I do not support our troops by Louis
In Canada and the United States, we are asked to “support our troops”. My response is the opposite: I do not support our troops.
This is a dangerous position to take in North American society, where unqualified “support” is demanded of us from bumper stickers on ambulances and fire trucks, and where even a local politician not mouthing this mantra on cue may as well pack up and move out of the country. It isn’t difficult to imagine that many people would be satisfied by adding the phrase “or get out” to this slogan. A popular witticism suggests, “If you don’t stand behind our troops, feel free to stand in front of them.”
The United States has a strong military tradition, and mass unqualified support for it is part of its culture. This is a latent phenomenon in Canada. With the election of a Conservative government in this country, the role of the Canadian military has taken on a new perspective. For example, there has been a shift from a traditional role of peacekeeping, to active, prolonged military engagement in Afghanistan.1 The government has created the issue of “Canadian arctic sovereignty”, dubiously spending more than four billion dollars of the military budget for it. And, most telling, Prime Minister Stephen Harper paternalistically chided the Canadian public in March 2006, when the debate about Afghanistan began in earnest. Borrowing the phrase “cut and run” from hawkish American discourse intended to make opponents of the Iraq war appear ignoble and cowardly, Harper neatly described the Canadian Conservative world view.
Canadians don’t cut and run at the first sign of trouble. That’s the nature of this country, and when we send troops into the field, I expect Canadians to support those troops.
In Canada, as much as in the United States, the unqualified demand to “support our troops” is issued from all quarters, by the most nondescript soccer mom from the rear of her SUV, and by the most powerful person in the country.
When Mr. Harper says that he expects Canadians to support the troops, he is effectively demanding that all discourse on the subject of troop deployment come to an end. His demand is tantamount to saying, “It doesn’t matter where we send our troops or for what purpose, you are expected to support them.” This line of thought pushes back discussion of foreign policy issues in the public arena, and favours martial sentimentality over discourse. The Prime Minister is actively discouraging dialogue.
The most common definition for regular Canadians sporting bumper stickers with this phrase seems to go something like this: “Support our troops, because they are in harm’s way while performing a dangerous job at great personal risk.” If this is accurate, then what they are really saying is that there is a need for society to collectively support troops, because there are elements that actively want the troops to be in harm’s way. But this is an absurd proposition. While there may be psychotic individuals who would like troops to be harmed, this is hardly a problem that needs to be confronted by common citizens. Clearly something else is implied by the reverse of “support our troops”.
“Support our troops”, coming from ordinary citizens in 2008, holds exactly the same message that Mr. Harper’s comment held in 2006. “Support our troops” means, “It is enough for ordinary citizens to be sentimental about troops.” There is no further form of support, other than sentimental support including signed cards, flags, and home-made muffins, that ordinary citizens can offer troops. From this perspective, support for troops must be unqualified. There is an implicit wishing away of all questions regarding why troops are deployed in the places they find themselves.
I am not informed enough about the issues in Afghanistan to understand whether or not I should be supporting the foreign policy decisions that sent troops there. I can make no judgement as to whether or not the troops are “protecting and guaranteeing Canadian freedom,” which seems to be the popular notion (although I do know that Canada will be free for a very long time, should its troops withdraw from military action in Afghanistan tomorrow). At best, I am by necessity neutral on the foreign policy issues involved. I suspect many Canadians are in my position.
I am not neutral about supporting troops. I cannot support troops without qualification, and I certainly cannot subscribe to a popular chant that seeks to put all Canadians under the umbrella of what is tantamount to a political slogan that holds an underlying connotation of willful ignorance.
The command to “support our troops” is an appeal to emotion lacking any evidential value. Not merely a logical fallacy, since the statement as commonly used does not in itself propose any kind of argument, “support our troops” is an empty juxtaposition of sentimentality with public policy. Everyone should be suspicious of such appeals.
- The Canadian military was initially deployed in Afghanistan by the Liberal government in 2002, marking its first combat role since the Korean War. The Conservative government has since sought several extensions for troop deployment there despite political opposition, and has increased military spending to $19,000,000,000.00 for 2009. [↩]
Saw your post on the Dinesh article about PZ and had to check out your blog.
I enjoyed this post. Definitely not something I’ve given much thought about (saying “support the troops” is often the easy way out of a difficult discussion with people who either strongly support or oppose the war!) but your points are good ones!
Bookmarked the blog, will come by again.
