“Supporting the troops, but not the war” and its half-sister “supporting the troops, but not the president”
Everyone is posting their two cents on this issue, so I thought it was about time I publicized my thoughts.
The war in Iraq, and to a lesser extent, the war in Afghanistan, are central issues to American political life. In fact, they are central issues to just plain American life. There is no getting away from it. You turn on the news, there are pictures from Iraq. You watch evening programming and “Over There” comes on. You drive to the supermarket, and the car in front of you has a yellow ribbon magnet on the back.
There is no other issue like this in America, which demands that you take a stance. You would really have to look hard to find someone who has zero opinion on the conflicts. And by forming an opinion on this conflict you are to a certain extent aligning yourself with a political party. “You are either with us, or against us”, both sides seem to be screaming.
There are two extremes, while most people are kind of in the middle. On the one side, you have the so-called Patriot Police, who claim that supporting the president is a prerequisite to supporting the troops. Then on the other side you have Cindy Sheehan and the likes of the Code Pinkers, who claim that if you really support the troops, you have to be against the war and anything that puts them in harm's way. And suddenly the American soldier has been thrown into the center of this conflict. There is a tug-o-war from all sides, all claiming to have the soldier's best interests at heart.
During the Vietnam War, anti-war protesters made the mistake of aiming their wrath against soldiers. Which was ever more the absurd considering that there was a draft at the time, and many soldiers were in the military against their will.
This time the anti-war movement has learned from its mistakes, and decided to change the tone of their protests. They are no longer protesting against the soldiers, but just against the war and the president.
However, one can't help to feel that they are veiling their anti-military stance. Protesting ROTC at colleges, recruiting offices, and Walter Reed doesn't smack of military support. They portray soldiers as victims of the government. Soldiers have been tricked into a military career through promises of an education, and socio-economic chances previously previously out of their reaches.
The military career is not a prestigious and respectful one in their eyes. It's not a choice anyone would make out of a sense of duty, or even a career that one could possibly enjoy. It seems that their way of combating war is to make sure there are no more soldiers to fight it. Which is about as logical as getting rid of all the police, to reduce crime.
Also when you read something like this, you can't help but think that anti-war protesters just aren't on the soldiers' side, no matter what they claim:
Members of Families for Peace, Code Pink and Global Exchange told a news conference in Amman that they had sent 600,000 dollars' worth of humanitarian aid to residents of the Iraqi town of Fallujah displaced by last month's massive US-led assault.
In an allergic reaction to anti-war protesters claiming to have soldiers' best interests at heart, there have been knee-jerk reactions on the right, stating that one has to support the president or support the war, if you really claim to support the soldiers. However, this is flawed logic.
Soldiers are supposed to remain apolitical. They abide by the oath they made upon joining the military:
"I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the president of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice."
Regardless of whether they like or agree with the president, they must obey orders coming from the president or officers commanding them. Whether or not they agree with the US involvement in Iraq or Afghanistan, they are contractually bound to perform their duties. That is just how the military works. Its members can't vote on whether or not they want to take part in a conflict. That is up to the members of Congress and the President, who were elected according to procedures outlined in the Constitution. The only influence the soldiers can have on the outcome of these decisions is like everyone else: by voting in presidential and congressional elections. By the time they are given orders, it is beyond their control.
A friend of mine, a captain in the infantry, summed it up best: “I don't support the president. Presidents come and go. I support and defend the Constitution.” It doesn't matter if a soldier supports Bush or not. Kerry could have just as easily been the commander in chief now, and soldiers would be obeying his commands. The luxury of “supporting” the president doesn't even come into the equation.
On the topic of "Support the Troops but Not the War", Sgt. Hook writes:
I’ve heard this mantra many times and I can understand where some might see nothing wrong with such a statement. From a soldier’s perspective (mine), supporting one without the other doesn’t work. A soldier goes to war believing in what he or she is doing. We don’t pick up arms to fight an unjust war, ever. It is the core of the American soldier and what makes our Army the greatest in the world. By supporting the troops but not the war, you are discounting our beliefs, our values. We don’t like war. We aren’t a bunch of brainwashed, imbecilic war mongers. We are warriors who believe that when our nation calls, it is for a just cause. And we answer that call for we will always support America and defend our way of life. Always. So when Americans don’t support what we are doing for them, then from a soldier’s perspective (again, mine), they aren’t supporting the troops either.
I disagree with Hook. I personally know a few soldiers who are against this war in some shape or form, either America's reasons for invading Iraq or the way the conflict is being handled. But they perform to the utmost in their duties, and they fulfill their mission and support their brothers and sisters in arms. They also witness firsthand the positive effects they are having in Iraq.
