"Rescue the Troops" frame

I want to take a stab at breaking down this "support the troops" thing, to see what's going on here in the minds of those who think it.

In the mind of the believer (unfortunately, my mother is one) - "Support the Troops" refers to the internal morale of the troop, his or her confidence that the cause is just. Morale is what is being supported, not the physical body or health of the troop. To the conservative, the will is paramount.
Contrast this with our primary concern for the physical health of the troop--evidenced by recent legislation that mandates better troop readiness, body armor, humvee shielding, making sure wounded soldiers don't return to battle, etc.

So the operating narrative behind the "support the troops" mantra is that doubt, "why" questions, and debate saps the will, and this doubt itself is dangerous enough to create defeat.

By contrast, "rescuing the troops" or adding the ".. bring them home" shifts the meaning of "support" from a question of supporting the Will, or the internal mind of the troop, to supporting his or her physical body. This shift works for those whose underlying values place equal importance on the physical body over the will, but will fail due to congitive dissonance for those conservatives who still place the Will or Morale as more important than the troops themselves.

What I'm looking for, then, is a way to score a home run. I want to find a way to reframe "support the troops" in a way that will work for those voters who believe in the power of will over physical reality.

Some things to work in, admittedly long-winded, but centered around a typically conservative word: "respect"

- Since we respect the troops, we trust that their will is strong, and that they will do their duty as We the People decide it, regardless of how our Democracy decides to rely on their service.
- We respect "the troops" enough not to put them in harm's way unless the defense of our nation is at stake.
- We respect the troops as people - enough so that we protect them as much as possible as they do their duty

so that they can return to their families after their service and lead full, healthy productive lives.

I should qualify (or credental?) these opinions -- both my father and mother are staunch Reagan Republicans and current Bush supporters who I argue with on a regular basis, very emotionally. Long before I got into reading Lakoff and cog sci I learned the hard way as a young activist how useless facts are on their own. So much of my understanding of conservatives come from my discussions with them and other outreach to conservatives I've done over the years. Just some background, FWIW.

Thanks for any input on this..

How about an entirely different approach. I think we should always support our troops in their mission, but perhaps what needs to be reframed is, exactly what is their “mission?”

Should any individual activity they are engaged in be defined as their “mission,” or is their “mission” something far more important (always worthy of support) than any particular assignment?

As long as this democracy, this “free” country we call America requires the services of a military, the “mission” (responsibility) of that military is to do whatever our elected leadership asks them to do, and to the extent they carry out that mission to the best of their abilities, they deserve all the support we can give them as in the best training, the best equipment, the best healthcare, the best educational opportunities, decent pay, accolades, honors and respect.

If they perform their mission with honor, discipline, and respect for the rules of such engagement, then they have moral justification, they are fighting for the principles of democracy and freedom even if we the people, through our elected leaders, had no moral justification for the particular assignment we have given them.
  
When it comes to a particular assignment, It is not “the troops” responsibility to decide whether or not the task we the people, through our “elected” leaders, send them on is right or wrong for America. That is our responsibility, that is our “mission.”

If we don’t take the time to be informed decision makers, if our laziness allows us to except whatever is spoon-fed us by the media, if we don’t take the time to vote at all or act on our own principles, we are not living up to our part of the bargain with our military.

The best support we can give our troops is to be damn sure whatever mission we are sending them on is worth their sacrifice.

In the case of Iraq, we the electorate have blown off that responsibility big time.

Adopting this perspective on the “mission” might be the only way other than complete denial for the soldier under fire to maintain “morale” and “will” in the face of the folks back home deciding, “Ooops, we screwed up.” It would be very tough. Personally, I think I would just be very angry.

It would be much easier for the electorate to adopt this perspective and let it guide their actions.

Sorry, I’m rambling….

At this point, I think the best way to support the troops would be to impeach the Bush administration and demonstrate that lies, obfuscation, propaganda, and ignorance are not acceptable when it comes to their sacrifice.

I am of the habit of occasionally writing down "thoughts" that occur to me. I dealt with this topic in 2003 with an undated addition later. While it is a different approach from Arianna, it also supports the concept of "Rescue our Troops". I will copy that 2003 writing here now.

“God Bless Our Troops”
April 2, 2003

I have been seeing this slogan again, now that the U.S. Government has decided to invade Iraq. It occurred to me that I really do not know exactly what “God bless our troops” means.

Usually a slogan is an encapsulation of an objective, or goal (“Forty-four forty or Fight”, “Solidarity”, or “Death to the Infidel”). Sometimes it defines a work in progress (“Building a better tomorrow”, “30 million hamburgers sold”). Usually slogans are intended to make someone do, or not do, something (“Every little bit hurts”).

But the slogan “God bless our troops” seems different somehow. It might fall into the third category if the purpose is to demand some action (bless) of God. The problem here is that there is no certain way to determine if the demand was met. What differentiates a “blessed” troop from an “unblessed” (or maybe “blessing free”) troop? How can we tell if God has met the demand, and what is our recourse if he does not?

Enlightenment might come from a deeper analysis of the slogan.

Which God, for instance, is being appealed to? In a nation that advocates freedom of religion, the slogan is remarkably unspecific. Is the mentioned God one of a pantheon of Gods, or a monotheistic deity? Due to the widespread distribution of the signs and the widespread occurrence of monotheistic religions in this country, I will assume the latter.
This leads, however, to another problem. There are only three monotheistic religions in the world, Moslem, Jewish and Christian. All have the same historical roots, so in a sense they all worship the same God (Is this what is really meant by the trinity?). If this is the case, then the sloganeers are demanding that God take sides in a battle between groups of His own followers… or maybe He is being asked to bless BOTH sides. Would that be consistent?

