Regardless of whether you support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, you should be able to support the idea of showing appreciation for our troops. I do this in very small ways: when I see troops in uniform (almost always returning from Iraq or Afghanistan), I thank them for their service in protecting me and my family.
So, with Memorial Day coming up on Monday, would you be willing to share appropriate ways to show appreciation? Perhaps it is something so small as writing a letter to a friend who is serving overseas, showing him or her you care. This article from the CSM talks about some ways communities are showing they are concerned about the troops. Check it out.
Regardless of whether you support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, you should be able to support the idea of showing appreciation for our troops.
I don’t get it. If I didn’t support the war, why would I appreciate someone doing something I don’t believe in? The only consistent opinion for someone who is against the war to have about the troops would be, at best, that they are misguided.
Roy,
Because they are not policymakers; rather, the troops are doing their (from what I understand) sometimes-tedious, sometimes-exciting, but always dangerous job. I would assume that the vast majority are doing their job well, too–those I know in the military are proud to be serving their country.
Some of the troops clearly support the war; others clearly do not. But they serve, nonetheless. If you oppose the war, you oppose the decisions of those who sent the troops to Iraq, not the troops who were sent. There is no intellectual dishonest, and it doesn’t take intellectual acrobatics, to arrive at a position of supporting the very-human and generally very young people who have been sent to do a job while opposing the job they’re doing.
Although I’m ambivalent at best about the war, I heartily second Geoff’s sentiment, and will have to remember this weekend to send a note to my friends in the Armed Forces (and my grandpa, a veteran of a much less unpopular war).
Roy, if you will read the article I linked, you will see that many people have come to realize that they made a big mistake in Vietnam in treating disrespectfully people who were serving their country. So, you can oppose the war in Iraq, for example, and realize that many people serving there are simply following orders. If you like, think of it this way: the poor, oppressed, misguided troops are being hornswaggoled by big bad President Bush and the evil generals who lead them, but in the end they are really not responsible for the bad policy decisions of their malificent leaders, they are simply doing their jobs. Can you spare a bit of charity for these poor misguided souls?
For a kid raised in Southern Utah, I am not particularly patriotic.
I don’t really prefer American interests over say … Japanese or German interests (except in a purely pragmatic sense that US interests are usually very important for global well-being). I self-identify primarily as Mormon, and then as resident of my local geography. “American” is somewhere down the list. I don’t do bumper stickers and I never incorporate patriotic themes into clothing items.
And I absolutely hate the song “I’m Proud to be an American.”
Some people consider “national pride” to be the “good kind of pride.”
I say there is no such thing. All pride is enmity before God. Glorying in the nation distracts from the one true object of glory.
I also blame national pride for World Wars I and II.
Having said all that however …
I’m a big fan of tradition. And I’m a firm believer in respect for community and the old ways.
I hope I will always hang a flag from my front porch on July 4th and Memorial Day.
And I hope I will always take the time to realize the sacrifices made by soldiers.
I also believe in attending the Memorial Day Parade. Those crowds have grown smaller and smaller as of late. It’s a loss of community that I think is a real shame. Whether you agree with the wars or not, the veterans need to be acknowleged and the message they stand for taken seriously.
Seth R, your recent posts remind me a lot of Tom Friedman of the NY Times. He always finds ways to make both sides happy — and you do that as well. This is mostly a compliment — Tom Friedman is a great columnist, and your posts are always interesting as well.
We always take a piece of posterboard to the parade in our town. My son just wrote “THANKS!” on it, and holds it up when a float with vets goes past.
It is very cool to see men from WWII and Korea wearing their uniforms, even though they usually weigh lots more than they did 50 years ago. They always smile and give my son a snappy salute when they see the sign.
Fraid I haven’t read the NY Times in a long time. Not since I got the cheap subscription at BYU (which wasted waay too much of my study time). But I guess I’ll take it as a compliment anyway.
If you oppose the war, you oppose the decisions of those who sent the troops to Iraq, not the troops who were sent.
And if it weren’t for the willingness of the troops to serve, no questions asked, there would be no way for “the Decider” to start wars that are a bad idea from the get-go. Loyalty to the commander-in-chief is a good thing if it promotes unity in a valid conflict, but as I see it, there’s way too much willingness to bow to the wishes of “the Decider” without getting any answers to hard questions that need to be asked before any troops are sent instead of some three years later.
I salute the troops for their willingness to serve, but I largely just feel sorry for them for having chosen to serve at precisely the wrong moment. If every soldier out there was a Captain Moroni, things would be different.
Seth R, You say “All pride is enmity before God” – that seems to be slightly more decisive thatn the positition President Benson defended, namely that as spoken of in the scriptures pride is always a bad thing.
So do you mean to say that the term *pride* has no positive senses, or that they are all tied to the same evil root? Anyone else?
Yeah. There is no such thing as “good pride.” Pres. Benson defined pride as enmity before God in the same talk you reference. I also think they are all tied to the same evil human impulse.
The only really appropriate human impulse in such situations is humility and gratitude.
This all depends on what you mean by supporting them–how you define the term itself. I cannot say to anyone currently serving in Iraq “thanks for protecting me,” because I don’t believe that their presence in Iraq is protecting me. So it would be dishonest to support them by saying thank you.
The best way I know how to “support” those serving is to say “please do everything you can to stop the spread of violence within your limited scope of influence, don’t let the culture of the military corrupt your sense of right and wrong, and I sincerely hope you come home safely.”
Just because someone feels they are doing the right thing doesn’t obligate me to thank them if I feel they aren’t.