Steven Kiel, a reservist serving in Iraq writes this:
I understand some people in America are calling for us to come home, no matter the consequences. I understand some are wary of this conflict and their confidence is shaken. It’s difficult for a soldier to hear those things and not begin to question himself and his mission.
To support the soldiers, one must see the good in the missions. If one's lack of support in the war or the Bush administration blinds one from seeing anything positive in America's involvement in Iraq, it is impossible to support the troops. You might as well join Cindy Sheehan.
And that's all she wrote...Your two cents would be greatly appreciated.
The war in Iraq, and to a lesser extent, the war in Afghanistan, are central issues to American political life. In fact, they are central issues to just plain American life. There is no getting away from it. You turn on the news, there are pictures from Iraq. You watch evening programming and “Over There” comes on. You drive to the supermarket, and the car in front of you has a yellow ribbon magnet on the back.
There is no other issue like this in America, which demands that you take a stance. You would really have to look hard to find someone who has zero opinion on the conflicts. And by forming an opinion on this conflict you are to a certain extent aligning yourself with a political party. “You are either with us, or against us”, both sides seem to be screaming.
There are two extremes, while most people are kind of in the middle. On the one side, you have the so-called Patriot Police, who claim that supporting the president is a prerequisite to supporting the troops. Then on the other side you have Cindy Sheehan and the likes of the Code Pinkers, who claim that if you really support the troops, you have to be against the war and anything that puts them in harm's way. And suddenly the American soldier has been thrown into the center of this conflict. There is a tug-o-war from all sides, all claiming to have the soldier's best interests at heart.
During the Vietnam War, anti-war protesters made the mistake of aiming their wrath against soldiers. Which was ever more the absurd considering that there was a draft at the time, and many soldiers were in the military against their will.
This time the anti-war movement has learned from its mistakes, and decided to change the tone of their protests. They are no longer protesting against the soldiers, but just against the war and the president.
However, one can't help to feel that they are veiling their anti-military stance. Protesting ROTC at colleges, recruiting offices, and Walter Reed doesn't smack of military support. They portray soldiers as victims of the government. Soldiers have been tricked into a military career through promises of an education, and socio-economic chances previously previously out of their reaches.
The military career is not a prestigious and respectful one in their eyes. It's not a choice anyone would make out of a sense of duty, or even a career that one could possibly enjoy. It seems that their way of combating war is to make sure there are no more soldiers to fight it. Which is about as logical as getting rid of all the police, to reduce crime.
Also when you read something like this, you can't help but think that anti-war protesters just aren't on the soldiers' side, no matter what they claim:
Members of Families for Peace, Code Pink and Global Exchange told a news conference in Amman that they had sent 600,000 dollars' worth of humanitarian aid to residents of the Iraqi town of Fallujah displaced by last month's massive US-led assault.
In an allergic reaction to anti-war protesters claiming to have soldiers' best interests at heart, there have been knee-jerk reactions on the right, stating that one has to support the president or support the war, if you really claim to support the soldiers. However, this is flawed logic.
Soldiers are supposed to remain apolitical. They abide by the oath they made upon joining the military:
"I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the president of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice."
Regardless of whether they like or agree with the president, they must obey orders coming from the president or officers commanding them. Whether or not they agree with the US involvement in Iraq or Afghanistan, they are contractually bound to perform their duties. That is just how the military works. Its members can't vote on whether or not they want to take part in a conflict. That is up to the members of Congress and the President, who were elected according to procedures outlined in the Constitution. The only influence the soldiers can have on the outcome of these decisions is like everyone else: by voting in presidential and congressional elections. By the time they are given orders, it is beyond their control.
A friend of mine, a captain in the infantry, summed it up best: “I don't support the president. Presidents come and go. I support and defend the Constitution.” It doesn't matter if a soldier supports Bush or not. Kerry could have just as easily been the commander in chief now, and soldiers would be obeying his commands. The luxury of “supporting” the president doesn't even come into the equation.
On the topic of "Support the Troops but Not the War", Sgt. Hook writes:
I’ve heard this mantra many times and I can understand where some might see nothing wrong with such a statement. From a soldier’s perspective (mine), supporting one without the other doesn’t work. A soldier goes to war believing in what he or she is doing. We don’t pick up arms to fight an unjust war, ever. It is the core of the American soldier and what makes our Army the greatest in the world. By supporting the troops but not the war, you are discounting our beliefs, our values. We don’t like war. We aren’t a bunch of brainwashed, imbecilic war mongers. We are warriors who believe that when our nation calls, it is for a just cause. And we answer that call for we will always support America and defend our way of life. Always. So when Americans don’t support what we are doing for them, then from a soldier’s perspective (again, mine), they aren’t supporting the troops either.
