Why We “Support the Troops”- Rhetorical Evolutions

The article Why We “Support The Troops”: Rhetorical Evolutions by Roger Stahl analyzes the genealogy of the call “supporting the troops”. He argues that over the decades, the rhetoric “supporting the troops” has gone beyond the strategy and propaganda. It has been associated with constructing and normalizing the image of war, and also an image of citizenship in relation to war. In his argument, the rhetoric support-the-troops has two major functions: deflection and dissociation.

https://www.facebook.com/SupportTheTroopsUSA/

Deflection involves directing civic attention away from the question of whether the war is just, but to our troops. The essay studies this trend by examining the POW/MIA, the war film, and yellow ribbon. The rhetoric of deflection started from the Vietnam war when president Johnson organized the campaign of “Supporting Our Boys in Vietnam”. Meanwhile, they had been working on rescuing POW/MIA, which represents captives and bodies, to get back home. The question of “why we fight” gradually shifted to “for the soldier itself”. The captivity, since then, has become the important symbol of support-the-troops.

https://www.pow-miafamilies.org/about-the-league/

The rhetoric is also embedded in many film movies. Many movies, such as Saving Private Ryan and Behind Enemy Lines, avoid the presence of reasons for fighting, but filled the story of saving the troops with the camaraderie and glory of an individual. These anti-war, pro-soldier movies actually have a pro-war effect because of the idea of rescue they presented. The movies justify the war by reducing the patriotism to an individual and depicting the self-protection and survival. The symbol of the yellow ribbon, as well, appears along with the slogan “support-the-troops” and implies the meaning “bring them home”.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00335630209384386

(The original article of the analyze of the movie Saving Private Ryan. )

Another aspect of the support-the-troop rhetoric is dissociation. Dissociative rhetoric creates the distances between citizens and soldiers. It often goes further, conveying that the civic deliberation and dissent is an attack on soldiers, and addressing the protestors of war as the enemy of troops. The dissociation rhetoric initiated from separating troops and citizens, for example, by using the term “support” in place of “service with”. Besides, the “troops” represents the collection of all the soldiers, regardless of the rank. The rhetoric portrayed the army as an undifferentiated mass and therefore eliminated the dissent, which is usually inspired by concerning soldiers as individuals.

In addition to creating the distance, the rhetoric of dissociation constructs the dissent as the antagonism of the soldier. In the late-Vietnam war period, the anti-war protesting became a large scale. And the presence of the anti-war soldier was strong. However, the government settled the problem by organizing the pro-war groups, including soldiers, standing for the large grass root majority of veterans and having a debate with anti-war organizations. This actions suggested that anti-war was the exception of the soldiers’ opinion and made it lost the support. The government portrayed the soldier and the protestors were enemies. The protesters were said, “stab our soldiers in the back” by claiming not supporting the military. The conflict was interpreted as the support of military against the anti-American and anti-soldier protestor.

http://www.vvaw.org/veteran/article/?id=482

The article leads us to reconsider the rhetoric “support-the-troops”. By deflection, it converts the questioning of the justice of war to protecting our soldiers. However, it cannot justify all military action. It is the responsibility of us to help the troops out of the dangerous situation, but perhaps they shouldn’t be sent out in the first place. In this perspective, the military action fails to conform with the rhetoric. The dissociation aspect of the rhetoric requires citizens to support the troops without holding dissent ideas. Meanwhile, troops serving at the front are doing the job of protecting the liberty and democracy of America. We need to figure out what does “supporting-the-troops” really stands for. Is it support them to stay safe? Or support them to complete their mission which sometimes includes killing and invading other countries? Or is it the support of the order of the government?

http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=14635229

32 Responses to "Why We “Support the Troops”- Rhetorical Evolutions"

Sean Foley says:

February 12, 2017 at 12:51 pm

Roger Stahls article focuses on “deflection” and “dissociation” as the two forms of support for the troops rhetoric. In my own life I seem to have experienced deflection more than dissociation. I have seen the yellow ribbons on trees outside my church. I never knew that the yellow ribbons origin was for prisoners or someone in a situation of seemingly no escape. This gave the yellow ribbons a greater significance now that they are used as a symbol to bring troops home. The notion to save the soldier is very common in today’s America. It is ironic that we say save the solider when traditionally soldiers purpose is to save our lives. It is a perfect example of the redefinition of war. The redesignation of POW and MIA came as a shock to me and honestly left me with less trust for the American government. The use of deflection in hollywood starting in the late 1970’s is much clearer after reading Stahls argument. Some of my favorite war films Apocalypse Now, Full Metal Jacket, and Platoon all make extensive use of deflection in the the film. They center around the soldiers struggle in a seemingly not noble conflict. However, to an extent I believe that these movies do depict war more closely. Not every soldier is gonna be fighting for the love of their country and the government. I’m sure every soldier while deployed has had many moments where they ask themselves what the real purpose is of the war that they are fighting. In that sense I do not feel that Stahl is correct in calling these movies deflections because they may just be more accurate at depicting the mindset of a soldier at war.
1. Steven Zhang says:
  
  February 20, 2017 at 10:17 pm
  
  I agree with your point that “Not every soldier is gonna be fighting for the love of their country and the government”. Many of us failed to realize that soldiers do struggle with the reason for fighting, even more than we do. By the way, I believe the reason that we ignore this fact is that we treat troops as an entity and subconsciously mixed that concept with “military”, which is also due to the deflation effect of the rhetoric. And yes, I don’t think Stahl’s idea cannot be applied in these movies as well. And besides, the irony that you mention “we say save the soldier when soldiers purpose is to save our lives” questions the slogan “support-the-troops”. What does the “support” really stands for?
Helen Spiller says:

February 12, 2017 at 3:26 pm

This article really hit home for me because in high school I was a member of the, “Support Our Troops” club and and leader of the club for two years. To me, before reading this article, the, “Support Our Troops” club meant people coming together to lend support for those soldiers fighting abroad and protecting our freedom. I thought in my head that it wasn’t the soldiers fault that they were fighting abroad. Even if I didn’t agree with the war itself, I thought it was my American duty to show support for those fighting regardless. But, this article opened up my eyes to see just how I came to that conclusion and all the rhetoric and propaganda that comes behind the saying, “Support Our Troops.”

I now realize that the government wanted me to think exactly what I did; I was the perfect example of all of this rhetoric working correctly. I now see that the term, “Support Our Troops”, is a term that is ultimately used to justify war though deflection and dissociation. I see how deflection makes war be purely a struggle for the soldier and dissociation uses the notion of a proper war time citizen. I thought it was so interesting how the Vietnam war seemed to be the turning point for this pro-soldier, anti-war sentiment. From this I don’t entirely blame myself for falling victim to this rhetorical term because my entire life has been filled with this pro-solider feeling. It seems almost impossible to see through this rhetoric when symbols such as the rise and fall of John Kerry and the popularity of movies like “Saving Private Ryan”. Towards the end of the article I was both inspired by and loved the line, “asking why we fight is the best way to support the troops.” I never saw that before this article. Instead of blindly supporting the troops because that is what I’ve always been taught and that’s the American way, I should question why we even have troops abroad because Stahl is right when he says that the best way to support our troops is to question war and, with that, attempt to keep them on our own soil.
1. Steven Zhang says:
  
  February 20, 2017 at 10:48 pm
  
  Your response to the article reflects many readers’. The more you participate in supporting the troops in school or club, the clearer will you see the rhetoric. While the government is leading the public to believe in rhetoric justifying the war by deflection and dissociation, I believe that there are still some reasons that lie in our value or in the social norm which makes people engage in supporting the troops. The pro-soldier sentiment is common and patriotic. However, like you said, besides shouting out support-the-troops, keeping them in the America is also a great way of supporting them.
Corey Beutel says:

