Can I have your attention, please? We are
going to go ahead and get started with our next session,
which is a community panel discussion
on the notion of Support the Troops.
I want to start off by introducing myself briefly.
My name is Eric Hodges and I am
a PhD student at Virginia Tech
although I recently did my dissertation.
[APPLAUSE] Jim and Bruce
were actually members of my PhD committee
and in many ways,this conference came out of
our collaboration on that work so,
I'm feel gratified to see everybody come out for this,
so I want to thank you guys for that.
[NOISE] [OVERLAPPING] So, through to
the format of this panel,
I'm going to do a brief introduction
of all our panelists.
I'm going to just say a few brief words about why I think
this particular discussion is
important then I'm going to turn it over to the panel,
starting with Professor Salaita,
and then just move this way and they're going to
give an introductory remark
and their general impressions,
professor Salaita's article and Support the Troops.
[OVERLAPPING] Professor Steven Salaita
is an associate professor of English at Virginia Tech.
He's the author of six books and
writes frequently about Arab-Americans,
Palestine, indigenous peoples, and decolonization.
His current book project is entitled
Images of Arabs and Muslims in the Age of Obama.
Steven grew up in Winfield, Virginia,
to a mother from Nicaragua,
a mile away from Palestine ,
and his father was a man from Jordan.
He now lives his life from Virginia with his wife,
[NOISE] [inaudible].
Gil Ott is a retired pastor and
Head Chaplain or interventionist in
both the United Methodist and Reformed Church of America.
He was also a senior administrator
at Cornell University for 15 years.
Prior to that, he worked in both industry and government.
He completed his grad work in Yale University,
earning both Master of Identity and STM,
Master of Theology degrees.
He served in the United States Army from 1968-1970,
including Paul Watson in Vietnam as
an entry man with 101st airborne division,
where he was awarded the army commendation medal and
distinguished himself in close war combat,
and a bronze star for meritorious service.
Colonel John Montgomery is the commander of
the 870th Detachment of
the Air Force Reserve Officer Training Core,
and professor of Aerospace Studies at
the Virginia Polytechnic Institute
and State College in Blacksburg, Virginia.
He commands Air Force ROTC Unit that
administer the College Level Officer Training Program,
to shape the next generation commissioned officers.
In addition, he chairs The Department of
Aerospace Studies in the University staffs as
a full professor and structured curriculum
covering foundations of the US Air Force,
Air Force history, leadership and national security.
Before his current position he served as
the last 98 range wing commander at
Nellis air force base responsible for
the Air Force's most important operating space
in the modern test and training rank.
So I want to start off by thanking our panelists
for coming up with this very important discussion.
One of the reasons that I think that this
is such an important discussion and,
I gave a TED talk at
Virginia Tech a couple of months ago about
the growing boundary between
the civilian society and the military culture,
and much of this conference has been focused on that.
But right now in the United States,
we had the lowest percentage in
American history of our citizens
who actually find their rewards.
Right now it's about 25 percent
of American citizens are actually serving the military,
and serving in the two
longest-running wars in American history.
So, that is one of the issues that's leading to
the strong cultural disconnect that we see our society
now pleading for a lot of veterans found doing crack.
We see that, last year
the number of veterans who were actually taking
their own lives is actually up than
the number of combat fatalities.
So when we have this strong cultural disconnect between
those who serve the military and those
who do not in our society,
this notion of Support the Troops
becomes really important.
Because when you have
such a small percentage of our population that is
bearing the burden of combat as
we've seen throughout these presentations,
the costs of war are tremendous,
and not only to the veterans
but to their families as well.
So it raises questions of what does
it actually mean to support
the troops when we have such a strong divide
between those who have served and those who have not?
I think honestly, there's a lot
of misunderstanding about what it
means to serve in the military.
So we have so few citizens that have actually done that.
In this concept of how do I support the troops?
I think there's a lot more other people
wanting support the troops,
they may just not know how.
So that's why this particular panel,
this notion of supporting the troops in
our society is a big way forward.
So what I wanna do is go ahead and start with
professor Salaita to open
this up on this panel discussion.
Thank you, everybody. Are you okay?
Okay. Well, thank you Dr. Hodges for the [LAUGHTER],
he won't get all of it.
I want to thank the Reverend and
Colonel for joining me here in this panel,
especially to professor Dubinsky
for putting this together.
It's a wonderful program and,
I would enthusiastically support
the further inquiry study
of evidence in the society that brings me to take ,
this is a very good place for
this thing to happen so it's
an exciting moment and I hope it continues to build.
