Introduction

Common belief: It's a widely held perspective that it is acceptable to support military troops even if one does not agree with the specific cause or political reasons for which they are fighting. This view often emphasizes a distinction between the service members and the objectives of the wars they are engaged in.
However, the speaker respects and appreciates military service members but challenges this assumption, arguing that the act of supporting troops warrants deeper moral consideration.

The Moral Equality of Combatants

Core question: The central issue arises: Should we support troops in terms of their violent actions committed during combat? This question delves into the ethics of warfare, personal responsibility, and moral culpability.
Rules of Engagement: These are crucial guidelines that all military forces must adhere to, irrespective of the perceived moral justification behind the war they are fighting. Adhering to these rules is essential to maintain ethical standards in warfare.
Moral Responsibility: In scenarios where wars are deemed unjust, individual troops are often not morally accountable for being deployed into combat; rather, the onus lies with the leaders who make those decisions, raising questions about accountability and hierarchical responsibility.
Combatants' Rights: It is critical to note that combatants from both opposing sides in a conflict possess equal rights to engage in lethal force during combat situations, emphasizing a notion of moral equality that complicates the discourse on military support.
Despite this moral equality, it is possible to argue for the ethicality of supporting troops based on the premise that war can have moral value regardless of the overarching justice of the conflict.

Challenge to Moral Equality: Philosopher Jeff McMahan argues against the conventional belief in the moral equality of combatants by presenting a compelling analogy between warfare and burglary. He posits that:
- Analogy: When a burglar commits aggressive acts, they renounce their right to self-defense, thus their actions in defense of their property constitute murder.
- In the context of unjust wars, McMahan contends that combatants cannot justly kill their enemies; while they may engage in self-defense, any retaliatory acts are inherently unjustified.
- This leads to an important conclusion: Support for military efforts should be contingent upon whether the troops are engaged in a morally just cause.

Complexity of War: Critics argue that war is too intricate and multifaceted to be reduced to an analogy involving a single burglar and a homeowner. The dynamics of group behaviors, conflicts, and interactions create complexities that affect moral equivalence.
Responsibility in War: Unlike a burglar acting independently, soldiers are typically executing orders and functioning within a structured hierarchy, which distributes moral culpability across various levels of command. This complicates direct moral judgments of individual actions.
No Excuse: The defense of "just following orders" does not serve as a legitimate absolution of individual responsibility, as troops still have ethical obligations to question the morality of their actions.
Conscription Issues: Even conscripts—individuals coerced into military service during unjust wars—could be judged as committing murder if they kill in combat, arguing that no external threat can rightfully justify the act of killing another human being.

Although McMahan acknowledges conflicts such as World War II as instances of just wars, he invites scrutiny on whether all actions emerging from those conflicts should be classified as murder.
It is important to recognize that not every engagement in war constitutes a crime; for instance, actions taken in legitimate self-defense or against a surrendering opponent carry different moral weights.
McMahan’s framework highlights the importance of moral permissibility but does not provide exhaustive analyses of specific actions and contexts, leaving room for interpretation in gray areas of warfare.
While some military actions may be impermissible, there are ethical alternatives, such as exercising mercy or actively seeking non-violent solutions that may be morally preferable.

According to McMahan's perspective, the support for military troops should only be granted if they are involved in a just war scenario. This perspective urges a reflection on the definitions and implications of what constitutes a just war.
This inquiry prompts further philosophical questions about moral philosophy and the obligations of civilians concerning military action, encouraging broader discussions and deeper considerations surrounding the morality of military support.

Individuals are invited to contemplate the moral implications of supporting troops, particularly in light of discussions about the validity of moral equality in the context of warfare.
Additionally, it is worthwhile to explore possible patriotic or practical reasons that might compel individuals to support troops outside the framework of moral considerations, broadening the discussion beyond strictly ethical boundaries.