I do not support our troops
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. [↩]
Recent Comments