(Opposition to) War, what is it good for?

November 7, 2006 5:36 AM

There are those that say opposition at home to a war overseas is harmful to the morale of the soldiers fighting said war. Have you been/are you in the military? Know someone who is/was? What do they think about that argument?

So there's this war going on at the moment. There's a fair bit of opposition to it, and I've heard it said quite a bit (especially in those ol' united states) that such opposition is unpatriotic and damaging, that the soldiers are disheartened and all sorts of terrible things.

So, as a soldier, what do you think about people at home saying that a war should not be fought? I want to find out if the above argument is actually a sound one or if it's just a tactic used to make any anti-war statement automatically unpatriotic.

posted by twirlypen to human relations (23 comments total)

I'm not a soldier, but the general consensus among the ones I know is that an uncaring, incompetent, politically-motivated command structure does a whole lot more damage to morale than any number of peacenik protesters.
posted by Faint of Butt at 6:13 AM on November 7, 2006

I'm not a soldier, but as an argument it's a red herring. Opposition can only possibly affect morale if the war was stupid or questionable in the first place. If anything it's another reason never to go to war without overwhelming popular support.
posted by cillit bang at 6:19 AM on November 7, 2006 [1 favorite]

When I was growing up, I don't recall my Dad caring very much about political opposition to Vietnam, although he (and most people his age) had disdain for the 60s counterculture in general. I'd say he didn't care for the protesters or style of protest, but that wasn't really his concern. As a career military man, his job was to follow the leadership. What FaintofButt said about poor leadership was more typical of him and his friends.
posted by Robert Angelo at 6:27 AM on November 7, 2006

I might add, the format and style of opposition would make s difference. Scream at my Dad or burn a flag or disrespect the vetereans, he'd get upset. Make your opposing views calmly, he'd be o.k.
posted by Robert Angelo at 6:31 AM on November 7, 2006

I did two deployments, one in Bosnia and one in Kosovo. We didn't get all that much unfiltered news from the states While I was in Bosnia. No real internet connectivity in Sarajevo, just phone calls and letters from home. Well, and the Army Times, but jeez what a rag. While I was in Bosnia I heard that Kosovo was probably going to blow up and sure enough, two years later that's where I found myself. I was personally pretty . Connectivity was a lot better in Kosovo, so I think I was better in tune with what things were like back here. There was some criticism of the conflict, mainly from Republicans, but the Kosovo conflict and its attendant coverage wasn't anything like what's going on today with Iraq. Also, I'm certain that troops right now are vastly more plugged into news at home, even during a hot conflict -- pretty amazing, really.

The gist is this: nobody but NOBODY wants to think of themselves as ill-informed. Folks at home get a third-person perspective through various news outlets, GIs get a first person perspective and a third-person perspective (although, if things have remained constant, the main outlet is still unfortunately Fox News). And I think that well-informed and valid criticism of the war itself gets somehow misinterpreted -- maybe through misrepresentation of statements via Fox News -- in a GI's head as a personal attack which can lead to anger and resentment. I still periodically bristle at Chomsky's criticism of the conflicts in Bosnia and Kosovo, although I almost completely agree with his position. It's just a personal reaction to the futility of the situation. So, does it engender a drop in morale? Most likely not. Folks who call troops idiots and monsters don't really do the anti-war cause any favors. So, I think there may be a tiny bit of plausibility to the argument that criticism against the war actually leads to some resentment. But as far as a drop in morale, no. And, as far as an actual argument for NOT criticizing the war endeavor, it's idiotic.

What a mess. I hate to post this, but maybe someone brighter can pick some line of argument out of it and run with it.
posted by cog_nate at 7:36 AM on November 7, 2006 [1 favorite]

Continue the ignorance.

Seriously, go on with your self-assured knowledge about what happens over here. It can only make things better.

But to the question itself, when soldiers hear irraitonal thoughts or better, opinions with no factual foundation I'm not sure that it effects morale, but they do tend to think of these people as dumb motherfuckers.

So, it does effect morale in the case of, "Sure, I get to go back but from reading the local online papers, it sounds like my town is full of dumb motherfuckers.

Oh and btw, a REMF is in Kuwait. Not Iraq or Afghanistan.
posted by Dagobert at 7:38 AM on November 7, 2006

For those who are interested: REMF. As for the troops and the access to information they have in Iraq, I think that the situation is closer to Dagobert premise than jellicle's. Even the most front line of troops are housed in bases where there is Internet access and relatively cheap telephone access to loved ones back home. Granted not everyone is going to keep abreast of what is going on in the world, but that is no different than here in the states.
posted by mmascolino at 7:42 AM on November 7, 2006

So yeah, to reiterate, resentment.
posted by cog_nate at 7:47 AM on November 7, 2006

When I was in Vietnam, I was grateful for people back in The World who spoke against the war. It gave me hope that maybe it would end before my tour was over or I got shot. It also felt like someone was paying attention to the bullshit that the government was selling. The mass media wasn't as completely owned by the establishment as it is now, but it was still full of crap. We had recent news magazines and papers from home, so we were aware.

So - no, dissent at home did not ruin my morale. Comparing the reality I saw to the version being presented to the public did.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 7:55 AM on November 7, 2006 [2 favorites]

Decades ago (1968) we had AFVN radio and television at major bases, and AFVN radio could be heard almost everywhere. Even back then news from "The World" was current. I have very clear memories of the news reports of the assassinations of Dr. King and RFK immediatiatly after they happened.

The news reports of anti-war protests back then really didn't have much effect on our morale. What really did affect us was the first hand awareness that there seemed to be so little real commitment from staff officers. There were some good officers and NCOs but the distain and cruelty of many other GIs toward Vietnamese civilians demoralised me. There were just too many examples of illogical decisions, poor direction, lack of supervision and just plain stupidity to keep morale up. It had nothing to do with anti-war protests back in the States.