And what does it mean to “bless” anyway? My dictionary gives several definitions. 1. To make holy by a spoken formula or a sign; Hallow; Consecrate. Perhaps the sloganeer wants our troops to be consecrated, i.e. dedicated to holy use. This, of course, would make them unavailable for the unholy use of armed combat. Or maybe 2.To set apart for a holy purpose; call holy. Ok! Same idea! Only under this definition we have to refer to them as holy troops (as in holy roller, or holy cow). 3. To ask divine favor for; hence 4. To wish well to; feel gratitude toward. Ah! Now we are getting somewhere! Divine favor, for a soldier in a war, might be the ability to stay alive! Divine favor, however, is not needed for that. All that is needed is to withdraw them from the war situation. That requires political sanity. It appears that the sloganeers are asking God to do what they cannot force themselves and their government to do. In my experience, divine favor is remarkably inconsistent, and is usually invoked as a reason for success after the fact and only by the survivors. 5. To favor or endow (with): as, he has been blessed with eloquence. 6. To make happy or prosperous; gladden: as, He blessed us with his leadership. Doesn’t fit! The sloganeer did not say “God bless our troops WITH…” There are a couple of more definitions that do not fit because they deal with someone blessing themselves, and then 11. To keep; guard. This seems most hypocritical. In a war where the U.S. is the aggressor, it would seem more reasonable to ask for God to keep or guard those who are being attacked.

Last but not least, who are “our” troops? I have no troops, and to the best of my knowledge, most folks have no troops, but apparently the sloganeers have troops. The troops currently fighting in Iraq seem to belong to the U.S. government, or at least that is who gives them their orders. This too is unclear, however. In the American news media the troops in Iraq are referred to as “coalition” troops, but in the British press they are referred to as “American” troops. Are there two groups of invaders there at the same time?

I guess that the next time I see someone yelling this slogan, I should stop and ask them to explain, but most seem too interested in shouting and screaming to bother with intellectual discussion.

Note added later: I was informed that in ancient times sacrifices were anointed with blood prior to being killed. This anointing with blood was known as the blessing of the sacrifice. In regard to American troops, this is not the answer I hoped for, but it is the answer I found.

 Times of war are, by nature, chaotic and uncertain. I read the "God Bless our Troops" slogan as consistent with this long tradition of seeking security and positive outcome in the face of the inevitable randomness inherent in war. Some examples: seeking auspicious omens, beseeching the mandate of heaven, Roman soldiers anointed with oil, or tea ceremonies before kamikaze missions.

Appeals to "God" for America are really no different than sacrifices to Nature, or pagan deities.

A state of war is a disconinuity with the recent past that leads up to it--once the dogs of war have been slipped, people fall back on wishes and hopes. The mistake is thinking that war obviates diplomacy, but its really a false choice between total victory and abject defeat.

I agree this is an excellent slogan. I also like to see the usual "support the troops" bumper sticker coupled with "...bring them home"

Having a son in Afghanistan for the past ten months and in Kuwait four years ago, I view the question of "supporting" the troops by continuing our misadventures in the Middle East as more than a "policy" problem. I certainly support our troops on the ground because they are performing their duties, not creating the policies or designing the mission.

Rather, our troops are at the mercy of a president and vice president who have manipulated facts (or what they call facts) to fit their conclusions. And congress has no high ground here because the House and Senate jumped on the administration's bandwagon all too quickly. (Doesn't anyone remember the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution? or do we all suffer from amnesia?)

The administration has constantly redefined our mission in Iraq. When claims of WMD and terrorist ties proved bogus, then the administration asserted that the mission was to unseat a dictator and bring democracy to the people of Iraq. Certainly Saddam was no angel, and democracy is a good thing. But when democracy is imposed by an occupying power, is it democracy?

At the very least, this continual restating of mission, as if earlier statements were "no longer operable" (a Nixonian dodge), has an Orwellian ring (1984). Additionally, it betrays a lack of thought, an inability to think clearly and honestly. And here is the crux of the problem. "Supporting the troops" is not the issue, but rather the processes that took us to Iraq are.

We have mourned the over 3,000 who died in the 9/11 events, and we have tallied the deaths of our men and women in the armed forces as well. But we have ignored the far greater death toll of civilian Iraqis caught in the crossfire that has followed our invasion. This is the reality dismissed by Donald Rumsfeld when he said that, of necessity, democracy is a "messy" affair. These ill-conceived and failed policies of this administration have undermined the morale of all of us. The president has called this misadventure as a war on terrorism and a war on evil. Since when can you fight evil with bullets and bombs? And is it our national destiny to unseat every "evil" national leader?

Throughout this Iraqi campaign, we have been exposed to distortions and media "spins" to conceal the truth. I doubt that the administration knows any more what is real and what is not. The Jessica Lynch story was falsified from the beginning. The Tillman story was covered up with so much misdirection that it has taken three years to find the truth.

In the end, the way to support and rescue the troops is to withdraw them and hold the administration and congress accountable for relying on flawed intelligence, for not asking enough hard questions, and for not seeking multiple sources of verification for administration claims. Withdrawing the troops is far more honorable than asking them to fight in an unhonorable cause.

Honor the troops who have, for the most part, conducted themselves honorably. And censure the leaders who sent them on an open-ended mission.

Art