I'm going to talk just for a moment,
looking at Dr. Hodges' comments
and looking at the brake material from the panel,
there was emphasis on dialogue and
conversation and so I'm happy to answer
any questions or field
any criticism slash critiques
that anybody in the audience might have but,
my basic point is that I don't come
into this issue as somebody who has military experience.
I don't come into this issue and as somebody who has
a specific ideological commitment.
I come into this as somebody who for a living,
analyses these forces and looks at a
particular accounts that cause dysfunction
in society and so,
with a phrase like "Support the troops",
I apparently understood, as probably do a lot of people,
that there were subtexts and
contexts to that kind of phrase that don't
often see the light of day in terms of
public scrutiny or analysis and I wanted to
provide some scrutiny analysis to that phrase.
I think in particular,
based on my observation that the phrase
"Support the troops" without and context,
just as phrase that's so facto
is something that is repeated at
sporting events and in airports
and just getting a cultural discourse in general.
Often acts as a stand in for
the real meaning of supports team power and I find it
troublesome the way that troops end up becoming
selectively of state power in an economy for state power.
What happens in a lot of these discourse troops,
in becoming synonymous with
the state and with foreign policy,
actually serve as a shield
to protect the state from critique,
to protect the state from criticism and also to humanize
overseas intervention in such a way
as to make it extremely difficult to speak
against them without simultaneously feeling that you
are abandoning your fellow compatriots.
There's a phrase in the piece,
and its one that I tend to find
useful is blind patriotism.
I got a lot of comments on
both negative and positive response to the piece,
but the comment that I kept seeing
consistently is, what about country x?
What about country Y?
Or country Z?
My answer to that is simple.
I feel that patriotism as discourse,
can be and very often is
problematic in lots of places in the world.
I'm just as skeptical about
Jordanian patriotism that's my bad [inaudible].
In my country too I'm a citizen of Jordan,
I'm just as skeptical of
Jordanian patriotism as I am of American or Asian or
any other form of patriotism that shuts
down critical thought and inquiry into,
the consequences of certain policies,
and certain decisions made with the level of government.
Support the troops who need from it loses meaning,
as something that actually
gets us to focus on the troops,
and invokes the troops as
a context for obeisance to say power,
local practice,
and one of the things that I had difficult,
really important that we live with Dr. Hodges.
If we look at the actual support
that troops as human beings.
Again, it's not an exploitable political class,
you'll see troops as human beings with human needs.
You begin to see
the support they actually receive, right?
Is in many cases inadequate.
It's inadequate in terms of a fleet of integration,
is inadequate in terms of mental health support.
It's very often inadequate in terms of
their access to proper medical treatment
when they return and it's inadequate, this is important.
In terms of we should question whether supporting
the troops by supporting
whatever reason that the government
deployed them for is
the most productive form of support, in each case.
So it can aggregate in some work,
the troops are fighting and still some of the troops
and these are central questions to ask.
I'll stop because I don't want to run on for too long.
But I'll pass it on and I look forward
to continuing the conversation
with you with my colleagues.
Okay. We'll pass it on to Reverend Ott.
Well, it's okay.
I understand that point you're making
has context and all.
In a sense that I also congratulate you for
identifying the elephant in the living room.
I'm talking from the perspective of
someone who was very active in
the anti-war movement in the last war.
In point of fact, some of them actively with
the Vietnam veterans anti-war movement
immediately after the Vietnam service.
But the idea of somebody out there,
correct if I'm wrong, the idea of not
supporting the war was tantamount
to not supporting our troops.
I think was a construct
that came out of the Nixon administration,
I don't know if it was Richard Nixon was
fair language came up with that,
but that was the positioning because at
least in my recollection,
and in my experience that hey if you're not in support,
then who will support the troops?
Conversely, if you want to
support the troops you've got to support
our dirty little war in Southeast Asia.
I'm going to have this stick my neck out in
the stands and false dichotomy.
I believe you can,
in a number of very demonstrable
ways support the troops.
Who I defined just about
everybody in uniform except or maybe even including,
but a handful of very senior military officers
that are involved in policy-making,
and it's a very small number there.
But virtually, everybody else I'm going
to put into that group called the troops.
I lettered veterans for peace chapter during
the first goals for working and we were
constantly in demand by various other smaller factions of
the larger piece anti-war movement there in Ithaca,
New York to join with them,
have a presence with them because they were so sensitive
about being charged with
this idea of not supporting the troops.
