Le Sabot Post-Moderne

I had a couple of thoughts when reading this...

The first relates to Frederic Jameson's idea that one of the functions of the media is to help us forget events and move on as quickly as possible. Do you think our saturation in media concerning the war makes us somewhat apathetic and thus requires reminders to 'support the troops'?

Secondly, has the nature of war changed? or, perhaps the public conception of war?

Finally, do you think supporting the troops is synonymous with supporting the war? Is it possible to do one and not the other?

Miss-

I'm in the middle of crazy mad coding stuff atm, so I can't give your Qs the answers they deserve. But I'll respond with a question. :)

"Finally, do you think supporting the troops is synonymous with supporting the war? Is it possible to do one and not the other?"

Try to put yourself in the troops' place. You're in miserable heat, people are shooting at you, and you believe in the mission you're doing. You hear that a majority of your countrymen are against what you're doing. Regardless of what nice sentiments that comes wrapped up in, do you feel supported?

I think the ultimate test of whether something supports the troops is whether or not it actually supports the troops -- does it strengthen and encourage them, or make them feel undercut and stabbed in the back?

Just popping back a sec to revise and extend. . .

I think it IS possible to oppose the war and support the troops. My previous answer was predicated on how things actually work out 99.999992% of the time.

Someone could pray for the troops, write the troops encouraging letters, donate to children's funds for GI and Tommy children, express support for the general, noble aims of the war while still believing it wasn't the right choice, and use one's position as a member of the anti-war side to reign in the excesses of that faction in a way that war advocates cannot. That would be true support with opposition. Sort of a loyal opposition. :)

How often does this actually happen? Not too often.

Your second response encapsulated much of what my reply would have stated.

It is really hard disco, I have had numerous friends in Baghdad for long periods (it seemed like forever) over the last couple of years. My aim was always to support, encourage, and love them through letters, care packages, prayer, and email, however supporting the war is not so clear cut. Supporting a war is not the same as supporting a friend. While I respect my friends career choices, I cannot support every war or cause they are involved in. It's not possible. In fact, often they do not agree with the reasons for their own involvement.

As such, perhaps the posters should encourage people to support the troops, absolutely, but make up their own minds about the legitimacy of the war. Further, pro-war and anti-war supporters could benefit from supporting eachother while debating, in a polite manner which values the opinions and insight of the other, the complexities of war and the situations surrounding resolution.

Oh, by the way, not all my Army and RAAF friends like the performances I am invoved in (too fringe, not their style, bad acting, directing, or other such reasons), however, they come and see the show, tell me what they hate about it, give me a big hug, and although we disagree I know they love me. Besides, they're usually right anyway: the performance is usually pretty bad.

" Besides, they're usually right anyway: the performance is usually pretty bad. "

Somehow I'm skeptical about this part. :)

"As such, perhaps the posters should encourage people to support the troops, absolutely, but make up their own minds about the legitimacy of the war."

What sort of retarded government would do that? If the government has led the country into war, why would it do anything except encourage full-on support? The people are free to vote them out of office, but in the meantime, they're leading the country. Why in the world would they not do everything to encourage support for what they believe to be a matter of national security?

The government support for the troops has to be truly absolute -- supporting the troops in what they are sacrificing to accomplish.

Btw, I really and truly admire the way you are able to maintain loyalty to the troops even in dissent. Realistically though, you seem to be in a pretty tiny minority. The anti-war movement en masse says the right things about supporting them, then gloms on to every allegaion of wrong-doing by the troops with an almost pornographic lust.

"What sort of retarded government would do that? If the government has led the country into war, why would it do anything except encourage full-on support?"

I would reply...however I'm laughing too hysterically at my own ridiculous idealism and your blatant identification of such to be able to compose an intelligent response.

It's still mostly obvious. I know all kinds of people (including me) that have bunches of problems with the war in Iraq. And they all support the troops (including me). I respect every soldier putting his or her life on the line. They may or may not have different views than I do, but they've got the courage to back up their convictions with their lives and with hard service. I utterly respect that.

Probably there are some soldiers who just made a set of choices and ended up over there and aren't sure whether they really should be there or not. I respect them, too, because they're still going through danger and anxiety and doing really tough work.

I think most people really support the troops regardless of whether they think this war is right or wrong or a big muddle.