February 12, 2017 at 3:38 pm

Roger Stahl makes the point that “Supporting our Troops” has been used as rhetoric in two ways: deflection and dissociation. The deflection argument set the agenda of supporting soldiers who were captured as POW’s or went MIA. This caused people to support war efforts since they rescued our individual troops. However, these same efforts of sending troops to fight is what gets them captured. So is it best to rescue those captured or not risk any additional lives? The American people were persuaded to rescue those that were captured and ultimately support the current war effort because the “Support our Troops” was deflected into support the war.

The other approach to “Support our Troops” is dissociation. This rhetorical tactic isolates the civilians from the troops. It frames citizens who are against the war as against the troop, effectively polarizing the people. This tactic has a major flaw. Since it makes the people appear as though they are against the troops, people might start actually speaking against the troops. This tactic will lead to the troops being treated poorly in the land they fought to defend. This idea is flawed since it could potentially create more dissent for the troops, which could personally impact our soldiers as they return home. All this because the rhetoric used made anti-war protestors appear as anti-troop.
1. Steven Zhang says:
  
  February 20, 2017 at 11:15 pm
  
  I agree with your comment that the dissociation tactic will cause the troops being treated poorly when they came back. People respond to the slogan support-the-troops because they are emotionally connected to the troops and believe that troops are just ordinary people. The dissociation effect set a pro-war image of troops that people must agree with. Creating the image of soldiers of pro-war sentiment and using it to accuse the protestors as unpatriotic is not how you treat American citizens.
Caroline Zerkle says:

February 12, 2017 at 3:45 pm

The article by Roger Stahl titled “Why We Support the Troops” brings up great points about “deflection vs. dissociation” in terms of support for soldiers and for war. Growing up, I have seen and been influenced by many types of deflection rhetoric. My Dad and my Grandpa love war movies and I was raised to watch them reguarley. I never thought about the effect that watching films like “Saving Private Ryan” or “Forrest Gump” would have on my perception of war. It makes sense however, that by promoting a solider as a hero, which undoubtably most soldiers in one form or another are heroes, can sympathize and even normalize war. It makes war appealing of the average citizen. These movies do not emphasize the politics or broader actions and reactions of war, but rather take a snapshot of war from an individual perspective. Of course doing this, creates no reason for the viewer to question the reasons for war. In more recent times, movies like “American Sniper” or “Zero Dark Thirty” focus on a single person or a single event and the troubles and consequences of those stories. These films separate themselves from the greater war at hand.
1. Steven Zhang says:
  
  February 20, 2017 at 11:45 pm
  
  I agree with your feelings of the war movies. These movies did a really subtle work of evoking the sense of pro-soldier and drive the viewers’ attention away from the question of why should we engage in the war. Meanwhile, movies are entertainments. Their purpose is making money by drawing people’s attention. So maybe the war movies are made with the topic of saving because people naturally love it. And another thing, how would a soldier feel if he watched the movie and notices that it’s far from the reality that he been through?
Isaiah Duplessis says:

February 12, 2017 at 6:45 pm

Many strange Paradoxes exist within this article.
1. Can a war be about protecting soldiers when war puts their lives at risk?
2. Can a war exist without political/economic reasons?
3. Are we allowed to oppose war/ is opposing war opposing the troops?
4. Does support the troops involve activism to bring them home?
Seemingly all these questions would be answered: no, no, no, yes.
This however is counter culture to the common American view. The strength of this paper is bluntly juxtaposing the rhetoric used and its larger symbolic meaning against the actions of the American Government in a way to control the public.
How could a phrase Support the Troops be so powerful that it suppresses the political debate over whether or not war is meaningful or if troops should even be fighting?
The American Government and Media after Vietnam has used the rhetoric to distance troops from civilians. We rarely think of soldiers as people just like us. Unfortunately, where we hold American Lives a premium, it appears that civilians are valued over troops and simultaneously troops lives are valued over civilians when it benefits the government.
I mean to say that when John Kerry an actual soldier is invalidated just because he protests a war he fought it opposite a individual who didn’t fight and is okay sending troops to war, we as Americans have failed.
Moreover, it appears that the values that lead to War that used to hide political and economic reasons for war have been diluted to just supporting troops, such that it is simply easier to discuss war in terms of our troops.
Rhetoric in general has avoided the topic of the legitimacy of war since the failures of Vietnam as indicated by the article. How can meaningful debate occur if we continue to think in this manner and further, how could we ever reach a point of equally valuing other lives outside of Americans in this type of political climate.
Domestically we tend to see the same issue. With a larger public that is constantly growing, can we ever return to a since of government transparency and trust in the government.
One enlightened reader however knows to embrace skepticism as it relates to Supporting our Troops.
1. Steven Zhang says:
  
  February 21, 2017 at 12:02 am
  
  I think you had some really solid point here. You raised some paradoxes that are the central questions of the rhetoric created by the government. Can we support the troops by the same time sending them to the war? Can we support the troops while being the protestor of the war? These are the questions that the rhetoric tries to avoid. Also, you questioned that can we ever return to a sense of government transparency and trust the government. That leads to a relative question. Is there any positive effect of having the rhetoric affecting people’s minds?
  1. Isaiah Duplessis says:
    
    March 5, 2017 at 3:24 pm
    
    There has certainly been positive effects to the military. Within the public the lines are blurred. The cliche all press is good press applies here, because even all the controversies with military do not hurt the help the troops rhetoric, the lines are blurred here in the public realm because while we are protected is the threat legitimate.
Colin O'Donnell says:

February 12, 2017 at 7:11 pm

This article brings up “deflection” and “dissociation” as the two strategies the government uses to create support for the troops. I think deflection is a very effective strategy and you can find examples of the government using it all the time. Even when justifying the war the government tries to stray from mentioning our interests in that war. This allows them to deflect questions such “why should people lose their lives for oil” and paint the war as a struggle for survival. Dissociation focuses on distancing civilians from military personnel and seeing the whole military as one unit. This creates support for the war as it makes those who are protesting the war seem like they are protesting our soldiers which is seen as unpatriotic. This has forced protesters to try redefine their protests to show they support soldiers as seen with the adoption of the yellow ribbon program. Also dissociation hurts antiwar protesters because it takes away one of their strongest messengers, soldiers who are against the war. Soldiers standing up against the vietnam war lead to it becoming increasingly unpopular however with dissociation they are forced to fall in line or risk looking like they are unpatriotic.

I think the point that steven makes at the end of this post is especially important. This is because since the government masks its intention we must always try to look through the government’s veil and try to determine if going to war is the right idea. I also think that it is important that “support the troops” is redefined to meaning support their well being instead of supporting all of their actions.
1. Steven Zhang says:
  
  February 21, 2017 at 12:30 am
  
  I personally agree with you that “support the troops” is redefined to meaning support their well-being instead of supporting all of their actions. Any conclusion beyond that extent still needs to be reconsidered. We need to discover what our opinion really is and we should we do to support the troops. Additionally, I also feel like the rhetoric partly roots in the people. It’s a mutual process of rhetoric being spread. Thus we should rethink about our feeling and nature of the war.
Madeline Tolsdorf says:

February 12, 2017 at 8:03 pm

Deflection and disassociation are two key ways Stahl brings up the use of rhetoric in “supporting our troops.” Once I had finished the article, events and moments from my childhood came to mind while I thought about deflection. The government is very comfortable with this form of rhetoric and has employed it many times over the past few decades. Like Colin mentions, the government is very quick to ask for support in the war even without explaining why that support is deserved.