So you don't support the truth.
We did not request there, but we also,
I think they just want to make the point that the troops,
except for that small group of
very senior military officers, don't make policy.
But you don't make policy,
I always e-mail with a spec for infant treatment lack
an Assistant Secretary of State had soldiers.
I think this is one of the reasons
why we hold them
weirder and why we should hold them in our hearts.
We asked them to do some pretty awful things.
Even in this time, the work is often dirty,
and it's often dangerous.
Certainly, when we have these wars going on and
casualties come backlog every day it speaks for itself.
So basically, the deal
is you'd go to war when we tell you to,
and we've got to hold dear in our hearts.
If you see that how I see it,
and then I can give you a lot of
more examples of how you can do that.
Why I see it has cost our economy and why it's
much easier for at least identifying
these elephants in the living room.
We've got to keep thinking about this. Pass it on.
John Montgomery.
Thanks very much. Well, it's interesting if we talk
about the elephant room because I'm going to
talk a little bit about the elephant in the room,
and talk about false dichotomy.
I have series of tubes down thinking about
my first series was that the Reverend,
in between Steve and I,
not to keep us from killing each other.
The two of us have actually had a chat when the article came out,
and I invited him up to Air Force ROTC
showed him our building
that we spoke for an hour or so,
and then recently, I allowed my cadets
to spend an hour with him and discuss the article.
There isn't an animosity between us,
but that was the two first and there's two of us
gathered around a little bit of a background.
But my comments aren't going to be all
positive because it's a little bit
of a Tale of Two Cities.
So on the one hand, the article was amazing,
and on the other hand, the article was insulting.
So I'm going to talk about that
[inaudible] hopes that we can move past that over,
and understanding it really
is as part of the lesson learned,
or for the finding for everybody.
If you're going to help a veteran,
which I think the intent of the article was to help veterans, you can't...
You have to live in their shoes and
you have to speak their language.
Some of the things you can't do
is while speaking to them and insult them.
Where do I go with that?
In this discussion here,
as they introduced this conference,
they talked about cornerstones.
One of those cornerstones was
this panel is they will speak up.
So my two cornerstones for the military are two things.
One of them is called mistakes versus crime,
and the other one is fight with a happy heart.
By taking those two elements
of our culture and flipping them against us.
The article is now a gong to military people.
Let's talk about the state versus crimes first.
When I got to my first pilot training based in 1986,
after graduating the academy,
my boss's boss's boss got up and said the
following and I've heard this every single time I flew,
because I fly airplanes.
My boss's boss's boss sits us down,
called the link commander
[inaudible] for a unit of fliers.
He says the following, "Over
the next several years you will
have lots of rules and regulations,
standards and procedures,
and rules of engagement that you will follow.
You will make mistakes.
You will acknowledge those mistakes
and there are so many rules that mistakes will happen,
which will acknowledge them as soon as you can
debrief when you evaluate them.
As soon as you can see what kind of level
of interference or what kind
of interdiction that we need to have.
But we will still stick
with our code and acknowledge mistakes.
The difference between a mistake and a crime.
The crime is willfully making
that mistake and highly that mistake".
You will hear that statement
throughout the military in
different forms and different services.
Like I said I've heard every time I move,
every time I get a new commander,
we have a discussion of mistakes versus crime.
In fact, every morning,
or really every shift right now there are three shifts
of remotely piloted aircraft, pilots,
sensor operators, and intelligence operatives
who are in three shifts,
12-hour shift rotating three-hour,
12-hour shifts that are [NOISE].
Stand up, tell me about the rules of engagement.
Somebody will stand up and talk about rules of
engagement for a specific situation.
Then they will talk about mistakes versus
crime that's happening this moment.
In every remote audit or graph-based, diminished.
Murder is a crime.
Webster Dictionary calls it
a crime, intentionally killed somebody,
so in the article when you
say murderer, and thus call me a murderer.
The 3000 people that I commanded between 2007 and 2009,
the President Bush and President Obama,
the remotely piloted aircraft,
I saw every strike.
I did not approve strikes because that
comes from a higher authority
and they follow the rules of the game.
I certainly can't step in and
stop a strike because it's not following the rules,
but every single strike,
I [inaudible] and these people follow the rules
and so that's the state of the response.
The second one is [inaudible] as General Mattis,
who would be Central Command's commanding officer or
the rapid enhancement said, fighting the happy part,
and the reason he said this, and Madison,
the legendary figure, just recently retired.