Seth R, I don’t think President Benson took quite as strong a position as you do, nor do I think all senses of the term ‘pride’ correspond to enmity. Indeed pride in its best sense is the opposite of enmity – taking joy in the success of others, for example.
If a father is proud of the accomplishment of his son, does that mean he necessarily has enmity towards others? I don’t think so.
I don’t even believe that Ammon struck a perfect balance.
I don’t support our troops except for encouraging policy members to bring them home. I hate to see things like Haditha (the new Mai Lai of Iraq) and how we tend to downplay cold-blooded murder by calling it an, “abuse,” or something lighter than what it is. I support the troops by desiring them to come home and protect us rather than being in Iraq committing murder.
But calling that attitude “support” seems like a misnomer. Not that I disagree with you — but my opinion of the war doesn’t really matter. Even when I was provisionally supportive of the war, I thought it was odd that its opponents were expected to “support the troops” in some sense.
#2 “But they serve, nonetheless” – define serve.
If one gets paid for doing something is one “serving”? Also I find it extremely difficult to equate the violattion of “thou shalt not kill” with service.
How many of your brothers and sisters have they killed in your name?
Agreed Roy. I guess you could say I don’t support the troops.
I’m not sure this matters to you Curtis. But it’s pretty well documented that US soldiers in World War II gunned down German prisoners and, on occasion, shot the local population.
While troops were moving through Germany, whenever your average US infantry drew even a smattering of small arms fire from a German village, they’d pull out, radio in artillery coordinates, and have the town leveled – civilians right along with the dumb Hitler youth who fired the shots in the first place.
War is just like this. This is just a reality of soldiering. It’s even more vicious when it’s fought on your own home soil.
But to address your main point. Does a powerful nation with resources and influence have a duty to intervene on behalf of humanity when those without resources or influence are suffering?
Can a war based on economic motivations still be right? We heard the slogan during both Gulf Wars “no blood for oil.” It’s a nice sentiment.
Here’s a silly hypothetical though:
Canada launches airstrikes on several suburban malls in the United States in St. Paul, Albany, Seattle, and … Great Falls. The attacks occur at night causing maybe 15 deaths and 75 wounded and about 10 million in property damage.
Now imagine Sadaam had succeeded in not only annexing Kuwait, but in annexing Saudi Arabia’s northern oil fields (which he was planning on doing, by the way). No US intervention whatsoever.
Due to damage to the oil fields themselves, ensuing price manipulations, ethnic violence in the ensuing regional chaos, and shaken investor confidence, US business and government interests take a net hit of about 2 billion dollars. Not to mention 100s of dead Arabs, catastrophic social upheavals in Saudi Arabia and increased unrest throughout the Middle East. Not to mention any diplomatic fallout (which probably would also cost us).
All strictly hypothetical of course (and even a little silly). But which is worse for the US? Which one is going to affect you and me more? Which one is going to translate into more ruined American lives?
Like it or not, in our world, money is blood. And oil is money. Those world economic interests directly translate into the blood of millions of real people.
For this reason, I have absolutely no problem in starting a war over oil – when the real human need is absolutely clear to me. But I do have a problem with picking fights that aren’t clearly necessary and then conducting them so incompetently that failure is almost assured.
But regardless, our veterans represent some powerful ideals in our society. They deserve to be taken seriously, even if you don’t believe in the cause they fought for.
Seth,
By your standards then it would be perfectly allright for Mexico and other victims of our economic policy to make war on the USA.
Cuba would certainly be excused from attacking us and probably Venezuela as well for our support of the crippling oil industry strikes there. Chile could have bombed us for our economic strangle-hold in the 70’s under Allende.
Most of all, Iraq would be justified in decimating us for the economic sanctions placed during the 90’s which ended up in the deaths of 1,000,000 people.
Only being fair-minded here of course.
Curtis, I’m not the one who premised that national interest is the only interest that matters. You did that yourself.
I was simply presenting you a hypothetical on your own terms.
I actually don’t care much about any one nation’s interests per se. I’m primarily concerned with the overall good of humanity. At present, that greater good often ends up interconnected with US national interests.
I don’t agree with you that direct, clear-cut threats to the homeland are the only reason to get involved with the world.
Besides, your question assumes that the Mexicans have the means to effectively attack the US in a way that wouldn’t end up damaging Mexico far more than the US. If they were strong enough to do anything about it, I think they would have already taken corrective action a long time ago.
Seth,
You’d have to show me where I said our national interests are the only interests that matter. I think you’re misrepresenting me there.
I’d have to disagree with you when you say the greater good ends up being in sync with US interests. US interests are usually not what the public would describe as their interest, but what the corrupt powers that be in the US deem to be important for keeping the rich rich and the powerful powerful.
To say US interests are good for the world would be like saying that Gadiantons interests were good for the world in the book of Mormon.
What I said was,
“greater good often ends up interconnected with US national interests”
which isn’t saying that US interests are humanity’s interests.
Your comment about self-defense being the only justifiable reason for war assumes national self-interest as preeminent. That’s what I responded to.
Seth,
So the greater good is not connected to humanity? What is so great about that good then? You aren’t really making yourself clear here. Also, national interests are usually not referred to as being strictly confined to our self defense.
What greater good are you speaking of?
P.S. I don’t see where I said self-defense is the only justifiable reason for war. Again you misrepresent me.
I think we’re talking past each other. I’m not even sure whether there’s really a disagreement.
Besides, I feel like I’m threadjacking.
Just leave me confused then. We’ll pick it up some other time eh?
I’m glad there are people willing to fight to defend the country I live in. I’m sad that they are used so often for reasons that really have nothing to do with the defense of the country I live in.