Support Our Troops: Cynical Misuse of the Troops for Partisan Political Purposes

_{Image © Austin Cline
Original Poster: Library of Congress
Click for full-sized Image}

The phrase "support our troops" has to be one of the most misused catch phrases in the English language. It is consistently employed by religious and political conservatives who want to imply that their pursuit of wars of aggression are a sign that they support America's military service members while efforts to bring troops home are a sign that someone doesn't really support them. A more sober and fair look at reality indicates that just the opposite is true, however.

Where conservatives tend to err is in treating support for the troops’ mission as the only, or even the primary, way in which one can succeed or fail to support the troops themselves. If failing to support the troops can involve doing things which causes them unnecessary harm and puts them in unnecessary danger, then some of the many ways in which conservatives have failed include: providing adequate body and vehicle armor, providing adequate logistical and military support, providing adequate pay as well as medical and psychological care, etc. This doesn't even touch on the question of sending the troops into harm's way on the basis of poor intelligence and dishonest claims in the first place.

Lest anyone raise the concern that I’m being too vague, I recommend looking at a post written by Hunter at Daily Kos before the recent midterm elections. In it, he has chart rating all of the Senate Democrats and Republicans over the past five years on the basis of what they have done on behalf of the troops: “Legislative proposals included veterans' benefits, healthcare, and medical research dedicated towards injured soldiers (head injuries, etc.).” This doesn’t address questions about sending troops into harm’s way in the first place, just how well legislators have supported troops in general. The research was performed by Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, so we can reasonably assume that they know what troops and veterans need most.

The results are nothing short of amazing: every single Democrat scored better than every single Republican. Even the worst Democrat scored higher than the best Republican - and the best Republican was Lincoln Chafee, who has dropped hints that he may switch political parties in the future. The next two were Olympia Snowe and Arlen Specter, also generally more liberal than most of their colleagues. Those were the only three Repulicans to score as high as a C. To be fair, not even the best Democrat gets more than an A-, but that’s not exactly a harsh criticism. I’m sure that the IAVA would prefer to see A and A+ more often, but it would probably be unreasonable to expect many, if any, legislators to vote their way every single time.

Cynical, dishonest manipulation of people's desire to support the health and safety of military service members by twisting it into support of the troops' mission, regardless of what it is, strikes me as a sign of desperation. When it’s combined with an actual refusal to support the health and safety of military service members in the first place, it becomes nothing less than complete moral bankruptcy. People who have credible, reasonable arguments on behalf of a military mission don't need to engage in such manipulation. People capable of rational, honest thinking won't stumble into such manipulation accidentally, though, and people capable of misusing troops in a failed foreign war certainly won't be above misusing them in a failed argument on behalf of that war.

When conservatives use the phrase "support our troops," they usually seem to mean "support the mission we sent those troops out to perform." Now, to be fair there is some basis for treating the two as linked even if they aren't the same. Undermining the ability of the troops to perform their mission can in some ways make their situation more difficult and lead to more problems for them to deal with. Thus some forms of opposition to the troops' mission can be perceived as a failure to support the troops themselves. The fact that even some of the troops can oppose the mission they were sent on, however, reveals quite clearly that it's possible for the two to be separated.

It is illegitimate to demand that once troops have been sent on a mission, there be no criticism of the mission itself. To do so either assumes that once troops have been sent on a mission then that decision becomes infallible and thus immune from criticism, which is obviously false, or it assumes that even accurate criticism is inadmissible once a decision has been made, which is obviously dangerous. One way or another, room must be made for both criticism and reversal of a decision to send troops on a dangerous mission.

This image is based on a World War I poster entitled "Facing the Future" and announcing that "Uncle Sam offers training to every man disabled in the service."