Yellow Ribbons - Support Our Troops Being Removed

The Coffee Shop
1

So, these yellow ribbons popped up on public vehicles this year. They say, “We support our troops”. Some believe that this means: “We support our military policy in Afganistan”, which is possible as no clear policy statement was issued at the same time as the ribbons were placed. Others think it means: “We support our working class in the most dangerous occupation in the world”, while others may think it means: “Freedom Fries Forever!”.

Some people do not believe that the war in Afganistan is justified, although I have not met anyone who thought the Talibhan was a group of benevolent rulers. No debate on that issue from me.

IMHO, the “We support our troops” ribbons/decals were a nice thing to do to show support for people who work for the military and recognizes the links between the police, fire services and paramedics. However, they also condone a highly debateable public policy. The troops are not in Afganistan defending our freedom, they are there fighting a civil war (while Canada is in Iraq in a minor way, we are mostly in Afganistan, and I wish this debate to focus mainly on the Afgan mission and not Iraq). Removing these decals should not be deemed as against the soldiers, but many will probably feel that way. I am sure that there are many here on this site that have the same decals on their cars.

My questions to you:

Is there a way to publicly recognize the sacrifices of individuals, even if you don’t agree with the policy of war?

Does the idea of “supporting our troops” emotionally blind us from the fact that the policy of war may be flawed?

When we do not support the policy of war, are we leaving our soldiers behind?

From Cbc.ca: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2007/06/19/decal-ribbon-toronto.html

Yellow ribbon decals placed last year on the sides of Toronto fire trucks and ambulances in support of Canadian troops are slated for removal this fall, but one city councillor plans to fight the decision.
“It’s disgusting that we would even consider having them removed. It makes me sick to think we’re actually asking them to remove it,” Coun. Frances Nunziata said Tuesday.
Nunziata plans to propose a motion Wednesday to keep the decals on the vehicles, arguing they show support for all troops and veterans. “They’ve made a lot of sacrifices for us and this little token of showing support.”
However, some members of the public have complained, saying the decals show support only for the Afghanistan mission.
Mayor David Miller said the yellow ribbon decals were only meant to remain on the vehicles for a one-year period and council shouldn’t change that.
Removal of the decals, which will begin in September as the vehicles come in for maintenance, is expected to take several months.

2

Is there a way to publicly recognize the sacrifices of individuals, even if you don’t agree with the policy of war?

I think it’s best to avoid armsleve-patriotism in all forms. Let your actions represent your opinions, not your bumper sticker.

3

Is there a way to publicly recognize the sacrifices of individuals, even if you don’t agree with the policy of war?

No. The war and the soldiers are they same. You glorify one you glorify the other.

Does the idea of “supporting our troops” emotionally blind us from the fact that the policy of war may be flawed?

Yes. Again you can’t really say you support the troops and let them fail.

When we do not support the policy of war, are we leaving our soldiers behind?

Yes. The policy is what guides the soldires. You undermine the policy you undermine those who put that policy into effect.

I am having huge problems with this right now. As I grow more infavor of us pulling out I have to come to terms with the facts that I am starting to support the idea of our troops coming home defeated and Iraq exploding in a horrific way we have not seen yet.

4

I think what you are suggesting is most difficult. All of the troops are volunteers. Many either signed up after the war or have re-upped since it began. My nephew is among those signed up and spent three tours in Iraq because he agreed with the mission. He will be returning for his fourth.

Every day I pray for his safe return because I love him. When we speak or e-mail, I always wish him well and say I am looking forward to his safe return.

I think you can agree with the mission and wish for victory (however that may be defined) and still want the war to be over sooner rather than later. I think you can want our troops to come home and still support the war. What I have a difficult time with is saying that you want the troops home because you disagree with why they are fighting and, by necessity, with what they are doing and still claim to be supporting them. By way of analogy, your son is on one football team and your nephew is on the other. They are playing in the championship game. I don’t see how you can say you support your nephew and his efforts in the game while at the same time hoping your son wins and your nephew loses. It seems to me you are trying to say that “I support the troops but not what they are doing.” Or, “I support the troops but if I had my way they would be home now and we would be defeated.”

5

I like the one that says: “I Support What’s Trendy.”

Honestly, when I was in the Army, the culture was to consider civilians a bunch of scumbags whom we could have cared less about what they thought. Maybe it was just the attitude of the unit I served in, but all the sentimental bullshit made me sick. I could have cared less about support and was only interested in what was going on with my unit.

There was even a song we’d sing on road marches:

Don’t ya cry me no tears
I don’t need your sympathy
Cause I’m a US soldier
and that’s all I wanna be
**

6

Perfectly put.

7

** By way of analogy, your son is on one football team and your nephew is on the other. They are playing in the championship game. I don’t see how you can say you support your nephew and his efforts in the game while at the same time hoping your son wins and your nephew loses.**

The obvious and deep flaw in the analogy is that none of us have a son on the other team. Nobody is hoping that the other side wins.

If that doesn’t clear it up for you, I can modify the analogy so that it more accurately reflects the situation, but I don’t think it should be necessary.