I disagree with Hook. I personally know a few soldiers who are against this war in some shape or form, either America's reasons for invading Iraq or the way the conflict is being handled. But they perform to the utmost in their duties, and they fulfill their mission and support their brothers and sisters in arms. They also witness firsthand the positive effects they are having in Iraq.
Steven Kiel, a reservist serving in Iraq writes this:
I understand some people in America are calling for us to come home, no matter the consequences. I understand some are wary of this conflict and their confidence is shaken. It’s difficult for a soldier to hear those things and not begin to question himself and his mission.
To support the soldiers, one must see the good in the missions. If one's lack of support in the war or the Bush administration blinds one from seeing anything positive in America's involvement in Iraq, it is impossible to support the troops. You might as well join Cindy Sheehan.
And that's all she wrote...Your two cents would be greatly appreciated.
posted by CaliValleyGirl at 1:03 PM
25 Comments:
Soldiers defending their country deserve all the support and praise of the world.Soldiers willingly invading another country at the other end of the world for no reason other a fabricated one,deserve anything that will come their way.Those of them that actually have a conscience, face the dreadful prospect to spend their aging years wondering "what for?" over a bottle of whisky.I don't envy them, but i don't pity them either.
Spider,
It's not really a case of soldiers being able to choose their battles. The military isn't a service provider that decides which project to take on or not.
And soldiers don't want anyone's pity, so don't feel too bad.
Thanks for your comments.
What is the point of having a military? Answer that one....
Anyhow, being a former liberal, I understand the IDEA of supporting the troops without supporting the war. But, like so many of the left's ideas, it's unrealistic. You can't have it both ways.
Bush lied? There are no weapons of mass destruction? Hussein had no connections to bin Laden?
HOW DO YOU KNOW? SERIOUSLY. How do you know?
Regardless of what the "truth" is, as an Airman, I am not here to question the objective. That is left to the officers, the intel guys, the commanders, the ones in charge - to include the president. I am driven by trust: trust in my brother, trust in my commander. You get good ones and you get bad ones, but your job requirement when you sign your name voluntarily, is to accept that trust aspect. When you sign your name and hold up your hand for the vow, you accept the requirements.
Compare the thoughts to a different career field - like that of a garbage man. How could you say that you support the garbage man, but don't support the fact that he picks up garbage every day? It's not logical. You don't support what he does VOLUNTARILY every day, but as an INDIVIDUAL, you support him? Whatever. That's a bunch of bullcrap.
It's a bunch of excuses, really. "They" don't want to "repeat" the black eye of Vietnam, so "they" are going to try and turn it, albeit illogically, to this, "No, really. We LOVE our troops! It's the President we don't like."
You know what? It's crap! They don't hold "us" responsible for what we do voluntarily. It's rather infuriating, really. Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining! We might be enlisted, but it definitely doesn't mean that we are that stupid! We all may have joined for reasons other than commitment to our country, but we re-enlist for a reason. I am proud of what I do. I am proud of my brothers. I trust the reasons that we are there. If it gets to a point where I do not believe, then I will pack my bag and go home.
Personally, it boils down to this, real simple: If the ones we are fighting against are innocent, they wouldn't be fighting us. I am under the impression that if Iraq was all milk and honey before we got there, then we wouldn't be there now!
Anyhow, I don't know if that's what you were looking for, Cali. I didn't care for Spider's comments, but, whatever.
I was at the Pentagon. I've said it before, and I'll say it again.... We are at war. We were attacked on our own soil, with no provocation. Finding the bad guys has to happen because we took enough crap! You can't kill our people and expect nothing to happen (anymore). If Afghanistan and Iraq are the places that OUR people feel that we need to be? I'm there. Without question.
Thanks, Alli. Interesting analogy with the garbage men...lol.
"Personally, it boils down to this, real simple: If the ones we are fighting against are innocent, they wouldn't be fighting us. I am under the impression that if Iraq was all milk and honey before we got there, then we wouldn't be there now!"
Ok-to understand how warped this logic is,picture this:An ss-soldier saying the exact same thing on British soil.
Really-if being a mindless drone is essential to perform your duties,i wonder where the point is in "validating" it.Just say "i just do what i'm told" and spare the "we took enough crap" reasoning,especially when you dismiss the facts (or lack of) with a "how do you know?".