That being said, disassociation is also a large portion of government’s strategy in gaining support for war. In order for the government to be successful in its goal of gaining wide, unquestioning support from its citizens it must first dissociate their ideas of the army as individual and present the military as one unit in order to disassociate themselves from the individual aspects of each soldier. The government is guilty of doing this in the past three wars we’ve had.

This is bad for all the people who do try to support the troops because it does not give them the right reasons for their support and can often lead to increasing bouts of frustration and difficulty within the military and civilians alike. I think it is important, like Steven said, to think within a smaller picture and to individually take the time to define what supporting the troops really means.
1. Steven Zhang says:
  
  February 21, 2017 at 12:50 am
  
  I agree with your point that people need to figure out what supporting the troops really stands for. You mentioned that government si guilty of dissociating army from citizens in gaining the support of war. To what extent that you think the government’s act is guilty? Depicting troops as a unity and dissociating them from citizens, or convicting those protestors? And what’s the relation between this and George Bush’s strategy that spreading the inaccurate information to the public to gain the support?
Michael Horan says:

February 12, 2017 at 8:25 pm

In this article, Stahl argues the interlacing of deflection and dissociation have constructed the support our troops rhetoric that we are so familiar with today. First, “Deflection is the redefinition of war from a struggle to attain an external objective to an internal struggle to save the soldier.” Second, “Dissociation is a discourse that conditions the image of the proper wartime citizen.” These forces combine to make a war that needs no justifications, according to Stahl, and it is manifested in certain actions that form the support the troops ideology.
To take deflection for example, I thought it was very interesting how the 1990s experienced a shift in war films messages to “New Patriotism”. Prior to that, movies were distinctly “antiwar” or “prowar”. In the spirit of new patriotism, the movie industry produced movies that were less controversial, because they now focused on the individual soldier instead of the politics of the war itself. Immediately, Saving Private Ryan comes the the forefront of my mind. I remember the impression this movie made on me. It portrayed the brutality of war to the fullest, it highlighted individual relations, fear, bravery, and salvation in war. It is understandable how this film resultantly appeals to both liberals and conservatives, unlike many divisive films before it. The film pulls viewers into the role of the soldier where we can personally gauge the themes of victimhood, and survival. Saving Jessica Lynch was made after Saving Private Ryan and confirms this focus on the hostage soldier that the government wanted to enforce.
Secondly, dissociation reminded me of what we have been discussing in class of the government having specific expectations of citizens in wartime, and that if they do not fall into these parameters than they do not love our country. Stahl concludes his article not with a specific stance, but with an observant questioning mindset that he encourages every citizen to have when supporting our troops.
1. Steven Zhang says:
  
  February 21, 2017 at 4:26 pm
  
  I appreciate the review you made about the movie Saving Private Ryan. Unlike many war movies before it, it is accepted by all the viewers because of the pro-soldier attitude it represented. You also mentioned that the movies like Saving Private Ryan are products under the new patriotism. What are the relations between these pro-soldier topic war movies and the new patriotism? I also notice that the ending of the article is that he encourage citizens to keep a questioning mindset. He hopes that the deflection and dissociation influence on people will become less and less.
George Clayson says:

February 12, 2017 at 9:20 pm

I agreed with Roger Stahl when he mentioned how the phrase “support the troops” is being used. This phrase can mean either to support or to oppose the war. Support the troop rhetoric can be looked at as a way to support any military action, no matter how rash, risky, or unnecessary it may be. This rhetoric can also be seen as supporting the lives of the troops. It is the want for troops to come home from war and to be safe.
I found it interesting how the change from “kill your enemies” to “protect your brothers” increased military success. The original line seems to me that it would likely be more effective, because it attempts to dehumanize the enemy; to put them in a bad light. This tactic has been used by the United States successfully in the past to recruit troops, so it makes sense that it could work to fight the enemy. The results show that even when the enemies are seen as less human, people still may hesitate at the trigger.
1. Steven Zhang says:
  
