“Support the Troops!”: The Social and Political Currency of Patriotism in the United States

Huiskamp, Gerard

doi:10.1080/07393148.2011.592020

Cited by 4 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 4 publications

(4 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…During the First Gulf War, broad-based support for the troops in the US was understood as a way to redeem society’s Vietnam-era ‘betrayal’ of the troops (Beamish et al, 1995: 345 and 351). The subsequent proffering of unqualified support is inflected by the belief that ‘national unity and citizen support for the troops has a critical operational value’ and will ‘maximize the soldier’s chances of survival’ (Huiskamp, 2011: 291). This, of course, is not a new or US-specific idea; the military operationalization of societal support has a long history, stemming from the levée en masse and inception of mass democratic armies.…”

Section: Dependence and Vulnerabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

The plural of soldier is not troops: The politics of groups in legitimating militaristic violence

Millar

2019

Security Dialogue

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article identifies ‘the troops’ as a new, radically under-examined figure in the Western canon of war. Utilising discourse analysis of an original corpus of US ‘support the troops’ material from 2001 to 2010, the article argues that ‘the troops’ cannot be read as a simple aggregation of the figurative soldier or literal military personnel. Instead, ‘groupness of the troops’ shifts the politics of the legitimation of violence – and the possibility of meaningful dissent – in two distinct ways. Firstly, ‘the troops’ are figured, counterintuitively, as passive, dependent and at risk of suffering harm. This enables constructions of militaristic, heroic violence to coexist with empirical experiences of vulnerability without ideological contradiction. Secondly, though many accounts of militarism rely upon citizens’ aspirational identification with the ostensibly-universal soldier, the ‘groupness’ of the troops enables them to incorporate, rather than elide, substantive differences (e.g. race, gender or sexual orientation) through an all-encompassing relationship of ‘support’. Consequently, ‘the troops’ may be a more effective avatar of militarism than ‘the soldier’ – and far more important to the legitimation, depoliticization and even perpetuation of conflict than previously realized. What would the politics of military involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq have looked like absent the ‘escape valve’ of the figurative troops?

show abstract

Section: Dependence and Vulnerabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%