Supporting The Troops

In an article in yesterday’s Royal Gazette (alas, unavailable online), the wife of a Bermudian marine in Iraq urged people to support the soldiers even if they don’t support the war.

A similar call has been made countless times since the start of the Iraq war. But what exactly does “supporting the troops” mean?

If it means that you should wish them well on a personal level and hope that they don’t get seriously injured or killed, I would agree. It would be contemptible to hope for casualties as a way of sticking it to George Bush and the other political leaders who architected the invasion.

But if it means desisting from criticising the war or the presence of the troops in Iraq, then I cannot agree. While the invasion cannot be undone, there is still a need for a robust and honest public debate on what the way forward in Iraq should be. This cannot take place if people are afraid to express critical points of view lest it damage the morale of the troops or be seen as unpatriotic.

Besides, the freedom to criticise is one of the things those soldiers are supposedly fighting for.

Comments

[Joseph Froncioni on 02.07.05 at 17:23]

Well said Phil.

[m on 02.07.05 at 19:15]

i disagree with JF -- you are only stating the obvious phil. waste of space on your blog -- lets get back to bashing each other on racial and political issues!

[Martin on 02.07.05 at 19:22]

What a sad comment from "m".

Maybe it's time to give this a break?

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 02.07.05 at 22:03]

Phil,

Very well said. There is no justification for this war. Even the architects of it don't know the real reason for it.

First it was because Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, when this was proven to be misinformation it was about fighting terrorism. Then it was found that Sadam never funded any terrorists groups or supported them in anyway the war switched to Operation Free Iraqui People. Bush simply wanted to remove Sadam because Sadam had tried to assassinate Bush Sr. while he was President and was looking for anything to justify an invasion.

The war in Iraq was also aimed at diverting attention away from the failure of the U.S. military to locate Osama bin Laden after the completely flattened Afghanistan. Bush figured if he could switch the focus away from Osama people would forget about the failings and he would not have to answer any questions about it.

[Adjustah on 02.07.05 at 22:05]

http://www.anysoldier.com

[njegos on 02.07.05 at 22:28]

I refuse to support US or "coalition" troops in Iraq. It is not my duty to raise the morale of an illegal occupation force. My sympathy is reserved for those soldiers who hand in their weapons and refuse to kill Iraqis.

[Martin on 02.07.05 at 22:38]

Bush also was concerned that the USA could not continue to rely upon Saudi as the key oil provider, and needed a secondary major supplier.

It also must have been difficult for Bush trying to capture Osama, i.e. someone from the family he does business with.

As the saying goes, "It's tough at the top".

On the main point, I have total empathy for the troops as human beings. It is just so sad that they are being asked to give their lives for the aspirations of a limited few powerful people, and doing so in the belief that it is for the freedom of Iraq and democracy.

[Terry on 03.07.05 at 12:39]

The War in Iraq was invoked by the greedy white, Corporate elite in the USA. It benifits them and no-one else. Defence budgets must be spent, if not,they are not allocated for future spending. Lobbyists applaud this, that is their goal. We do not need statistics, we already have them. I just returned from the Middle East, I know.

Keep it simple, we all should but it will not happen.Welcome to the prelude of by some, self wealth and destruction.

[njegos on 03.07.05 at 13:52]

Adjustah posted a link to anysoldier.com

I just read Sgt. Brian Horn's mission statement accompanied by a lovely feel-good photo of a caring GI grinning uncertainly with local children. Poor bugger really thinks that he is fighting a war against terrorism.

Wonder if he noticed that his noble allies have crossed over to the dark side:

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1520419,00.html

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1520136,00.html

[Martin on 03.07.05 at 15:06]

The point about budgets is an interesting one.

I guess the day to day cost is significant, but the major costs. i.e. capital costs (bombs, helicopters etc) presumably are only a cost when the items have to be replaced?

Otherwise no cost.

[H Reardon on 05.07.05 at 12:41]

"Bush simply wanted to remove Sadam because Sadam had tried to assassinate Bush Sr."

"The War in Iraq was invoked by the greedy white, Corporate elite in the USA. It benifits them and no-one else."

It is ridiculous statements such as these, not based in any fact whatsoever, that lead to a call to support the troops. You hear enough trash spouted from the uninformed you can forget what these guys are going through everyday. (I would bet that in Terry's book I'm one of his greedy white guys, but I'm still waiting for my check from the war.)