242 ASH Co. Cu Chi, MOS 51M20
posted by X4ster at 8:11 AM on November 7, 2006 [1 favorite]

My brother served in Iraq and was injured in Ramadi. He is opposed to the war.
posted by strangeleftydoublethink at 8:31 AM on November 7, 2006

I know my stepmother wasn't too happy when she and her (then)husband, an Air Force officer, walked through Berkeley in 1970 and people saw fit to spit directly on them while they screamed in her face about how she's a baby killer and all either of them could do was just take it, keep walking, lest it turn into a full-scale riot.

I'm not saying don't protest. But no matter how you try and claim that "no, no, no, our protestors are totally much cooler than that," they really aren't, not all of them. Every group has their major assholes. Just be aware of it. I've seen some ugly people doing ugly and despicable things during protests, and it's part of the reason I eventually moved away from the activist movement (and yes, I did grow up in Berkeley).

Does this mean protesting is unpatriotic? I don't think so. Damaging to the troops? If you spit on them and call them baby killers, probably.
posted by incessant at 8:57 AM on November 7, 2006

I know my stepmother wasn't too happy when she and her (then)husband, an Air Force officer, walked through Berkeley in 1970 and people saw fit to spit directly on them while they screamed in her face about how she's a baby killer and all either of them could do was just take it, keep walking, lest it turn into a full-scale riot.

I've heard the same story growing up in ultraconservative circles, many times. I found out it was a popular story too. Perhaps too popular.
posted by Brian B. at 9:10 AM on November 7, 2006

[a few comments removed, this thread is specifically about soldier's feelings about war opposition, not everyone's feelings about war opposition. take metawar discussion to metatalk.]
posted by jessamyn at 9:52 AM on November 7, 2006

Talked to a friend whose brother just got back from Iraq- she confirmed what Dagobert said.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 10:12 AM on November 7, 2006 [1 favorite]

She also (just) said that her brother got really annoyed when people reacted to news of his deployment with, "Be Safe!"
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 10:14 AM on November 7, 2006 [1 favorite]

Well, now we're getting tertiary to the original question, which asked: "Have you been/are you in the military? Know someone who is/was?" Not, "Know someone whose brother was?"
posted by Kirth Gerson at 11:33 AM on November 7, 2006

While I was in the miltary I didn't much care less what was going on back home. Morale doesn't come from your family it comes from your peers.
posted by ptm at 12:19 PM on November 7, 2006

Pat Tillman's brother Kevin, himself a returned vet, made some recent comments that may be germane.
posted by rob511 at 12:39 PM on November 7, 2006

I know some friends from high school in the Marines, and in the Army. For them, going abroad is just part of the job. It sucks, they don't want to be there, they understand all the moral and ethical objections, but it's what they signed up for. They do their best to do right, and they ask not to be harrased when they come home (indeed, I don't think that's ever happened). Otherwise, they don't really care about public opinion, since they feel it won't really change what happens to them any way.

A two of my uncles are career Navy men and they seem to feel the same way. They want to be with their families, be treated with respect, and be allowed to do their jobs.
posted by muddgirl at 3:12 PM on November 7, 2006

For the record, my stepmother is a liberal, a Democrat all her life, and never in favor of Vietnam. I tend to trust her story, seeing as how it's a first-hand account, but thanks a lot Brian B for claiming that she's a big fat liar. Just for posterity's sake, I did not grow up in 'ultra-conservative circles' and that's not where I heard this story, unless Strawberry Canyon in Berkeley counts. Somehow, I don't think it does.

Just got off the phone with her. She confirmed the story, once again. I asked her what she thinks about protesting affecting the soldiers overseas. Her words: "Arthur [her exhusband, the Air Force guy] always said that they can shout all they want, and if they do, then maybe it will get us home quicker."
posted by incessant at 4:49 PM on November 7, 2006

I tend to trust her story, seeing as how it's a first-hand account, but thanks a lot Brian B for claiming that she's a big fat liar.

I didn't know they were big or fat, or even liars. Interesting to me that you raised the issue. I was relaying a first hand account, not a second hand "I trust them" version. I guess you don't realize that YOU are claiming their story is unique. It declare that it is not. It's an inspiration story that multiple inspirational speakers have detailed to me as an audience member when contracted to speak about values.
posted by Brian B. at 8:32 PM on November 7, 2006

Opposition can only possibly affect morale if the war was stupid or questionable in the first place.

Beg to differ but this is not true.

One thing you have over here is time. It's the old hurry-up-and-wait game. So you end up talking about everything and at the same time, nothing.

Any course of action, be it a war in the Middle East or what toothpaste you choose, will eventually have a counter arguement.

So, yeah, you hear people critisize the war and the leaders (but not too much, due to the herd instinct) and it can lead to distrust and lower morale.

Fighting on a micro level is a non-zero sum game. The best way to ensure you get out alive is to make sure your buddy gets out alive. So any type of doubt, second guessing, or disbelief in the command structure can add a second to response time.

It is this extra second that gives the major/colonel/sergeant problems. It can go either way. The soldier/airman/marine/sailor can go in any direction with an additional minute. They can disobey an immoral order. They can stop a person with explosives strapped to their body from getting too close. Or they can let their buddies down. It can go either way. And it has gone either way already and will continue to be a problem/asset in the future.

So they hear the dissent that is being voiced in the States and worldwide but it has much less impact than what the guy in the bunk next to yours says as ptm stated.

This is not to say that critical thought should cease. It is a essential component to our way of life. But like all privledges, it has an edge that cuts both ways.
posted by Dagobert at 9:47 PM on November 7, 2006 [1 favorite]