[inaudible] Madison said, "to fighting the happy part,
primarily because we follow those rules to relieve
us of the responsibility of internalizing," right?
You give us rules, the nation,
people like you, the left,
they gave us rules, we follow those rules.
That means it's not a crime.
They may be tragic, they may be a mistake,
but these people stay within
those rules because we all have demons.
Following those rules gives us
a little bit of insulation from harming those demons.
He also said, "fight with
a happy heart because we don't do this in anger.
This isn't a sport, this isn't one of them," and
the Cambridge dictionary defines
murder as malice of forethought,
the crime and technical skills,
so in the article, as you describe
the local part of aircraft people as murderers,
you flip two of our cornerstone box
and then the article cannot be read by
a military person with any seriousness
and the article's two cities.
There's one article, the article's complex,
it is intricate, it is
actually fun to read, it is difficult,
it's hard, it's right in some areas,
and then on the other side there is random,
unseemingly connected paragraphs that resolve,
so with all transparency,
I cannot pronounce the
article's [inaudible] in the world,
it has some good points and [inaudible] ,
but we can't I can't flip our two cornerstones [inaudible]
Thanks, Colonel Hodges. We're going
to start the Q&A session,
and I'm going to ask one question to
get this going and then I'll turn it over
to you guys so you guys could be thinking about
questions as we work through this next question here.
I'll start with Dr. Salaita,
and I get the sensory in your article that when you
say the slogan support the troops is not
actually supporting the troops.
If I'm not trying to support the troops,
but you're actually not supporting
the troops, I guess my question is,
who and or what are you supporting
by following along with
this notion of support the troops?
I think it varies depending on the situation,
depending on the context,
and this is really a phrase that is surfacing now
but that is probably better for another day.
State power, work policy,
whatever in the moment is considered to be
a national interest and whatever in
the moment it is considered to be of national interests,
and also tends to be in the interests
of the nation's elite and not the
entire population of a nation.
Okay. Anybody else on the panel want to respond to that?
Just me speaking personally,
when I think supporting the troops,
I don't think support state power.
That may be what's going on,
but I think very personal lives
trying to support the soldiers who
have actually gotten out,
and there may be a distinction there
because when you're talking about supporting state power,
I think you might be talking about supporting people
who are actively involved,
whereas when I think of supporting the troops now,
I think about supporting those who have
already served and have gotten out
and are trying to make a life for
themselves outside of the military,
so I'm not sure if
other people get that same sense as well.
Yeah, I don't necessarily see that connection.
Yes, I see the same thing. I think, Steve,
it's a little too obtuse for
me to equate the state power with the,
if you want to call it a slogan,
support the troops, and I agree, it is overused,
but I don't think it leads to
the detriment of those of
us who really do want to
hold these young men and women in our hearts,
and whether or not we support the project or not,
we're going to support them.
We want them to receive not just
[inaudible] and on active duty,
the necessary support they need to do their jobs,
but in particular, we want to support them when
they're out and when we come home
because that's where I think for me as a nation,
America as a nation really, really falls short.
Take a look at it from the Civil War
up through every conflict.
Even after World War II,
when that wonderful celebration
of victory and returning soldiers,
it didn't take long for problems,
the same kind of problems we're talking
about today, to emerge,
and I won't spend a whole lot of time on my homecoming
from that war, it was quite different from my parents,
but it's certainly a different context,
but the idea of being supported.
Whether or not America
supported us while we were in Vietnam,
it never once crossed my mind.
We should be taking care of them,
and I don't recall any conversations or any grousing about...
[inaudible] all those hippies
that are jumping up and down and
protesting. Nonsense,
the soldiers got too much to do,
too much on his mind or
her mind to worry about whether you guys,
but after they come home, after they come home,
that's when you can guarantee your support.
I already knew that,
but that is not how the phrase "support the troops" says,
and overall, political discourse, certain things.
It does not generally signal support when they come home,
with adequate care, adequate attention, with empathy,
it generally holds as a way of saying
[BACKGROUND] there is a form
of patriotism to which you should include it here,
and that brand of patriotism usually precludes the type
of critique that would put somebody
outside of the accepted context of discourse.
Yes, I feel like [NOISE] at basic human level,
if you're a human being with empathy, of course,
you should care for the folks who come home,
and you should support policies
that are actually to their benefit.
But I don't see enough evidence at the level of,
say, first of all,
that that kind of care is being provided to the troops.