The deplorable treatment of troops returning from Vietnam is something us Americans don't want to ever see happen again. In large part, these "support our troops" efforts are trying to insure that it doesn't--if Americans believed some of the crap you cynical lot spout out from your insulated Bermuda world--it could happen again.

[Terry on 05.07.05 at 13:10]

Reardon, Vietnam and Iraq are two different Wars.I know my history. This one is about OIL. I support the Troops but not the way they are being screwed. Why don't you re-enlist. I did my time but my work is trying to stop this madness. Since you know so much about budgets and expendature, your check is in the mail. I try not to attack personally but your way out of line. Talking about insulation, mabe you should open your window and smell some roses. Sorry, I can't think of any more stupid things to say. It's people like you who don't get their checks that make the most noise.

Regards.....................

[John Steele on 05.07.05 at 13:42]

Battling it out in cyperspace

[njegos on 05.07.05 at 13:58]

Dear Mr. H Reardon:

Like Bush of Mesopotamia, you are ranting. Do you really believe that US troops should be used as cannon fodder for Bush and Sharon's agenda? That is the reality, Mr. H Reardon. This war has NOTHING to do with WMD or terrorism, neither of which existed inside Iraq at the time this illegal war began.

Do you want to saddle your children and grand-children with billions of dollars of debt? Do you want to live in fear for the rest of your life? If so, then please carry on making enemies all over the world. It seems to be what America does best these days.

Otherwise, start figuring out how you are going to rescue your once-proud country from the scum that hijacked your constitution.

PS. Did you know that the bombing of Iraq began 9 months before the official invasion?

[H Reardon on 05.07.05 at 16:02]

I'm happy to debate the merits of the war, as I have done at other times on this site--that wasn't the question at hand.

The question Limey posed was what does supporting the troops mean. I think you conspiricy theorists illustrated the need for such a campaign well--as I pointed out above.

If you want to discuss the merits of the war, I think we need a new thread. I don't want to hijack Limey's original premise.

[Terry on 05.07.05 at 16:20]

The merits of War are none. Name a country, in all the history that we can access. The only place I can think of is some tiny Island near India, where they have lived for thousands of years, and yes, people still want' to invite them into the 2000's. They don't want it. Enough said.

[The Limey on 05.07.05 at 17:36]

Reardon

Thanks for keeping the post on topic.

If anyone wants to discuss the merits of the war, or where the US should go from here, you can do so here.

[b company on 05.07.05 at 18:42]

Pro American Pro CIA Pro Death Penalty Pro Bush Pro black.

[b company on 05.07.05 at 18:50]

The day will come when the stars and stipes will march on CUBA,CARICOM and the cabinet building just like in port au prince. Corruption leads to poverty, poverty to crime, crime to civil war. God bless the U.S.A.

[njegos on 05.07.05 at 20:32]

Reardon:

My point is quite simple: that by "supporting the troops" in Iraq you are prolonging their role as cannon fodder for the ghastly demagogues in DC and Downing St. Was this your intention?

The best way to "support the troops" is to for all of us to demand an end to this catastrophic invasion. Now. Then all the troops can return home safe and sound.

Why are you unable to do this?

[H Reardon on 06.07.05 at 13:21]

Njegos,

I understand your point, although take offense to your insulting tone.

I believe you are being extremely nieve to suggest that the troops could be brought home now.

Let me put it this way, we are in the situation we are in. How and why we got there are a different debate (and one I will pick up in Limey's WMD thread when I get some time). I agree with you that the sooner we get the troops back home, the better. Leaving right now is not an option--we made a commitment. So while they are there, I think it is important their moral is up and that they know they have to support of the American people.

With the negativity (rightly or wrongly) spouted at America and Americans these days by elightened Euros who idea of handling a problem is a strongly worded letter, these brave men and women need our backing and support. I don't want them thinking they will come back like their fathers did from Vietnam and be scorned and ridiculed.

[terry on 06.07.05 at 13:34]

Again you are repetaive Reardon. Been there done that. Open your own site. Yes we have a commitment, to bad we committed. WMD's? Brought a few back with me, want one?