I'm sorry to phrase it so aggresively (and if you think my posts offend you,just tell me and i'll be outta here),but you must understand that if a nation's army goes down the "preemptive attack" path, than every other nation in the world is presumably the next target, and no proof will be needed for you to march onward ("how do you know?").
Food for thought.
Spider, firstly, no, I appreciate your commenting, you're not offensive.
Okay, so although soldiers aren't killerbots, they need to abide by a certain set of rules, which doesn't make them a mindless drones. It just means that once the decision to go to war is made by a country, it's not the military's role to question this. But when a government decides to go to war, the military follows through.
And the whole government decided. It wasn't just one man, sitting at the top.
Basically this post was about soldiers in this war...and not the decision to go to war. Soldiers don't decide to go to war, that is a different arm of the government. And like Alli mentioned, you put an implicit trust in those people to make that decision.
Spider-
I feel like you are taking a few lines and spinning them to your own example. I am not "mindless", I am saying that, by raising my hand to be a soldier, an airman, there are certain parts of the job that I do not question. It's not a not-my-fault, but rather an understanding that there's a heirarchy established for problem-solving. As Americans, we definitely take everything into consideration - this I can say personally because I worked for Air Force Headquarters.... Nothing is mindless. I think that you have taken my words to the extreme. Let me say this: As Americans, we do not start war.
As far as mindless following - if the garbage man's boss tells him one day, "Do not pick up on house 1167," he assumes -whatever- and goes about his daily task. That is not mindless, it's a job-related understanding. Maybe that house is on vacation, or there is some other reason not to do what you would normally do. That's not "mindless" - it's listening to supervisors who know better than you, the worker, what is happening.
I rather resent the "SS" comment, by the way... America doesn't function that way.
But, my dear fellow, in Iraq you did start a war.Did Iraq threaten the US soil? Excuse me, but "who knows" isn't good enough.It's preemtion of the worst kind,and it really stinks of Nazi "vital space" syndrome-it's just wrong in so many levels.
You also started war in Afghanistan.Did Afghanistan threaten US soil?Nobody said so.You declared "war on terror", not on the Afghan nation.The Taliban regime was just harboring certain individuals.Fine, but as it has often been pointed out, that is the subject of police enforcement, not military invasion and occupation.
I could go on, but you catch the drift.
"Mindless drone" is indeed an exaggeration.Let's just say that as you yourself agree, when operating within the military, you leave your critical abillity at the door.Fine,understood, but you join voluntarily, so i can't understand why this is an argument and for what.
Are you kidding me? I have so many things to say about your response, but honestly? I don't feel like wasting my time. Started a war in Afghanistan. Smoke another doobie, dude. A police matter? BWAHHHAAAHHAAA!
Your first few sentences so obviously show your bias (I won't say "retarded" because I am TRYING to be nice), but your last sentence about leaving my critical ability at the door? I have to laugh out loud and heartily at that one. You haven't a clue. And I don't feel like giving you one using my thirteen years in the Air Force. Go ahead and find another veteran for a second opinion.
Cali, a "country" does not do anything.Goverments do, and individual criminals do.Care to tell me what exactly the military invasion accomplished? "Behead Al Qaida"? Gimme a break,they can strike anywhere any time as you can see."Overthrow the Taliban"? Rrrright...just march in there in your bikini if that turned Afghanistan overnight in a western style democracy!
Everywhere in Europe, local and international police operations did more to take out Al Qaida rings than your costly and bloody military operation did-with the extra benefit of not bombing countries back to the 15th century.
In the meantime, while "critically thinking" good soldiers get sent to Iraq to be blown away from the "grateful liberated Iraqis spreading flowers",no one of you takes your own logic to its conclusion:if a country harboring terrorists brings the Mighty Hand of the Imperial Military on its misguided head,then why does Saudi Arania still standing still? The majority of the 9/11 terrorists originated from there, what are you doing in the next district then? ;)
The lunacy of your rant deserves a little more of a response, hopefully I can get into it later when there isn't good football games on! Just let me preface and say that the Saudi government is one that I would love to see toppled. On the other hand, it reminds me of what would be the best exit strategy for the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan: Just meet up with each other in Iran! The "Global War on Terror" is nothing more than a fight against Islamic Fundamentalism/Fascism. You are Greek? Well isn't it cool when we can all get along with each other, have a stable economy, travel freely, practice what ever religion we choose, don't treat women as property, have free speech and otherwise treat each other nice? Is that a "Western" idea? Can it only happen here and in Europe? Why can't those ideas be imported? We tried for decades to do it peacefully, and they slammed planes into our "symbols of capitalist and military hegemony" right? The corrupt Mullahs who tell us to our face they hate terrorism and then hand the Islamo-fascists loads of weapons and cash days are over. As far as bombing them into the 15th century, are you smoking crack? They at best had an 8th or 9th century lifestyle and now it is up to 19th century and getting better all the time. There are obvious major problems, and many flaws in the plan, but I will be counted as one who supports doing something constructive, even if it costs lives rather than sitting on our collective hands. Last time Europe did that, Chamberlain let Hitler take over most of Europe and a war ensued that cost 20 million people their lives. If this preemption can save us that type of thing, would you still be against it? Probably, so just take your anti-US/Great Britain/Capitalist bias and don't let the door hit you in the ass when you leave.