Second of all, I see that all the time in the way
that when somebody offers
a critique of a particular court policy,
the way that folks tend
to screech about how those things aren't patriotic,
about how he's not American,
about how he needs to leave the country, etc., etc.
Those attitudes are extremely restrictive
of the type of speech one can engage in
around the issue of state power reform policy.
It's tied [NOISE] [inaudible]
into this particular slogan.
I agree and disagree that that discussion of supporting
the troops tends to mean
support the policy with which we are pursuing them,
so there isn't a rift
between the country as it occurred in Vietnam.
There's also an attempt here to keep the troops from
paying for policies with
which they aren't responsible for.
There is a little bit of that,
but I think what we're trying to do,
and at least what we're trying to do
with the article is move it away
from the skepticism that you have,
and I mean that in a positive way.
We talk about this skepticism in a positive way toward
a more grassroots support plus
a more formal Cadillac policy.
You're taking care of the troops at home where they live,
a concierge service, if you would,
to make sure the troops really
are supported when they return
from both as a supply for the war,
so they have the equipment to execute the war,
and then they come home for services.
In some way, it may be connected to patriotism,
but I tend to look for the more of
the emotional support when we use that phrase.
Hey, Gil, just got some questions out here.
Thank you. I think that's not working here with
[inaudible] was enough for
somebody that says "for the troops."
I've never met anyone like that, but sometimes,
I sense that the argument was addressed in that it was
a very narrow criticism
that we all see there's an easy solution.
Not too easy for the guy in [inaudible] ,
I agree, but [inaudible]
But I also think that the argument is
not what we should all see as supporting the troops.
As someone who does work in there, at times,
when there was this identification with
the government about supporting
the troops by the governments,
I think this January, at least,
was very different for me, and in my observation,
the situation, in that, supporting is troops is almost
permanently the troops, and [inaudible].
If you watch all of
the lower middle class or lower class parents economically who have never
voted walk in and vote for Obama and they are
supporting the children when the law itself is saying,
" [inaudible] program because
this is how we support the troops."
[inaudible]
When I read into your article and I see some of
these generalizations about what people think of us,
about the troops, I think we're underselling.
But what I say is [inaudible] Absolutely,
there is a certain group of people will wave the flag
[inaudible] That is all for them.
[NOISE] What I've done, I've seen the slogan and
then the argument [inaudible] On the one hand,
you're talking about the troops,
and then in the next, you did mention it and say,
"Are we speaking about all of them," or they say,
"This one is a murderer, that one is not.
This one is [inaudible]."
The logic starts to fall as we
move on because I think you'll never force change.
I'd love for you to address that, but I am on
the accusation against individuals
who run into troops into individual war criminals...
I'd like to just add something.
Yeah, please.
I think that given that paragraph you're referencing,
I'm asking a set of
perfectly legitimate but important moral questions.
I think, anybody, it's true,
no matter what the politics are,
would argue that American soldiers
at different points in history have been
implicated in war crimes, yes?
Sure.
Okay. What does "support the troops" descent to?
It's a blank statement.
But I'm asking, the soldier who missed their case,
the soldier who breaks orders,
the soldier who does something that he's
not supposed to do that causes harm to other people,
who's supposed to support them?
Are we supposed to support black [inaudible] mercenaries?
Are they part of the troops,
or are they are not part of the troops?
It's a blanket statement. I say we need to
suss out the nuance here.
When we are saying support the troops,
[NOISE] which troops exactly are we supporting?
The ones who are doing good,
those who are following orders, those who have empathy,
or are we supposed to support them no matter what?
Is there a limit to the support,
even according to the underlying
discourses of the slogan?
I think that the slogan, again, is institutional.
When you study this course,
you don't do it in such a way as
to take individual examples
as undermining the discourse
functioning at the institutional level,
what you do is, you look at the way that the discourse
achieves a certain power and
a certain status and a certain discursive currency.
In this case, I feel like a simple troop achieves
a certain currency at the level of patriotism.
Steve I think that's way too broad a brush [inaudible]
The military itself
with all its faults, has a well-established criminal justice system.
We break the law,
[inaudible] [OVERLAPPING] Oh, no,
not all the troops, but just lots of them.
If you take a look at
the brain stem and the [inaudible] of a criminal,
they're still with the soldiers who have done wrong,
and have been held accountable for it.
No one's arguing against the atrocities,
and frankly, during the Vietnam era,
there was a routine pattern of
covering up things like that.
