SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home ‘Supporting Our Troops’ Has Become an Exercise in Denial

PLANK AUGUST 14, 2012

‘Supporting Our Troops’ Has Become an Exercise in Denial

During nearly every major-league baseball game I have attended over the past few years, the P.A. announcer invites men and women in the military to stand up and then asks the rest of us to “honor their service” and their “heroism.” Most of the civilians in the crowd rise to their feet and applaud loudly. I manage to keep my cynicism to myself.

My problem is not with the young people who get to spend a few hours away from their jobs protecting the United States from its enemies—real, potential, or imagined. It’s the unwitting hypocrisy of my fellow fans that ticks me off. So many of them happily cheer the members of our all-volunteer force while passively opposing the wars that, for over a decade, they and their fellow troops have been fighting. It would be far better for Americans to finally face up to that contradiction.

There is, of course, nothing ambivalent about the physical toll in these conflicts. To date, over 6,500 servicemen and women have died in either Iraq or Afghanistan. The overall American casualty total for both wars now approaches fifty thousand. But at home, their mission has never been less visible. Both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney abet the mass amnesia about the ongoing war in Afghanistan. On the rare occasions when it does come up, the candidates tend to argue only about how and when to withdraw our forces, not whether they remain at war with Al Qaeda, which was, after all, the original rationale for the invasion.

Both men are, of course, just responding to the almighty polls. Less than a third of Americans still think the conflict in Afghanistan “is worth fighting”; about the same number felt the same about the war in Iraq before Barack Obama began withdrawing troops from the land George W. Bush and Dick Cheney invaded to destroy horrible weapons that weren’t actually there. As Rajiv Chandrasekaran wrote this month in The Washington Post, “[The Afghan conflict] has stretched into the longest war in U.S. history, and Americans are tired of it.”

Yet we still automatically pay tribute to those on active duty as if they were fighting for a grand and virtuous cause—defending us from imminent attack or struggling to defeat a tyrant bent on conquest. Midway through the agonies of the George W. Bush administration, Americans engaged in hot and often enlightening debates about the wisdom of invading and occupying two Muslim nations. But now lassitude and boredom yield only silence.

Inside the military, the kneejerk applause for the sacrifices of our troops and the absence of any reckoning with the value and justice of their mission has hardly gone unnoticed. Periodically, a high-ranking officer or politician warns about the “disconnect” between the public and the military. Last year, Admiral Mike Mullen, then the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, confessed to a House committee, “The day-to-day connections are less than they used to be, the depth and breadth of who we are and what we’re doing, isn’t there.”

Two years ago, I learned firsthand the truth of his words. William Quinn, a young veteran of the Iraq war who was a student of mine at Georgetown, complained that his fellow undergraduates were reluctant to talk either about the conflict in which he had fought or about the one in Afghanistan. At first, Quinn thought they were afraid such a conversation “would create a hostile environment they would rather avoid.” But soon he realized their silence betokened not discomfort but apathy. Most students knew little about what was at stake and were too involved in the whirl of college life to care. Quinn, a bright former sergeant, had actually opposed the invasion of Iraq. But he grew so alienated from the self-involved lives of his civilian peers that, soon after graduation, he re-enlisted.

The ritualistic, if nearly content-free, applause for the troops is not hard to understand. After four decades of a volunteer military, few Americans, young and old, share the experiences of those who do sign up. There is also an enduring sense of guilt over how the veterans of the Vietnam War were treated on their staggered return home, although the great majority were ignored or pitied rather than vilified, as legend would have it. Warm memories of the combative solidarity Americans expressed during the months just after the attacks of 9/11 linger as well; in ballparks across the land, “God Bless America” still gets sung or at least hummed during the 7th inning stretch.