8

Unless you think we have already succeeded in our mission in Iraq, you can not call for the return of the troops without also calling for the failure of the mission. You have missed the point on the analogy. You can not support your nephew and at the same time want his team to lose. The analogy is not that the enemy is the nephew’s team and the US is the son’s team. The analogy is that you want to claim that you support your nephew while hoping that his team loses.

9

I got the point of the analogy, it’s just that the point is undermined by the analogy’s flawed structure, which invalidates it.

I don’t know of anyone who wants the team to lose. I know a lot of people who think that the team can’t win, and that the vain attempt to win is goofy high, and that there is no underlying interest to be served in any event.

A better example, by which I mean more representative, is this: Your 10 year old kid and his friends are playing a game of tackle against a team of high schoolers. Do you support your son?

10

it’s pretty hard to find a suitable analogy to the Iraq War, for example, there is no athletic event with the likes of:

drive around until you get blown up or shot

we are asking the wrong people with the wrong tools to do the impossible.

11

the point is undermined by the analogy’s flawed structure, which invalidates it.

We disagree.

I don’t know of anyone who wants the team to lose. I know a lot of people who think that the team can’t win, and that the vain attempt to win is goofy high, and that there is no underlying interest to be served in any event.

So they want to pull the team off the field before the game is over. I get it. They also want to say that it does not mean they want the team to lose. The fact is, that there is no difference, unless you say the game is won. You can not honestly say that you want the team to win if you are advocating that they be pulled off the field before it is over.

A better example, by which I mean more representative, is this: Your 10 year old kid and his friends are playing a game of tackle against a team of high schoolers. Do you support your son?

I do not agree that your analogy is better. But to answer your question, no I would not support my son in that endeavor. I would pull him off the field and I would say that he should not be playing that game and he was foolish and wrong to have done so. I would not try to argue that his team didn’t really lose the game. I would not try to argue that I really wanted his team to win the game because I really wanted no such thing. I wanted him off the field even though it meant his team would lose. I can love him and care for his safety but I would not support him in that effort no matter how badly he wanted to play. Likewise, with the Iraq war, if I thought the mission was wrong and foolish and unwise, I would argue against the mission. I would recognize that this undermines the efforts of those who are trying to accomplish it. I would recognize that while I love and care for the troops, I could not support them in this endeavor.

12

the game was over back in 2004 or 2005,

now the ‘fans’ have crashed the gates and swept down to the field

the ‘fans’ are now fighting with the players
.

13

we are asking the wrong people with the wrong tools to do the impossible.

I do not think we are attempting the impossible. I do think that we are misusing our soldiers. We should either treat this like the war that it is or we should leave. But make no mistake, I recognize that to the extent I am advocating that we leave before the mission is complete, I am not supporting our troops … I am not advocating for victory … I am, in fact, advocating for or at least recognizing defeat.

14

the ‘fans’ are now fighting with the players

Quite possibly so.

15

I think we agree that the current strategy is to wear down the insurgents before the US population wears out, and also, hopefully, before we kill off Iraq.

Its nation-building chemotherapy style.

16

I am not certain what our strategy is but I don’t like it. You may be correct and, if so, it is a bad strategy. No amount of bloodshed or violence is going to wear them down.

17

I do not agree that your analogy is better.

What can I say? You’re wrong. It is better.

You don’t think so because you think that we can win in Iraq, I suppose. What you refuse to wrap your head around is the idea that others of us have concluded otherwise. We don’t think we can win in Iraq, and that isn’t our secret desire, that’s our analysis of the situation.

to answer your question, no I would not support my son in that endeavor.

“in that endeavor”? Who asked you anything about “in that endeavor”? That’s not even a subtle difference, Brick.

18

Jane, you ignorant slut …

Who asked you anything about “in that endeavor”? That’s not even a subtle difference, Brick.

Now you’re just trying to be cute. You presented a specific scenario. I said I would not support him in that scenario. I chose the word “endeavor.” Of course I would still love him and have his safety in mind but I would not support him. I think the same can be said for the troops in Iraq. You may love them and care for their safety but you are not supporting them. You don’t like the sound of it but that’s the way it is … sorry.

19

**Jane, you ignorant slut … **

lol. Nice. But that’s my line, dammit.

**Now you’re just trying to be cute. You presented a specific scenario. I said I would not support him in that scenario. **

I am not trying to be cute, and you can see the difference as well as I can. Nobody asks “Do you support the troops in their endeavor in Iraq?” They ask, “Do you support the troops?”

If there’s no difference, then the question “Can you support the troops if you don’t support the war in Iraq” is itself meaningless and nonsensical.

So again, do you support your son? I am not asking if you support him in his efforts against the bruisers on the other team, because clearly he is going to get steamrolled. I am simply asking you if you support your son. End question.

20

Let me ask you a separate question, though, Brick: Has there ever been a military deployment that you didn’t support? That you thought was ill-advised, unnecessary, or both? Have you always thought that every combat troop deployment was a good idea?