I think the colonel here's a good example,
based on some of the arguments made. It argues
the military are moral constructs.
They have to be, by nature.
The difference between a criminal
and a warden can be a very fine line sometimes,
and in what separates that,
and that is the underlying moral assumptions and
the principles that guide the action.
To start to identify various illegal acts,
even within the context of war is representative of,
I really think it gets us
way off into a different direction.
[inaudible]
Here you go.
I guess first, I would like to reply to
the statement that he
said that not all of these are people in
the military who commit crimes
for the purposes of justice.
But there are people that appreciate
the colonel's distinction between states and crimes.
There are people who do commit
crimes in military base [inaudible].
I grew up in the military, I served in the military,
under General Mattis for a while.
I think you mentioned, I heard you
talking about this. I think it was.
The question I was also known as [inaudible] behavior.
We have statements that are being referred to,
such as critical ones that are listed in principle, you,
many of us are not followed by
any professors and also the professor doesn't as
well [inaudible] So my question
is that if I do take offense,
especially when [inaudible] I
think it has been quite specifically put out there.
But the question is, I didn't question actually and
attend an choice of what you
made to choose the fan and
the cash register that says support the troops.
Because certainly, I've heard
[inaudible] that certainly involve offerings of
many stories that said that what we've
seen cans that support all kinds of other things, Sustainability Project,
a little league, SPCA, Girl Scouts,
Blacksburg high school [NOISE] [inaudible] But easy,
but why people love and cookies for a film anyway.
There's all types of ideologies and we have
a theoretical academic discussion on
how you can connect all these things,
the ideologies that come up with the reasons why.
But everyone halfway right now is
working hard for America to pay their taxes,
to contribute to our university that pay my salary.
They're working hard and they know when they see
the statement support troops by
some people who live in their community,
that's not going on to
the United States of America or the US army,
it's going to the, you know, Floyd chapter of whatever.
Then they're going to be [inaudible].
My question is, why did you choose that campaign?
I'm going to try to keep my answer brief,
but I'm also going to have to
be frank about a few things.
One of which is this is starting to nag at me in
a pretty intense way.
You can unravel that ideology of anything.
You have the Boy Scouts, the Girl Scouts,
all of that is true. Any sort of camp.
There's Somebody who does in part cultural studies,
I do all the time, we do that all the time,
I do that in my class, I do that with my students.
I say, let's take something
mundane and see if we cannot measure it.
But support the troops,
as a category of ties into patriotism and foreign policy,
I had a serious effects in terms of how we pay taxes,
in terms of how we vote,
in terms of how our tax dollars are used,
in terms of how our military is deployed,
in terms of how our politicians behave.
We're more invested in
more serious ways than that, it's a serious issue.
Number two, and in this,
I have to say I'm sorry.
I really feel like
the article could be written more closely,
the paragraph in question.
I will not use the word murderer,
I say those who murder,
are they worse than before?
All right. That's the first thing
I understand that there's another context.
It's a serious, legitimate, ernest,
moral question along the way and offers support in.
What support are all quite must've begun.
I understand the gentleman's point,
I understand the colonel's point about
what mistakes versus crime.
All right. But I have to strenuously object to
the conceptualization of children
getting killed at wedding parties as a mistake.
I have to strenuously object.
I object to that just as strongly as
my colleague objects to the use of the word birth.
To me that is an extremely problematic way to describe
people are on the receiving end of
things almost as bad as the term collateral damage.
Again, because if we're going to be,
we're not down up in this,
we're not ignoring this in any way
and they're thinking that the severe price.
Also these action are
taking place not in the United States,
but they're taking place in other countries that
are affecting the people of those countries.
There is more than another side to form
a policy to the actions
of those who make military decisions.
It affects the populations of
people in the countries that will engage with an enter.
The corresponding moral question I would ask is,
yes, we follow work and the people who are
making the decisions are
ones who are to be condemned by my belief.
Is it their based
on the amount of wedding parties have been hit,
based on the amount of children who have been killed.
There's substantial documentation for all of this.
Is it a reasonable assumption to say that when
that demand is made to carry out
that action that civilians are going to be killed?
Why can't we think about it in
terms of that type of war paradigm.
If you know that an action, a certain action has
a at least reasonable chance of killing civilians,
should you take that into account
when [inaudible] and making borders.
Again, I'm not going to get
the people who carry out their missions.
People who make the decision and ask do I feel
important in adopting decisions.
