Thank You Veterans
Part 1: For all of you out there who have kept your oaths, and fought for our country, I thank you. Also, for all the fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, children and loved ones who have experienced both joy and pain alongside our soldiers, I thank you as well.
For anyone who wants to watch me attempt to pick apart some short-sided, neoconservative, pseudo-patriotic ramblings and justify the fact that I can support our troops while not supporting our policies, go to Part 2.
Part 2: I once read, from what seemed to be a very disgruntled blogger, that you should never say, “I support our troops, but not the war.” I read on to see if he would elaborate, but what followed was mostly angry rambling and typical neocon rubbish - more offensive defensiveness than coherent content. For months I would occasionally dwell on his sentiment trying to figure out exactly what he meant and if it bore any merit. Maybe I’m missing something, but I think he was talkin’ out the other end.
I do support our troops.
I do not support most of our foreign policy or expansionist warmongering.
Is there something wrong or illogical about that? I don’t see it.
I think our problem probably resides, as many do, with definitions. Particularly, I think we might differ on what we mean by “support.” Furthermore, we certainly appear to disagree on what constitutes a just war, the role of America in the world at large and foreign policy in general.
First, let’s consider what it means to support someone or something. In much the same way that “tolerance” has developed a new meaning over the last few decades, “support” is an easy word to equivocate. To tolerate something does not mean to support it, to agree with it, to endorse it or any other such thing. It simply means to, basically, put up with it, and I would add, to not violently or illegally oppose it (remember however, that toleration is not a necessity or a virtue that must be lived out. There may be times when something simply cannot be tolerated. I am sure you can think of a number of examples if you put your mind to it).
Today, by and large, disagreement is considered a form of intolerance. As a Christian, I get this all the time. The fact that I believe homosexuality is a sin or that abortion is murder causes many to label me as intolerant. Mind you, I don’t go around bashing gays or blowing up clinics, but the very fact that I have a contrary opinion is considered an act of intolerance by many people. It has not always been this way. Our increasing political correctness and our decreasing Christian worldview have both played a major role in redefining many terms including what it means to be intolerant.
Of course, the incredible amount of hate generated against Christians and others of various faiths (excluding evolutionary naturalism of course) apparently doesn’t count as intolerance. I think I understand why though, as well as where the misunderstandings and misrepresentations are to be found in this dilemma, but that is for another day. For now, suffice it to say that I do not for one moment buy into this ridiculous and arbitrary understanding of tolerance.
But what about supporting our troops?
A similar, but perhaps more subtle, equivocation occurs with our use of “support” in this situation. I am fully capable of supporting our troops - the men and women who follow orders - while not supporting those who give the orders. One might try to argue that since some, many or even all of our troops themselves believe in and agree with Washington, that one cannot truly support them while disagreeing with them. This is just a bunch of hogwash. Both myself and the blogger would probably provide similar definitions of the term “support” but how those would play out would betray their differences.
If Clinton or a Bush or Obama were to suit up and head “over there” as George M. Cohan has sung, then supporting neither our “troops” nor our policy would be easy. That is, if the people who made the policies were the actual people who attempted to carry them out, it would make sense to say that you couldn’t support one and not the other. But that is not the case here. What we have are higher-ups establishing policies while grunts are forced to follow orders. While many of those grunts may wholeheartedly believe in their mission and in the ones giving it to them, that does not make the policies right, just, constitutional or even legal.
Furthermore, one can easily conceive of a soldier who, having been of one political persuasion at age 18 has come to understand things differently at age 21. This soldier is still required to fulfill his duty - barring extreme measures - despite what he may now believe to be the right thing to do. I mean, come on, we allow that our teenagers are mature enough to not only fight for our country but to fully understand their decision to do so, but we won’t let them have a beer until they are 21. Regardless of what some may believe, there are surely soldiers out there who are having second thoughts.
Ultimately, however, it comes down to the fact that the troops and the policies are two different animals. Because this is the case, I can happily (and logically) support one but not the other. Doing so may not seem genuine from the point of view of a particular soldier who will not only honor his pledge (which I can support) but sincerely believes in his mission and his President. But again, such a soldier is still not one and the same with a particular policy.
To confusingly make it a little more simple, think of it this way. If an authority figure asked, encouraged or even pleaded with a subject to do a certain questionable act and the subject agreed, then it would make sense to not support the subject because it was his decision to accept his mission. If, however, the authority figure demanded, required and forced the subject to do a certain questionable act, and the subject had little or no real choice in the matter, it would be illogical to conclude that one therefore must withdraw their love and support from the subject. In such a case, the command and the subject are two different entities and therefore require two different considerations. And that is the important thing: realizing that this situation requires two different considerations. At this point you may logically conclude however you like, but you cannot insist that only one consideration (combining both the authority and the subject) is required. Make sense?
Finally, it is worth noting that “our troops” is a general and non-specific term in that it actually only designates a group of people and in doing so only characterizes them by one defining term: that they are enlisted soldiers. So, when I say that I support our troops, I am saying that I support the group of young men and women who, under whatever circumstances and understandings, chose to enlist in the armed forces and who are willing to obey orders in an effort to protect our nation. I am not saying I support each and every person in the military necessarily. Just as I do not support many of the choices made by those in our administration, I may not support many of the personal choices made by Private so-and-so or Corporal what’s-his-name.
Conclusion: So, I support our troops, I don’t support most of our foreign policies, and I tolerate our government. : )