However, these explanations shade into excuses for a species of civic amorality which is unprecedented in U.S. history. From the Civil War through both world wars, Americans saluted the troops because they appreciated and endorsed the causes for which they were fighting. The angry, sometimes violent debate at home about the wars in Indochina at least confronted the justice of what individual soldiers were doing over there. But we now applaud our servicemen and women as “heroes” while neglecting the policies that have, since 2001, required them, quite literally, to put their lives on the line. Perhaps it would be more honest just to buy them a beer and a hotdog and then go back to watching the damn game.

Michael Kazin’s latest book, American Dreamers: How the Left Changed a Nation, will be out in paperback later this month. He teaches history at Georgetown University and is co-editor of Dissent.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 13 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

13 comments

I don't agree it is apathy, I think it is simply an acknowledgement of an intractable situation. And precisely what would Kazin have the citizenry do, besides by a hotdog and a beer? A strictly military solution is not an option, a far more comprehensive one would require literally millions of Americans from all walks of life and trillions of dollars to make Afghanistan other than it is so obviously that is off the table, so as a private citizen I really have no options, whether for or against the war, because I recognize just how difficult the situation really is. And screw Kazin for calling me a hypocrite if I were to applaud, because honestly he would could me a hypocrite if I opposed the war (for showing appreciation for soldiers doing their duty) or if I agreed with the war (for not being there I suppose) And bullshit that I neglect the policies. But just because I pay attention to the policies does not mean I have the faintest idea what is feasible to do.

- blackton

August 14, 2012 at 5:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Most Americans are aware of the Spanish-American War, Teddy Roosevelt's Rough Riders and the Battle of San Juan Hill if for no other reason. Less than half are aware the war extended all the way to the Philippines. And I'd guess very few are aware that the end of the Spanish-American was was the beginning of the Philippine-American War, which lasted another four years and resulted in an estimated 1 million Philippine casualties, atrocities committed on both sides, and a few lone voices in America expressing opposition to American colonialism. I know because my grandfather was a U.S. Army surgeon in the War, and eventually died from a staph infection he contracted during the War. For an empire, some things never change.

- rayward

August 14, 2012 at 5:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There's no FORMAL, logician's sense of contradiction here. THAT much is indisputable: (1) I support the troops (2) I don't support the on-going Bush Wars (3) I don't actively/publicly oppose on-going the Bush Wars This is merely a contradiction in the "vuglar" sense which little more than basically interchangeable with <>. With all do respect, Professor Kazin, who cares? What moral authority do you have to scold us? That said, maybe this country would be chock-full of better citizens if we all politically active, opposing all of the policies we don't think are right. But that's just not what real governments are like; never has been, never will be. "My problem is not with the young people who get to spend a few hours away from their jobs protecting the United States from its enemies—real, potential, or imagined. It’s the unwitting hypocrisy of my fellow fans that ticks me off. So many of them happily cheer the members of our all-volunteer force while passively opposing the wars that, for over a decade, they and their fellow troops have been fighting. It would be far better for Americans to finally face up to that contradiction."

- mcmahon.an

August 14, 2012 at 5:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

**The above part with <> supposed to read: "This is merely a contradiction in the "vuglar" sense which little more than basically interchangeable with 'whatever the author thinks isn't reasonable or plausible'

- mcmahon.an

August 14, 2012 at 5:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

From the schedule of events for the upcoming Military Communications Conference (http://www.milcom.org/schedule.aspx): 6:30 p.m. – 9:30 p.m. Triple Salute to Our Troops. Unwind at three fun-filled venues: a county fair will be held on the Coquina Lawn and feature musical entertainment by Keni Thomas and Cornbread; enjoy the interactive DJ at the Wide World of Sports in Wrecker's Sports Bar; and indulge in a tropical island atmosphere at the South Beach Pool with Jamaican music, limbo contests, and reggae dancing! "Ritualistic, if nearly content-free, applause for the troops"? It's almost as if no one can justify having a good time unless they first acknowledge "the troops". I anticipate that there will be some acknowledgement of the troops, to justify the title, but none of the events seem like a proper "salute".

