I think it goes like this: if you’re working on a project, and you discover than management is probably going to can it, then you’ll be far less motivated to put in the extra time and careful thinking that projects often require. Why bother? No good will come of it. If your job is safe, you’ll go home on time instead; if not, you’ll work on resume-improving activities. Even if you continue to go hard, your co-workers probably won’t.

In a military situation, this reluctance to stick your neck out will generally result in less chance of your getting killed, and more chance of other people getting killed instead. Overall, it will result in an increase in casualties. Insert prisoner’s dilemma discussion here.

So it’s not good for the troops to be hearing that no-one wants their war.

Another reason is that “our troops” are volunteers, not mercenaries; they are paid considerably less than mercenaries. The shortfall is partly made up by the belief that they are doing something beneficial for society by protecting it. Insert evolutionary psychology discussion here. By suggesting that their war is useless, you’re reducing their effective pay.

Of course, that’s the short term view. In the long term, both of the above make it vital to ensure that all the wars we send “our troops” on *are* important. So the discussion is very important to have.

Thus, when someone starts blathering about supporting our troops in the context of a discussion of whether the war is a good idea (as opposed to whether we should spend money on decent equipment for them) you can immediately see that they are taking a short term view rather than a long term view. This may be explained by dishonesty or incompetence; or it may be a sad result of the fact that sections of the public fall for it regularly.

Incidentally, one of the google ads on this page-view says “2008: God’s Final Witness Unprecedented destruction will come in 2008, leading to America’s fall. http://www.the-end.com“. I know you don’t endorse it, but I want to go on record as predicting that this is a load of rubbish. I hope someone will revisit this prediction on 1/1/2009.

So I have taken the slogan in the following way(s):
“Support our TROOPS” ie: Whatever negative comments you may have about the government, don’t take it out on the poor guys who get paid to implement their policies. Or “SUPPORT our troops” ie: don’t diss the troops by associating them with the politicians or government institutions that may actually be responsible for whatever it is that you’re complaining about.

NB: I am not an American. It is not my place to critisise or approve of any American policies, foreign or otherwise. Frankly, the US can do what it likes, it’s no concern of mine. I DO however, reserve the right to hold opinions on the policies of my own government (Australia) and their relationship with the US. Eg: Should the Aust. government slavishly support US foreign policy in the Middle East, thereby possibly affecting the perceived threat by Australia and potential value as a target by terrorist organisations? It will be interesting to see what, if any, changes occur to Australia’s foreign policy re the USA with our recent change in government.

However, basic respect for people does not extend to basic respect for ideas – especially when they are expressed by politicians. Attacking the wisdom of a particular military strategy doesn’t automatically mean personally attacking the troops who carried it out.

This is precisely why great care is taken in choosing the words to use when expressing support. The phrase “we have to support our troops” (at least in modern-day U.S.) is a deliberate attempt to say “regardless of how we feel about policies or strategies, we stand behind people, especially those risking their lives ostensibly on our behalf”.

The wars, especially in Iraq, and the president are enjoying very little support in the U.S. as a whole. Those who do support the wars or the president (and there are millions upon millions of them, even if they are the clear minority) have to explicitly state this. “We support the war” is extremely different in principle than “we support the troops”.

In practice, of course, the most effective way to provide moral support to the troops may be to provide material support; and providing material support for the troops may be inextricable from providing material support for the war. In that case, it may be argued that support for the troops is tantamount to support for the war, but I can promise you most Americans either don’t believe that, or wish with all their might that it didn’t have to be that way. (I think the comments by James corroborate this.)

I think it’s worth also mentioning that there are nuances and dilemmas beyond just whether to support the people versus whether to support the ideas. Because the ideas are complicated. I don’t have any problem with the fundamental concepts of “clean up your own mess” and “value the lives and quality of life of ALL people, not just the ones from your own country”. These are courteous and noble ideas that I heartily support, and it is unavoidable that they would also be used to support the idea of a heavy troop presence in Iraq, even among those who thought it was a bad idea to invade in the first place. In all likelihood, the conditions in Iraq are varied enough that getting the troops out will be an improvement for many Iraqis and a disaster for many other Iraqis.

What I don’t like is the inherent guilt trip associated with this.
I don’t support the action of sending our boys into the current BS war, but if I don’t support them, I’m being unpatriotic.

I’m all for making sure our army is well looked after in-theatre and if it came to it, I’ll sell cookies to buy guns to support them, but I don’t believe in the political decision to send them there. But sometimes its hard to convey that.

If they come to question the chain of command, then they fight a sloppy war, and they (or their comrades) may die. This can come through them reading about protests against their (or another platoons) actions. It cam come through reading the news about how the opposition party is stopping the Commander-In-Chief from funding better equipment (as they may see it). It can come from reading some opinion pieces about how the troops actions are abhorrent, or watching video of people protesting about it.

The part of this argument I don’t get is where the policies of one leader to, say, willfully disregard due process and the international rule of law and go to war with another country under false pretenses gets linked to this chain, but maybe it’s these policies that made him the CIC?

I also don’t see how any action won’t eventually be misconstrued when viewed by (at least some) troops on the other side of the world through the distorted lens they may have access to in their downtime. This is likely to cause a drop in morale anyway, but maybe not one that ripples through a whole battalion.