[USA on 06.07.05 at 15:20]

Njegos,
"THis war has NOTHING to do with WMD's or Terrorism, neither of which existed inside of Iraq at the time this illegal war began."
Just because no WMD's were found does not necessarily mean that they were not there or may still be there. There is No Way that the entire country can be searched inch by inch or thoroughly enough to find such weapons.
As for terrorism, what do you call Saddam? Don't you remember all of the people he killed, tortured and incarcerated for whatever reason he wanted. He ruled Iraq as a terrorist. If the Governor of Bermuda for example started ruling Bda in the same fashion and started killing people and torturing people like Saddam did wouldn't you want someone to help You out? Your bet your ass you would and let's take a guess on who you would ask first. That's right - the USA.
It's just a shame I think that we end up helping people that don't give a damn about us, but act like a friend when they need something.
P.S. Love ya Reardon

[Two Cent Charlie on 06.07.05 at 16:05]

Shame on all of us for not going into Iraq over ten years ago when Saddam Hussein slaughtered over 6000 mostly women and children by gasing them.
And that was just a test!

Shame on all of us for not going into Rwanda and stopping the genocide there.

This isn't about supporting a war, this is about men and women who put their life on the line for the pursuit of freedom for those that are not able to defend themselves. Had the worlds leaders done the right thing when it counted then the attitude towards the men and women in uniform (from whatever country they might be) would be a whole lot different.

Hussein tried to play his games and he pushed it too far. Now we are there, and I say "we" because we are a member of the British Commonwealth, we should stand by the people of Iraq and try to help them get back on their feet. After so long under such a dispicable tyrant they will need a lot of time to get used to their new found freedoms.

The last thing anyone needs is to have the men and women sent there to help become dis-enchanted and demoralised.

[terry on 06.07.05 at 17:12]

Two Cents, thanks for the nutshell. You did not say it all but what you did makes me feel better. There are not too many of us left. If Africa had lots of oil and produced as much as Iraq the Yanks would have been there in two minutes. Diamonds you know are few and far between, Oil, just shoots out of the ground. Thanks.

[The Limey on 06.07.05 at 17:47]

Two Cent Charlie

The last thing anyone needs is to have the men and women sent there to help become dis-enchanted
and demoralised.

But going back to the original point of this thread - what does that mean? What does "supporting the troops" mean to you?

[Two Cent Charlie on 06.07.05 at 19:22]

Terry,

Thanks for the response. You are right though,
I didn't say it all. There's way too much to it.

Limey,

Thank you too. To answer you, I guess it could mean something as simply posting a comment on your web-site that doesn't just condemn them for being someone with a thankless job stuck in Iraq's quagmire. Instead saying something to the effect of; "We know it's tough but hang in there and try to help those that were abused by one bunch of tyrants become part of a unified country and not victim to another lot equally as bad."

Some people will do a lot in support of the troops. Cards, gifts, candy to hand out to Iraqi kids etc. But most important I feel the best support is to remember that because the world has quite a few violent and unfair places at times we need these people to stick their necks out for others in need.

You don't have to drive around with a magnetic yellow ribbon stuck on your bumper in order to be supportive of the reason they are required to be there. If you don't feel comfortable supporting the troops openly, no problem. We just shouldn't belittle the magnitude of what they are trying to accomplish for the down-trodden.

The way I look at is I don't wear a yellow rubber band on my wrist. I hug kids with cancer instead.

[J Galt on 07.07.05 at 08:28]

Supporting the troops, but not agreeing with the war is a farce. It is people compromising thier values, again. You can't have a war with out the troops. If you support the troops then you support the war, you are paying for it with your taxes, or lending moral support for the acts they commit.

All our lives we are taught that killing is wrong, when a person enters the army, they have to be taught that killing is acceptable, they are taught to follow orders, not to reason why,

We on the other hand can still reason, and if we don't agree we need to say hey I don't support the war and I don't support, these acts you committ in my name.

Look at it this way, you don't hear people saying, I don't support the troops, but I do support the war.

You can't have one with out the other.

Don't compromise people, be strong, man is made of stronger stuff.

[Terry on 07.07.05 at 09:10]

J.Galt,

8 New Jersey Police Officers kill (execute) 3 drug dealers. I support the Department they worked for. Rogues. Am I wrong for this. And yes to the other poster about all the thousands of Iraqi's gassed and shot, that was genocide but the US and others were still buying Oil from them. The connection still lingers.