Let me address a couple
of [inaudible] because [inaudible].
I do want to put a couple of things in context.
Who do we support if somebody
is a bad conduct discharge or has been determined by
the Uniform Code of Military Justice
to not follow orders.
The mistake was either too large a mistake or a crime,
then they get discharged with bad conduct,
for example, start bad conduct and discharge.
That person no longer qualifies the event,
no longer qualifies to [inaudible].
But the state doesn't support him
anymore and I think
although Americans are very forgiving,
employers are not, and a bad conduct discharge does okay,
That person falls outside what we
would say in supporting the troops.
He falls out of that character.
There is a mechanism in place.
Now again, it's not perfect.
We make mistakes, we are prosecuting should,
there's a whole series of things.
But in general, The Uniform Code Of Military Justice
is there for that purpose.
Now, the last point there, the civilians do make
the rules and I try to put it this way.
If you must say somebody here had lost
a loved one on 9-11 and you
have an opportunity to exterminate Osama bin Laden.
What if a child was executed?
One child? Would you take
the shot knowing that the child wouldn't kill?
Two children? 35 children?
That was a joke. What is your number?
Now again that children were back there and lets say,
somebody, we don't know.
We don't know if this individual
is sitting or standing next to
a solid the bottom is a military person or not.
But let's just say they are dangerous.
How many would you give to get Osama Bin Laden?
Well, guess what? There are decisions behind it,
and they are given to us.
This is the number and that's not quite back warm.
But women sitting at the console make that decision.
By ourselves, absolutely not,
with a ground commander, absolutely.
Was somebody else watching the video?
Absolutely. There's a lot of people,
specifically remotely piloted aircraft,
are in there watching that video,
but I can guarantee you that
every situation can't be role-play.
But there is, for lack of a better word,
a number that this person is worth and I
guarantee you one female next to Osama Bin Laden,
who we don't know what we absolutely know that is
Osama Bin Laden, I will kill him.
In that process, I would take a life.
The only thing I have
to fall back on in taking that is that was
the rules and I'm not going to break the rules
but those are the rules and I'm going to take that shot.
Those are the things
that are introduced chapter tried to point
out in our own community about when you make
this decision and this was before we went to war.
When you do make a decision to go to war,
these are the kinds of things that you have to consider.
But the majority of casualties in
modern warfare are likely to be non-combatants.
If you supported the law and the necessity to do it,
then you are in fact,
agreeing to the tactics and
means by which that modern war is going to be waged.
Okay, I think we've got one more question in the back.
Two more questions.
[NOISE]
[inaudible]
feel like maybe a lot of keys up there or somebody who's,
I just want to say that I really do
support and believe some
of the ideas that you're trying to say.
That's coming from a Marine vet.
I think that we spun out of control with this whole,
what does it mean to support
the troops versus this whole,
ethics of war, [inaudible] command, discussion.
I can go into that and I can just do that afterwards.
But I think what it comes down to is how does
the person feel when they hear or see someone say,
I support the troops? This is what I hear.
When I hear someone say,
I support the troops, I think, really?
How? In what ways are you supporting the troops?
[inaudible] I think it is,
for the most part, it's unlikely today.
It may be easy for
you guys as professionals, who are invested in
that kind of advocacy not to see it maybe as
much as someone who's more on the floor and not all that.
But I saw it all the time.
I see people, especially college students,
they don't know what they're saying.
They just think, if I say
this then I can feel good about myself.
I can feel like I'm doing something.
I think of other things.
I think of Walmart saying,
we hire veterans and I think, no.
I think you hire people and some of them happen to be
veterans and it allows you to say, we hire veterans.
But now I fought in a war and I'm like, "Hey,
I'm a veteran" and they're like,
"No, we're not going to hire you."
I'm like, but you said you hire veterans.
Suddenly it doesn't affect you.
And I think of other situations where, America is.
The problem with America is we're very
sensationalistic and I think our generation,
my generation, doesn't have
the concept of consequentialism.
What I mean by that is,
I think we're very easy to be guilted into something.
I'm sure you've seen those commercials where that old man
is involved with puppies and they're like no,
so and so puppy or
some starved child in Africa or something like that.
So if you send ten cents a day,
or whatever, you can save this child.
And for like 10 seconds you feel really,
really bad and you're like, oh man,
I should do something.
But then you don't. I did.
I remember at the time, for ten seconds I was going to
save every single dog.
I'm going to save all these children.
[inaudible] or something like that,
[inaudible] and that's how I feel.