  February 21, 2017 at 11:26 am
  
  I think you brought up some good points. The change of the propaganda from “kill your enemies” to “support the troops” increased military success. It is effective because while people feel hesitate to pull the trigger on the dehumanized enemy, they do not have a second thought to protect their brother. Interestingly, at war, these two choices are basically the same thing. Moreover, protect-your-brothers might be a reason for troops to shoot the enemy. But does it justify that we send the troops into the war?
Emily Wu says:

February 12, 2017 at 10:31 pm

It is interesting how the two functions of support the troop rhetoric -deflection and dissociation- construct the image of war and the citizen respectively. Deflection seems to distract us from questioning war policy. Popular war films focus our attention on a short story of an individual or small group of soldiers often faced with an immediate, critical threat. These narratives of salvation have emotional appeal and provide a simplified snapshot of war that we feel we can make sense of and allows us to avoid trying to make sense of the larger, confusing and complex picture of war. I think it is ironic that war has been redefined as a fight to save and protect soldiers when we also traditionally think of the purpose of soldiers to protect the citizens. I think the protection of soldiers as a rationale for war in the first place is a weak argument to justify war since going to war inherently puts them at risk. However, I see its effectiveness in garnering continued support for a war effort. It was interesting to see how people in power reinforced certain ideas about war and an acquiescing citizenry and dismissed counter ideas. The description in the gendering or war is it relates to the relationship between executives and citizens was interesting. While the fact that support the troop rhetoric helps “discipline and mute public deliberation in matters of war” can be depressing, it is also hopeful in the sense that we an active engaged citizenry have the power to change war discourse and action.
1. Steven Zhang says:
  
  February 21, 2017 at 11:37 am
  
  I agree with your opinion that it is ironic that war has been redefined as a fight to save soldiers when we also traditionally think of the purpose of soldiers to protect the citizens. It makes me realize that the passion of supporting the troops derives from the sentiment of protecting citizens. It goes back to the question of war. Do we really need to protect our citizens by sending troops to other countries? I also appreciate the point you brought up in the last that people are more aware of the rhetoric and have the power to change war discourse.
Sophia Bruce says:

February 12, 2017 at 10:57 pm

In Roger Stahl’s “Why We “Support the Troops”: Rhetorical Evolutions”, he argues that forms of propaganda and manipulation or citizen’s ideas throughout the years has caused an evolution in the idea of supporting troops and how we see the war. Stahl divides this idea into two sections, deflection and dissociation. I think the idea of deflection, the idea of “redefining war from a struggle to attain an external objective to an internal struggle to save the soldier” is very interesting. (Stahl, 535). This idea made me think back to other readings where we moved wars onto other territories in order to not see the warfare itself. In a similar sense, the government is attempting to move our focus from attaining an external objective to saving the soldiers who are fighting for us. Deflecting the objectives and goals of war helps in their efforts of minimizing criticism from citizens. This moves into dissociation, the idea that certain discourses are created that “condition the image of the proper wartime citizen.” (Stahl, 535) I can see themes from our past readings in these ideas also, such as dissent on the war being anti-patriotic, similar to how the rhetoric of dissociation “codes civic deliberation and dissent as an attack on the soldier body, which pits this active citizen on the wrong side of a construed moral divide.” (Stahl 535). I thought of our discussion around changing dissent on war into anti-war and pro-soldier, and this article helped me think about how the government may have used rhetoric to make these ideas possible.
1. Steven Zhang says:
  
  February 21, 2017 at 6:13 pm
  
  I agree that deflecting the objectives and goals of war helps in government’s effort of minimizing criticism from citizens. It actually worked. Along with the dissociation effect of the rhetoric, the government successfully limit the influence of the anti-war factors, though the question of war still remains unsolved. I also agree that the anti-patriotic is similar to the dissociation, that “code dissent as an attack on the soldier body”.
Virginia Thornton says:

