunteers. What possible character defect do you… Read more »
Let me say that I am very grateful that you, dungone, and J P McMahon, as those who serve, having replied to this discussion. Indeed, even in your comments, I have grown. I particularly like J P McMahon’s defense of military as a humanitarian vehicle when the U.N. or whichever else effort fails. My struggle is that I find it hard to cheer on these so-called humanitarian missions, because as I stated in my piece, they are used as wrapping paper to cloak some other, more economic goal. i.e. sudden humanitarian concern over Libyans at the time European oil was… Read more »
“Along with false lumping of the troops who defeated Germany with the troops who took Saddam, we mistakenly lump together the act of defeating Germany with the act of defeating Saddam. ” Brandon, much of what you hear about WW2 is a lionized myth, just as you mentioned. But why do you need a wikileaks video of one helicopter when we fought that war by carpet bombing entire cities full of civilians and dropping atomic bombs? And forget Hitler or Saddam, we were allied with Stalin, a genocidal maniac who killed at least 6 million people. And then we threw… Read more »
Maybe we shouldn’t respect professional killers because they are, after all, professional killers whose profession is killing. Ya think? Nah, of course not. I know it’s a bridge too far. At the end of the day, soldiers are tools to be used by their masters to pursue their masters’ ends. In democracies, the master is somehow all of us. So, for all the U.S. wars (good or bad) you have no one to look at but yourself, or those Americans alive at the time in question. Are you doing your democratic duty to ensure that when your soldiers are unleashed,… Read more »
Wet One. A) Most people in the military are not “professional killers”. The number of actual combat ready infantrymen in the entire US military is only 70,000 out of 3 million personnel. Most sailors and airmen never even touch a weapon after basic training. That is not to say that they are not subjected to danger or hardship, because they are. Combat soldiers have a hell of a lot more to do in the course of their service than merely killing people, but they are trained to do that if they are ordered to. They are also not “unleashed”. The… Read more »
Mr. McMahon, I agree that most soldiers are not at the very pointy of the stick that goes into the designated foes’ guts, but all soldiers work towards this end in some fashion and if necessary, every one of them are duty bound the pull the trigger (unless I misunderstood something about how armies work). This applies to airmen and sailors as well, even if it’s not their day to day “job” in the forces. As well, it seems to me that the giving of a mission is unleashing the hell that the military is designed to bring. All democratic… Read more »
As well Mr. McMahon, I neglected to say this and for that I apologize, I thank you for your devoted service. You did not serve my country, but the strength of the alliance which preserves my safety and well being, is very much dependent on the strength of the U.S. and its military, and thus by extenstion yourself.
Again, my thanks.
The Wet One
“At the end of the day, soldiers are tools to be used by their masters to pursue their masters’ ends.”
So in other words soldiers are bad people because they’re not the fortunate sons? This type of denigrating remark is what gives pacifists a bad name. You know who is a tool? Civilians who take on an air of false superiority. Civilians usually support war in greater numbers than the military does.
Interesting comment dungone. I stand by my comments about what soldiers are and what they do. Like the good colonel said, “But I’m a soldier, and I go where I’m told to go, and I do my duty as best I can.” As I noted, there is a certain honour in that. I’m glad you note that civies support wars more than the military does. I hope you can link that back to my comments about who is ultimately responsible when I spoke about a democracy above. As for me making out soldiers to be bad people, I don’t know… Read more »
Im a 28 year old artist that has seen friends and family join the army, and they do not sign up to be “professional killers” and actually loathe the idea of hurting people. But they are trained to not feel emotion when targeting an enemy. Most every one in this world want to reach their potential and the army makes big promises to people without many opportunities otherwise. But thats where PTSD comes into play, when i think of a veteran I think of someone who has experienced the horrors of humanity…something of which i cant agree is necessary but… Read more »