Subjective Reality, or, The Truth Hurts

What does it mean to "support the troops"? Before you answer, consider this: have you ever asked anyone how they define it? I believe that just about everyone has a different definition of what it means to "support the troops." It is a patriotic catchphrase that inspires ideas that are never discussed. People simply state the phrase and assume that everyone else is on the same page.

During the first gulf war in the '90's, bumper stickers proclaiming "I oppose the war but I support our troops" began proliferating (yes, for those who have forgotten, that was also a very unpopular war). I immediately saw a contradiction in this. How can one oppose a war but support those who conduct the war? Doesn't it follow, logically, that one would oppose the Nazi's invasion and occupation of countries in Europe, yet still support the German soldiers who were serving their country? Or oppose the war waged by Japan but still support their troops who served their country?

Soon the phrase was shortened to "support the troops" because, I suppose, it was a given that most people didn't support the war but were afraid of being called unpatriotic if they didn't support the troops. Yet there was still no consensus on what it actually meant. Did it mean that they supported them financially? Those of us who pay taxes had to do so whether we wanted to or not (and let's not forget that it is the Bush administration who claims to support the troops one minute and then takes away veterans' benefits the next). Did it mean that they supported them emotionally; cheering them on to victory because they do their nation's bidding and carry out their orders? Shades of the Nuremburg Trial defense "Just Following Orders".

In the end, the only definition that seemed to stick was the notion that Vietnam veterans had not treated well enough upon their return home, and the resulting problems made people decide that any soldiers who fought in a war were always to be considered heroic good guys. No matter what they might have done during their tour of duty; it was okay, none of it was their fault, they were sent by politicians and had to kill people because they were told to do so. Ultimately, "support the troops" meant "I hold the troops blameless and free from responsibility because they were only following orders. They'll do anything they're told, no matter what, to anyone for any reason we want, and we love them for it."

Well, I think that is an ignorant, destructive, and just plain stupid way to think. Sorry, to all those who have loved ones in the military.

Here's what I believe: Soldiers are responsible for war, not the other way around.

Consider this: if a charismatic friend or loved one, whom you respected and admired, told you to go kill your neighbor and claim all their property on their behalf (and promised to share it with you), would you do it? No? What if they managed to persuade you with absolute conviction that you were absolutely correct to take over your neighbor's property because neighbor was evil, he deserved it, he was scheming against you, already causing no end of problems and certainly responsible for the bad things that have been happening lately at your house? Not only that, but he could "prove" that the neighbor was already planning to light fires all over your property until you consent to do whatever it is they want. Would you carry out your orders then? Don't say you'd want to see the proof - would you unquestioningly carry out your orders to kill your neighbor and take his property simply on the strength of being ordered to do so?

Imagine what would have happened if, when Hitler or Hirohito ordered people to invade and conquer other countries, those people simply refused. Imagine what would have happened if the people simply refused to destroy another country simply because they were told to do so. Imagine what would have happened if, when Saddam Hussein ordered his troops to invade Kuwait, they refused. No invasion, no war, just a despot throwing a tantrum in the palace, alone.

The scenarios go on and on. Throughout history, there have been raving lunatics on every corner, spewing madness and hate-speech. Tell me who is crazier: the lunatic on the corner or the idiot who does what the lunatic tells him? Which one would you rather be? Or, would you rather walk on by the lunatic and ignore him?

The way to completely end war forever is outrageously simple. The way to completely end war forever is for people to simply decide to stop fighting wars.

Now, I realize that you're saying "That's the stupidest, most unrealistic pie-in-the-sky peacenik fantasy crap I've ever heard." But the fact is, my statement is absolutely true. I have proven it through personal experience. I have been told to do stupid destructive things; I refused to do them; and thus the stupid destructive things did not happen. Theory tested, applied in practice, and proven correct. If I can do it, and others too, why can't everyone? It's certainly easy to do. They say war is hell. It stands to reason that it would be easier not to fight one.

By the way, I understand that by having this opinion I am among the tiniest minority on the planet. So be it. I'm not divorced from reality. If our troops are defending our nation from foreign invaders, then I support the troops. If our troops are the foreign invaders, then I most certainly do not.