Well thought out article. I do “support our troops” but hate war. If we pull our troops out of Afghanistan, I believe that Canadian freedom will not be significantly impacted. Afghan freedom would though and Canadians are helping to create peace there. The question is whether Canada has the right to be part of the “World Police”.
I found your article by searching for comments on the bumper sticker “If you don’t stand behind our troops, feel free to stand in front of them.” When I saw this on a large sedan in the Walmart parking lot last night, I failed to understand how this would persuade someone to change their stance on war except possibly because of fear. This bumper sticker is a multiple logical fallacy. It is all at once a False Dichotomy, a Non Sequitur and an Equivocation.
What if I had a bumper sticker that said “Live for Christ or go to hell”? Would that make you want to become a Christian? Or does “Stand up against bullying or sit down and shut up” make you feel warm and fuzzy towards the issue of bullying?
An excellent article. I have struggled wth my discomfort over this slogan for some time, particularly after that chain email circulated about the “red shirt” campaign, as you’re left with the feeling that you’re being bullied into a “yer either with us, or aginst us” situation. Thanks for parsing the problem so eloquently.
I believe that the war in Afghanistan is wrong, I would never place a Support Our Troops bumper sticker either, and if you ever see me wearing red on Friday, it’s either a coincidence or an entirely different political statement (Hint: I don’t refer to the Liberal Party of Canada.). That said, I believe that so long as they are there, they be fed the best food that is practically possible to give them and that they be given serviceable arms and robust body armour. As for why I feel it’s wrong, all you have to do is look at the history of the various groups that form the Northern Alliance, and you won’t see people who are committed to the liberation of Afghanistan’s oppressed women or to building a free, just, and egalitarian Afghanistan…Those people fell victim to the American-armed and funded Mujahideen and their Maoist allies, as China and the West sold the people of Afghanistan a shit sandwich all for the sake of bringing down the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union’s intentions for Afghanistan were obviously not selfless (a trademark of just about everything it did following Vladimir Lenin’s dead), but their local allies were genuinely committed to breaking the back of the feudal warlords and Islamist militias who were holding the country back….Instead, you’ll see various Islamist factions with a history of brutality, rape, and pillage…Sort of like the Taliban, trained in Pakistani madrassas opened by a WASHINGTON-BACKED military dictatorship, only less likely to result in a stable Afghanistan.
I would not want to send our troops! But they’re there, and we need to support them! Every province and every town has lost someone, we need to support them. Unfortunatly some kids don’t do good in school and tgis is the only job they can get, sign up for the military and make crappy money! Atleast they’re working, but shit , at what cost!
Support the troops: Bring them home!
***
Our army (Ireland) is mainly deployed in UN-supported peacekeeping missions in the Lebanon and similar areas.
TRiG.
“Support the troops”, a meaningless slogan designed to stifle dissent, to force everyone to get in line and approve the war, whether or not they do.
http://tinyurl.com/conformistdrivel
It is only because of people like “our troops” that you actually have the freedom to openly disagree with anything you want. Believe it or not there are still places where you cannot. So I guess you do “support or troops” by using the freedoms that they have provided you with, which is why so many of them have died since before you were born, and they will continue to do that just for Canadians like you.
I suggest that you do a little research, or perhaps even talk to one of the soldiers, or peace officers who have been over there and ask them what they are actually doing there. They are doing more for the people there then just getting themselves blown up. Things like building schools, making drinkable water where there has been none, and numerous other things to make the quality of life better for the people there. Perhaps when you talk to one of the soldiers or peace officers you will learn that they actually believe in what they are doing…. helping the people. There is more to the Canadian Forces then being a war machine, which it is not by any means. Let me provide you with a little information….. there are more spectators at a CFL football game then there are troops in the Canadian Forces. They are also the people that arrive and help out everywhere in the world when problems arise…. you know like ice storms, flooding, earthquakes, tornados and other natural disasters.
Perhaps the “Support our Troops” logo doesn’t just mean while they are at war. Perhaps it means when they doing their job, a job that not everyone can do, or doesn’t want to. Remember these people volunteer to do this for you.
So yes I do support our troops, in everything they do.
Canadian troops are not on the front line between civil freedom in Canada and utter chaos. Anyone that thinks so is a hopeless and dangerous romantic.
Canadian troops are not volunteers. They are paid government employees.
Despite the efforts of the government to convince you otherwise, Canadians do not routinely enter the armed services through an act of selfless altruism.