[Terry on 07.07.05 at 09:45]

Breaking News....

Osama Bin Laden opens new office in London. Things are going great. Employment up, pink slips down. Do I support the troops on the War of Terrorism.? Get real.

[H Reardon on 07.07.05 at 10:12]

Terry,

What exactly is your point? Roll over and let terrorists run your country? If somebody doesn't like something in the country, they can just blow something up, and Terry's regime would change it's position to whatever the thug wants.

Your implied suggestions lead to chaos and anarchy.

[Terry on 07.07.05 at 10:47]

Reardon, If you don't get it forget it . I must remind myself not to respond to any of your Posts. God help me, it's tempting but I won't. You sure can change your tune quickly, mabe you played in a band. God bless us all.

[H Reardon on 07.07.05 at 11:30]

Maybe I am just dense--can somebody explain what Terry is talking about. How have I changed my tune on anything?

[Two Cent Charlie on 07.07.05 at 13:09]

J Galt

"All our lives we are taught that killing is wrong, when a person enters the army, they have to be taught that killing is acceptable, they are taught to follow orders, not to reason why,"

Not exactly sure which army you are talking about. It could very well describe Osama Bin Laden's.

[J Galt on 07.07.05 at 14:44]

Two Cent,

yes, I suppose your right, support your troops its the same as a muslim saying well I don't think its right this whole holy war thing, but I support the suicide bombers.

[Terry on 07.07.05 at 14:59]

Galt, one coin, two sides.................

[H Reardon on 07.07.05 at 15:32]

Galt,

You are speaking in strong generalities. For one, US/UK ect. troops, in the vast majority of instances, put themselves in harms way to avoid killing and injuring innocents. In the case of the terrorists, the exact opposite is true--striking the weak as often as possible.

Saying "I'm not convinced on the WMD evidence and therefore don't support the war" but backing the troops and hoping they complete their mission as soon as possible is NOT akin to saying "I don't support these terrorist activites, but wow what a great demonstration in London today, hope that death toll can get to 100." That is the conclusion I draw from your comments.

[Terry on 07.07.05 at 15:54]

Osama, and others prior to him fired the first shot. One death since it started was enough for me. We must learn to deal with it in a forthright way, whatever it takes. God bless the Non-terrorists. London today! Hamilton tomorrow. Check those yatchs comming in, and the Mega cruise ships..................

[ours not to reason why on 07.07.05 at 16:06]

Isn't striking the weak as often as possible what the west is doing to third world countries? Planting governments, promoting corruption, consuming vast resources....ultimately steering their course from developing countries to under-developed countries...
So supporting troops is helping the indirect striking of these weak countries.

[H Reardon on 07.07.05 at 16:22]

Ours,

Don't you have a Greenpeace boat to catch? Don't forget your sweater made of hemp, it can get cold on those inflatables.

Actually, I believe the West are meeting in Scotland to see how much more money to take out of our pockets and throw at these countries.

[Two Cent Charlie on 07.07.05 at 16:25]

Ours not to reason why.

That's a stretch. Unless you're talking about the French of course. :)

[Terry on 07.07.05 at 16:38]

Look at the way we are talking to each other. Greenpeace? Oh, sorry, I forgot. They did send some of their shore leave personnel to fight the Iraqi War. I think I am going to go widen the Town Cut channel. Uhm, mabe not. Wingate might book me. Have to go change my Euro's into dollars, dam, losing again...

[njegos on 07.07.05 at 16:41]

Reardon:

“I understand your point, although take offense to your insulting tone.”

For someone who appears to support an illegal war you are awfully sensitive, Reardon.

“I believe you are being extremely nieve to suggest that the troops could be brought home now.”

Just as it was naïve for Spain to pull out its troops, right?

“Let me put it this way, we are in the situation we are in.
Leaving right now is not an option--we made a commitment.”

This is typical sunk cost thinking. And who is “we” Reardon? Bush and his draft dodging neo-con buddies got us into this stinking mess. Their illegal commitment is not binding upon any of us. Bush lied. Many people died.

“I don't want them thinking they will come back like their fathers did from Vietnam and be scorned and ridiculed.”

You would rather they came home in coffins?

[ours not to reason why on 07.07.05 at 16:50]

No, i missed the boat coz i had to go to regiment that day.
Don't forget that when we have 'thrown' money at these countries before there was interest involved (of course)...that they can't even afford to pay back. It just seems like the west has the third world mired in a subordinate position.