February 13, 2017 at 1:19 am

In his article Stahl discusses the ideas of deflection and dissociation and how these two aspects of “Support the Troops” rhetoric redefined the image of war. For me this article made me think of my childhood. Every night as my mom cooked dinner for us she would always have the PBS “Newshour” playing. My brothers, dogs, and I would always be running in and out the kitchen doing this and that, except for the very end of the show. Every night the program honors the men and women of the armed forces who died that day. They show picture of the deceased next to the name, age, rank, branch of the military, and hometown of each person. Every night at this point in the show we knew to stop in our tracks, put our hands over our hearts, and look at the television. This was my family’s way of honoring the troops. Stahl’s article made me think of this because of what he what he says about how rhetoric has made the image of war about the soldiers. To me growing up, my daily reminder that there was a war going on was simply the faces of those who had fallen, nothing about the reasons we were fighting. I didn’t hear about why these people were dying, I just saw that they were dead. We would all count the number of people shown every night and my mom would always let out a little sigh when they were from somewhere near us; then we would sit down at the table and eat dinner. The rhetoric Stahl discusses in this article was extremely present in my life.
1. Steven Zhang says:
  
  February 21, 2017 at 4:40 pm
  
  I believe that there are many families in the America honor the men and women of the armed forced who die like your family does. Perhaps that is the way that “support-the-troops” actually interpreted in America families, putting hands on the heart and praying for them. Many people didn’t ever ask the reason of the war. They just support the soldiers. It has some similarities with the words between friends or families, “I’ll always have your back no matter what happens”. Support-the-troops here represents for the care and the proud of the soldier fighting for the nation.
  1. Virginia Thornton says:
    
    April 22, 2017 at 4:59 pm
    
    I agree. I think my family and many other Americans, for whatever reason, were not interested in really learning about the specific of the war. The situation is very complicated and scary to a child, like I was at the height of the war. However, we all of very high regards for the men and women fighting. No matter your opinion on the war it is hard to dismiss someone sacrificing their life for others.
Nicolas Delvalle says:

February 13, 2017 at 1:39 am

My usual lead off devil’s advocate play: Just because the government wants the public to think something doesn’t mean that it’s wrong to think it. It is very easy to be sucked into the idea that propaganda is bad and therefore anything pushed by it is inherently a negative thing, which is imply not always the case. Considering that the government has vested interest in pushing wars overseas, it makes complete sense for them to push the narrative that as led to America’s global occupation, yet if a person believes that to be positive for America as a whole, there is nothing wrong with that. The negative of propaganda is its ambiguity an misdirection rather than its message.

With that out of the way, I have always found tracing idea origins fascinating, and the media’s evolution in relating stories of saving soldiers, promoting war, or disillusioning the masses about it is equally so. In a way, war will always be idealized simply because of the brotherhood it promotes. Even if pacifism wins the day and global peace reigns in the face of conflict, the bonds of brotherhood will be missed throughout armies across the world. With those close ties comes the heroic stories of rescuing friends and brothers in arms, thus the stories have a universal draw not only from the message of “support the troops” but rather because people can associate with the bonds between the characters. War and all that comes with it tug on the strings of our hearts and call to our base nature. Propaganda only needs to go so far as to invoke the imagery of comradery, our imaginations will do the rest.
1. Steven Zhang says:
  
  February 21, 2017 at 5:18 pm
  
  I agree with your arguments. “Propaganda only needs to go so far as to invoke the imagery of comradery, our imaginations will do the rest.” I think the media, including TV, movies plays a big part in this phenomenon. People can feel and honor the brotherhood between soldiers even without experiencing them. The reason of the effect the propaganda has on people actually lies in the value and emotion of people themselves. Besides, I also agree that the government-oriented propaganda is not necessarily wrong. The evaluation of government’s work depends on personal attitude. To what extent of government’s manipulation on the rhetoric can be accepted?
Michael Paul says:

February 13, 2017 at 9:51 am

Growing up, the connection between supporting troops and movies was not evident to me. Even the government had a play in the some of the movies as propaganda back from the Nixon era, but that mentality has clearly shifted as many war movies now paradoxically act as a support and deterrent from troops. At the same time that being a soldier is glorified, the movies also act as a way to dissuade People from the atrocities of war, even if that wasn’t the original meaning of the movie. I find that movies no longer act as a way to portray deeper meanings about war and inspire different thoughts about war in viewers, rather are now used solely for entertainment. I can’t say that watching war movies have changed my perceptions about war and what I think about troops. What I find to be more moving are movies based off true stories, such as American Sniper. Because viewers can relate to these movies more, it has a more profound effect on the viewer than other movies solely created for entertainment that have no connection to real life. At the same time, these movies also have the disassociation effect that Stahl mentioned since watching heroic acts on a screen distances me from the true nature of war. When I sit down to watch a war movie, I do not think about these ideas, rather I enjoy the movie for what it is. Even though they were once used for propaganda and have shifted to become more of a mechanism to reinforce ideas about war, I have not noticed these effects in my life. I reason that this could be because of the time period we live in where there is so much entertainment and so many mediums to learn about war. I see movies as a way to relax and enjoy the present and less of a mechanism to think differently about troops and war. For these reasons, I disagree with many of Stahl’s arguments, but I understand that others don’t feel the way I do.
1. Steven Zhang says:
  
  February 21, 2017 at 5:32 pm
  
  I found your argument interesting. Admittedly media has played a huge part in our lives. It did impact the way we see and understand the war. At the same time, it shaped our mind when watching these entertainments. As you said, it is natural to enjoy the movie and not closely relate it to war because we are used to so much entertainment and there are so many other mediums to learn about war. The stories in the movies are mostly real but not general or representative. From this perspective, I feel the movies have more anti-war effect because the movies depict a brutal scenario of the war.
Claire Brown says:

February 13, 2017 at 11:16 am

The ideas presented in Stahl’s “Why We Support the Troops” article were very interesting to note. Through rhetoric devices such as deflection and disassociation, citizens are fairly easily diverted from giving deep thought to the reasons behind the war itself and instead sucked into the “support-the-troops” rhetoric. While there is nothing at all wrong with supporting the troops, it cannot be the only pathway to thinking about a war. American citizens are capable of separating support for the troops fighting a particular war from the justifications for the war itself if they see a necessity to, however, this article leads me to believe that the rhetoric makes people content to not think beyond supporting the troops.

It is slightly frightening to see how content people can be with only this single channel of thought regarding war. While this rhetoric is generally harmless, knowing the effectivity and ease in which it can be employed begs the question of what could happen if someone were to use it with a more malicious or devious motive. If people are this quick to accept the deflection and diversion in this context, what other contexts will they be willing to accept this same type of rhetoric? The implications of the general public’s willingness to be subjected to these rhetorical devices is certainly frightening and unnerving with so many worldly events potentially on the horizon. Bringing it back to Stahl’s article, being aware of the deflection and disassociation with respects to “support the troops” rhetoric allows otherwise naïve citizens to become more aware of the reasons behind the actions their country is taking.
1. Steven Zhang says:
  
  February 21, 2017 at 6:02 pm
  
  I agree with your conclusion of the article that the rhetoric makes people content to not think beyond supporting the troops. The rhetoric “support-the-troops” replace the concept of “military” with troops to make people not thinking beyond. How large is the impact of the rhetoric on people? There are citizens who focus just on “support-the-troops” because they don’t discuss politics. And there are other citizens who think beyond the slogan and support or protest that U.S. goes into the war. And how can we prevent ourselves from easily being affected by the rhetoric?

Comments are closed.