Re: How to approach the troops?

[Juan Fajardo <fajardos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

[Walter:]
> > Calmly, quietly, patiently, factually
> > explain, explain, don't yell, explain.
> > Including how all the Bush people
> > have ties to the oil industry.

[Jeff:]
> The problem is that is what I did in my response.  In response to his
> claims that the, and I quote, 'almighty Dollar' is infinitely more
> powerful than the Euro I quoted the WSJ and CNN Money proving
> otherwise.  In his arguments that this war was about oil I quoted
> statements from Cheney, Perle, Wolfowitz, etc. in which they stress the
> need for the US to lessen its reliance on oil from OPEC and to give
> more American energy corporations a foothold in the region.  In his
> arguments that Iraq is linked to terror I quoted mainstream sources
> questioning that fact.  When it comes down to it however, he, and many
> others, simply TRUST the administration.  They aren't the slightest bit
> skeptical that things might not be what the administration says.


Well, Jeff, I think the plain fact is that you are not going to convince
him, but as you said there are others watching the debate, some (or at
least one) of whom seemingly hoped that this fella woulc be able to put
you in your place by belying everything you said.  Those observers are
your real audience.

From what you said, it seems that you are winning them over, or at
least planting the seeds for future awareness.  The extent that they
refuse to believe what you are saying despite the obvious things that
you are pointing out is emotionally, not intellectually, determined.

Especially nowadays that people feel so unsafe and unsettled they have a
need to trust that everything is going to be OK and that they're being
taken care of.

In WWII the fight was against fascism, during the Cold War it was
against Communism.  In both instances it was a more or less open fight,
either in outright combat or "holding the line" somewhere or other.
By contrast, today the fight is against "terrorism" and people accept
that it is not an open, above ground, sort of war; that it takes place
in the shadows, and that much of what goes on -even the victiories- will
not be public knowledge.  But that acceptance comes at the price of
emotional well-being.

The lack of knowledge leaves people unsettled because they can never
know how things are going, so they find that in order to make the ends
of daily life meet they must trust that they are being watched over and
kept safe.  So they must trust the government.

Thus they are able to maintain seeming contradictions such as that the
government has top secret information and top secret plans to fight the
war on terror, but it is not possible that those in government might
have OTHER secret plans.

In addition, they are by and large not able to separate military policy
from the military itself, nor military as an institution from the
troops, nor indeed either of those from individuals in the military.
Thus condemnation of the war = condemnation of the military =
condemnation of husband Billy/cousin Jose/daughter Amanda/et al.
Therein lies the strength of appeals to "support the troops".

People must be approached not from where we would like them to be at,
but where they are.

Unfortunately, with your friend at West Point, you're likely to have no
more success than at trying to convince someone in a teacher training
program that all children should be homeschooled.


- Juan