[terry on 07.07.05 at 16:55]

Njegos, Thanks for the support. Your comments make sense, which seem to be lacking sometimes. As stated before, and yes repetative, this is differant. To hell with Rule Britania and Oh say can you see, It's every man for himself and help the man for himself. It's all about civility, it's all about us, the inhabitants of this sacred little piece of something that some of us cherish. Cats rule...........................

[njegos on 07.07.05 at 16:56]

USA:

“Just because no WMD's were found does not necessarily mean that they were not there or may still be there. There is No Way that the entire country can be searched inch by inch or thoroughly enough to find such weapons.”

Hate to tell you this, USA, but the Anglo-American controlled Iraq Survey Group concluded very publicly that there were no WMDs in Iraq. Was it because they looked under every rock? Why after 2 years of occupation has no one provided the US/UK with maps of the “hidden” facilities/weapons? Think in terms of intelligence, USA, not mere geography.

“If the Governor of Bermuda for example started ruling Bda in the same fashion and started killing people and torturing people like Saddam did wouldn't you want someone to help You out? Your bet your ass you would and let's take a guess on who you would ask first. That's right - the USA.”

And remember who supported Saddam’s regime before the 1st Gulf War? That’s right - the USA, USA!!

“It's just a shame I think that we end up helping people that don't give a damn about us, but act like a friend when they need something.”

Please stop “helping” all of us, USA. We’ve had enough of your “help”, thank you.

[J Galt on 07.07.05 at 17:48]

"but backing the troops and hoping they complete their mission as soon as possible is NOT akin to saying but wow what a great demonstration in London today, hope that death toll can get to 100." "

Hank it sounds as if you have a personal connection with the war, and your letting your emotions get the best of you.

I think using my logic your example would read "I don't support these terrorist activites, but I hope they complete their mission as soon as possible and come home."

Support of the troops is support of the war, thats why the allies fire bombed Dresden and used atomic weapons on Japan, they needed to remove the civilian support for the war, the terrorist are doing the same thing on a smaller scale.

[Two Cent Charlie on 07.07.05 at 18:35]

"Please stop “helping” all of us, USA. We’ve had enough of your “help”, thank you."

Posted by: njegos | 07.07.05 16:56

Truth is the USA is made up of immigrants from most countries in the world therefore there will always be some sort of interest in helping others if possible. If I were a Bermudian living in the US I'd appreciate their help if my country needed it.

Also, regarding the WMD thing. 6000 people gased was not a figment of the world's imagination.

Regarding

"Support of the troops is support of the war, thats why the allies fire bombed Dresden and used atomic weapons on Japan, they needed to remove the civilian support for the war, the terrorist are doing the same thing on a smaller scale."

Posted by: J Galt | 07.07.05 17:48

As atrocious as both acts that you describe from WWII are, the goal was to prevent extended loss of life on both sides from a drawn out war. Did this support the troops? Yes and it also supported people out of uniform by bringing an end to the war.

The methods employed by terrorists are equally as atrocious but worse yet, they serve no purpose other than to make sure you and I and any other person who doesn't agree with their agenda will ever live in peace.

If you are interested in terrorism on a smaller scale just take a look at all the machetes confiscated by the police in today's RG. Now let me ask: Do you support the Bermuda Police in their efforts to get these thugs off our streets?

[njegos on 07.07.05 at 19:22]

2 Cent Charlie:

"Also, regarding the WMD thing. 6000 people gased was not a figment of the world's imagination."

Let me unjumble the time line for you:

Halabja happened in the late 80s. Bush and Blair did not bomb Saddam because of Halabja. B&Bs excuse was that Saddam possessed WMDs in 2003. As a matter of fact, Halabja was fine and dandy as far as the Yanks were concerned because at that time Saddam was fighting the Evil Khomeini and was therefore treated as an ally of the freedom-loving USA.

As for Dresden, it was terrorism pure and simple. There were no significant military or industrial targets there. But there were plenty of refugees from advancing Soviet armies. Does this mean you endorse terrorism in the fight against terrorism?

[njegos on 07.07.05 at 19:33]

"If I were a Bermudian living in the US I'd appreciate their help if my country needed it."

Or if the USA decided you needed it.......