Like there's someone saying, I support the troops.
I'm not talking about those who
genuinely support the troops.
Because if you do support
the troops and you're doing something about it,
I'm going to know it, I'm going to see
it and I'm not going
to have anything negative to say about it.
But, I see these people,
I'm listening to this conversation,
and here's a man
saying something that I think is very truthful.
[inaudible] I think it's okay.
If you don't support the troops,
there's nothing wrong with that.
It's America, you're free to not support the troops.
If you don't believe in what we do, don't support it.
If you believe in what they're doing, support them.
Something about, oh but do we support all troops,
or do we support some troops?
I think we're broad brushing the sheet too much.
And you should be focusing on the smaller communities.
like when I say, I support the troops,
I've got [inaudible] when I say, I support the troops,
I mean I support the Marines
more than I support the Air Force or Army.
[LAUGHTER]
There's a hierarchy.
I really do support the people.
I have to say I didn't really support the war.
And when I joined the Marines,
I knew that I was going into wartime.
Not supporting the war,
but why I joined is I wanted to support the troops.
And the [inaudible] was
Mortuary Affairs and I believed in
Mortuary Affairs because I wanted to make
sure that the troops who
gave their lives, could come home.
That's how I chose to support the troops.
I agree with you on a couple of things,
but I got to tell you this.
We are in the wake of what
you call instant sensationalism.
We're into branding.
Virginia Tech, the brand of the future.
We have to get your communications story.
Support the troops never
came from the Department of Defense,
I don't know where it came from,
but it was a brand and a slogan that was sent out there.
But I think, if I had to walk myself back to Vietnam,
the phrase that I would rather use,
I don't support the war so I
don't support the troops and that gets
back to the heart of what Steve was talking about.
In that comment, I think what we hope,
Support the Troops means,
in that context is, I don't support the war.
Don't punish the troops. [APPLAUSE]
That's what we're afraid.
That's the dependence that Vietnam gave to us.
Honestly, I'm a beneficiary of that.
So we can't come up with
a slogan meaning if you
don't like the war, which is great,
wonderful protests again it,
vote for everyone, but don't punish the troops,
but that doesn't sell.
Not sell stuff, not corporate stuff,
but just it doesn't inspire people.
So when somebody comes up to me and
says, I support the troops, I think it's wonderful,
small acorns grow into mighty oaks.
It's just the beginning
of supporting us, not because of us,
but you still get to have a voice of
what you think about the war and we encourage that.
I have people come to me all the time and
talk about how the war is wrong and things are wrong.
That's okay, and at the same time,
walk away and say,
but I love you, and thank you for serving.
And I always tell them it's an honor.
So I think what Steve was talking about,
the kind of connected with Steve
was talking about in that slogan,
is I don't support the war so I don't support the troops.
Do we have one more question?
So I just want to say a personal thanks for this.
It's the most fun we've had all day.
[inaudible] One kind of question is,
I read the article when
it was published and now I've seen the feedback.
It's interesting feedback [inaudible] dealt with this.
But a lot of it revolves around this argument, hey,
"walk a mile in my shoes, you don't get it".
My question really is it,
maybe it goes the [inaudible] ,
in our democratic society with a very technical,
very professional military,
who gets to critique the military?
Is it, "Unless you've walked a mile in my shoes,
then you don't get to critique?",
or is it the citizenry of that society served that's
allowed to ask questions?
I guess that goes to the colonel.
Well, from my perspective.
We choose [inaudible] I call you,
sir and ma'am because you're civilians.
I do that because part of our cornerstone is that we
are civilian-ruled and also that you pay my salary.
More importantly, I feel like,
although I'm about to retire
and that means for the first time in my life I will be
a consumer of security instead of a provider of security.
We really do feel that if, and if Joe in nameless city,
if you came up to him and critiqued him and the military,
he might take offense.
But in an academic situation,
if you talk to me about what the military is or isn't,
because there is nothing wrong,
I'm certainly going to give
you what I think is my opinion.
But I think you all have that ability
as long as we don't insult the troops.
We understand that they are
carrying out policies of the government.
Minus them committing a crime,
aka Nazi extermination camps where
they clearly understood that these were
innocents and yet followed orders anyway,
minusing that kind of situation, at the end of
this massive discourse and argument you have,
I think walking away and saying thank you for
your service is still an appropriate phrase.
Any last comments? Gentlemen, I want to thank you for
your participation [APPLAUSE] [inaudible]