Supporting our troops

[Chriswood8]

ok i'm just watching UFC fight for the troop and it's a free view show dedicated to the fallen heros fund there are alot of celebs on the show saying how we should support the forces and what they're doing because they're fighting for our freedom in Iraq and Afgan - what i dont understand (and please people help me widen my mind) is iraq and afgan have never threatened, attacked or even hurt a single person in this country (england even america!) so my question is why? the people who go out there KNOW the risk that might happen to them and they choose to do that so why should we suppost them? at the end of the day thats there job which they choose to do. if they really wanted to protect us they should really be in Saudi... surely? sorry if i sound like i git but i just want other peoples opinion. thanks

[Octavius]

Their job is in protecting the United Kingdom and its overseas territories, promoting Britain's wider security interests, and supporting international peacekeeping efforts. They do not �choose� to go anywhere � least of all to war � politicians do that for them and they follow their orders.

Why should we support them? Well they are doing their job in protecting our interests and putting their life on the line in our (Britain�s) name. You and I may not agree with their presence in the Iraq & Afghanistan, there does not seem to be any solid reason for it. It seems to have been based on dodgy intelligence and political opportunism. Unfortunately a mistake that has created such a mess, we are struggling to put it all right again, and that is why they remain.

But that doesn�t mean we should forget the troops. We should worry about them being killed, and worry about them being placed in the position of killing. Most of all, we should be angry that we are sending our soldiers to a war that nobody can justify. Most of us do not have to worry about a loved one in the middle of this war, but there are many who do.

You advocate taking them out of Iraq, but then deploying them elsewhere. You see it as a simple movement of pawns, like a politician would. On what basis would you justify sending 1,000�s of troops to an equally fatal future? These are human lives we are talking about, support our troops, campaign for them to be withdrawn from active conflict and return home to peace.

[jake-the-peg]

Of course the other perspective is that most people joining the armed forces have no idea in what cause they may be asked to fight and kill people.

In large conflicts like the world wars people specifically joined knowing what they would be fighting for - they made a moral decision that it was a fight worth the sacrifice.

Most of the people joining the armed forces abdicate that moral decision. They join up knowing they may be asked to kill people and don't care to worry about the reasons.

That puts them on a different ethical footing to those who fought in the world wars.

BTW did anyone notice the weasel words in Octavius' first paragraph?

Promoting Britain's wider security interests

I think that's shorthand for fighting wars in other people's countries if we don't like them isn't it?

[Octavius]

Oh jake, why so rancorous? Not my weasel words, but those of our government and from the Strategic Review of 1998. If you have issues, take it up with them.


(a) Peacetime Security
(b) Security of the Overseas Territories
(c) Defence Diplomacy
(d) Support to Wider British Interests
(e) Peace Support and Humanitarian Operations
(f) Regional Conflict outside the NATO area
(g) Regional Conflict inside the NATO area
(h) Strategic Attack on NATO.

We are in a global existence and as an open society we are easily affected by global trends and other external influences which may require our military attention. If you have wording issues, take it up with the government.

http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/65F3D7AC-4340-4 119-93A2-20825848E50E/0/sdr1998_complete.pdf

[jake-the-peg]

I didn't say they we're your weasel words did I?

it's too easy to justify any armed action anywhere in the world as support to Wider British interests.

Isn't it the same logic the Americans used to justify their war in Vietnam?

[Octavius]

Of course, it could mean �keeping the Americans sweet� or �fighting for democracy in a country where we can dictate the distribution of oil reserves�.

In any event, do you think we should abstain from supporting our troops because they are following the orders and whims of politicians?

[T&S]

As a serving member of the military, I would like to thank jake for his 'insight' into my thought process for joining up some 19 years ago.

Yes that's right 19 years ago before Iraq and Gulf War 1 & 2, Yugoslavia/Kosovo, 9/11, 7/7 and our war on terror. When I began this career, our 'enemy' were those individuals who considered it acceptable to bomb a Remembrance Parade in Enniskillen, Warrington Town Centre and Omagh. Of course there was our Russian friends, but they weren't planting IEDs trying to kill us.

As for me abdicating the moral decision on killing people, it is not something I would undertake easily or without conscience.

It seems far too easy for people like jake to have his say when, no doubt, the closest he has come to serving his country is deciding to play Call of Duty or Medal of Honour and kill some pesky Nazis on his computer.

[Chriswood8]

but all in all, at the end of the day, when all the dust has settled, if you were to consider joining the army infanty division you know the is a very big chance you will be fighting, killing or be killed - infantry means http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infantry. so yes really they do choose to go to war thats what they are trained for.