- mrheckman

August 14, 2012 at 6:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Neither the members of the military, who ceremoniously stand up first, nor the other ball park attendees, who stand up to complete the celebration, had anything to do with the initial decision to intervene in either Afghanistan or Iraq. Both groups are respectable. The ovation, however, sends a signal to others. It might not be the best chemistry.

- Doug12

August 14, 2012 at 7:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I always thought "support the troops" should mean actually doing something--like forking over $50 bucks so they can all have body armor. Standing up and applauding while saying "thanks for the tax cuts!" is pretty much an empty gesture. I respect their service--I know I wouldn't have the discipline or fortitude--but our collective absence of meaningful action should be an embarrassment. As Bill Maher said years ago, flying an American flag from the antenna of your SUV is literally the least you can do.

- dsimon

August 14, 2012 at 11:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wouldn't it be nice if we could salute all the troops on our own soil...soon?

- Yossarian

August 15, 2012 at 11:29am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

We are fighting little wars disconnected from American Society. The troops know this. It bothers them, but they know it. We know it too. And it bothers us, too. But what else is to be done? My son is an Iraq war army vet. He stands up at ball games. He knows it's bullshit, but he'll also admit that it makes him feel proud for a few seconds. And that's at least something. As for blaming the troops, they are soldiers, sent to war by a president and congress democratically elected by the people of the United States. Whose to blame? And I don't think that recognizing the troops somehow endorses going to war. I don't think it is a feel good moment. If anything it probably makes the audience feel crappy and guilty--and less likely the support future wars. I personally think that wounded soldiers should play a prominent role in ceremonies of state. Let a millionaire banker be escorted to his seat by a disfigured marine or a soldier with no hands. Put these sacrifices in the elite's face. Whose special? Who exactly do you think you are, and what does it mean to be part of American society?

- Vogelfam

August 15, 2012 at 12:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Bush tried to fight a discount war in Afghanistan from the very beginning, and as the adage goes, "you get what you pay for." The warranty on this product ran out long ago and we're now stuck paying the costs out of pocket. Whether or not one supported the war from the get-go, it was grossly underfunded and badly planned.

- Claris

August 15, 2012 at 12:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

At some point, young men will send old men to war. Unfortunately, as part of our evolution, young men are the most likely to engage in wars (gang wars if not national wars) and old men are most likely to proxy fight wars. Now that homosexuality is becoming accepted, an all male and very gay production of Lysistrata is called for. The closest I could find is http://www.lasplash.com/publish/Los_Angeles_Performances_116/Loosely_Lysistrata_The_Good_The_Bad_the_Off-Key.php

- skahn

August 15, 2012 at 4:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As someone who has had two uncles, an ex-father-in-law, two cousin-in-laws, and both grandfathers serve or have served, as well as close friends who served in South America and in Gulf 1, I don't deal in the empty platitudes and get jingoistic with thanking someone who has served. I don't handclap at public functions so much, I don't fly a flag during Memorial Day, I don't do those silly postings on Facebook about "thanking the troops." I understand why some volunteer, but I also understand the complete disconnect service personnel with what the 99% of the population because so few people either care to understand what & why someone volunteers for military service or even cares to ask them about it. My friends and I talk about their service because I'm truly interested and taking time to understand them is more important than putting a magnet on my car. I also know plenty of people that don't understand the military or know anyone who served or would even volunteer let alone educate themselves about the military. As someone who is well past the cut-off age of enlisting, I missed my opportunity when I withdrew my application to the Air Force Academy (something I regret sometimes, and other times I don't). I entertain the idea of the Reserves and may still do so before I'm too old. Be that as it may, I am a strong advocate of at least making military service mandatory for 2 years and if not you must find some other form of public service equal to 2 years. My reasons are that perhaps if the general population had a sense of service and shared sacrifice, then the hand clapping and signs would feel less hollow and collectively as a nation would understand what is meant by 'serving your country' and being a productive member of society.

- singlspeed

August 15, 2012 at 6:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Singlspeed, I think I agree with most of your comment. I certainly agree with your last paragraph.

- skahn

August 15, 2012 at 8:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close