"...bloody military operation did-with the extra benefit of not bombing countries back to the 15th century."
hehe. BACK to the 15th century? They were already there without our help.
I don't really understand your points, Spider. We did overthrow the Taliban. The Northern Alliance was trying for years to regain the country that was stolen by those islamic terrorists.
And I would like to have examples of European police doing more than the American military as far as Al Qaeda goes.
And I find it a little ironic that you would make a comment that most of the terrorists were from Saudi, then turn around and claim that it's Iraqis fighting us now.
But whatever. I didn't really want to even grace you with a response....
Spider,
We did overthrow the Taliban. Granted that they aren't ready for Victoria's Secret to open there. We aren't trying to export Western style democracy. Just the idea that the people can have a choice in their government. And the idea that women and other minority groups should have rights too. The right to an education, the right to recreation, etc.
“Everywhere in Europe, local and international police operations did more to take out Al Qaida rings than your costly and bloody military operation did-with the extra benefit of not bombing countries back to the 15th century.”
Yes, I think you are severely uninformed there. What are your sources? The Taliban had taken the country back into the 15th century. The American bombing was sooo minimal in Afghanistan, and definitely did way less damage than anything else.
Can you not see that removing their safe haven of terrorist training camps might be helpful? The international police operations are just part of a larger whole....you know that thing called “the war on terror.”
And Saudi Arabia is a good example of a country where the police are actively going after terrorists. Just recently another Al Qaida member was caught there.
Back to you...
Ok...just some random thoughts, simply because making a point by point response would soon run us out of internet.
Guys, guys and girl-first of all, western style democracy is fine and sweet-you just can't import it.Not with a military invasion.The people have to choose it, otherwise it has nothing to do with...well, the will of the people.Name me one time in history a superpower invaded a country,said "now you are a democracy" and that actually worked.Helping people in a country overthrowing their tyrannic regiment is one thing.Everything else runs the full spectrum from crusade to colonialism.Simple as that.
We can argue all you want about which century Afghanistan was living in-but you can't really call yourself informed and claim that the succesion from cutthroat killers to other cutthroat killers is any significant progress.And even that was only superficially achieved: Οpium production is at an all time high and the Taliban are regaining their power and control of certain territories.
And don't even get me started about "just being peaceful when all of a sudden those raving lunatics crashed their planes".
If you were looking for a place where USA hadn't one way or another intervened in somebody's country for its own self interest, you 'd have to go to...well, New Orleans, actually.If "their" problem was "western way of life", they d have attacked Sweden which is rather more vulnerable, don't you think?
There's a pattern to their targets.You just read it wrong-or worse, chose to impose your own for reasons other than those voiced.
Where, Spider, do you get your information? And who wrote that last comment for you?
Suprisingly, I would have to actually agree with you about the importation of democracy. I have experience in the Middle East. We are in a vicious cycle with democracy there. It's going to be a long road, but I am hoping (there's that trust thing again) that my superiors and their advisors know better than I.
I'll go ahead and give you two examples of democracy succeeding: Japan and Germany. How you like them apples? Japan and Germany are heavy hitters these days. It hasn't been that long ago that they were at war, under fanatics.
How do you know that opium is at an all-time high? Are you an opium producer or an NPR listener?
And I laughed out loud again when you say: If you were looking for a place where USA hadn't one way or another intervened in somebody's country for its own self interest, you 'd have to go to...well, New Orleans, actually.
That makes zero sense. First, if the USA were in everything for her own interest, then our gas prices would be falling. Go ahead and give me some examples of what you mean. This, by the way, is the second time that I am asking you for examples to support your opinions....
And here I am still talking to you about it....
Attack Sweden? No, how about attack the tubes in London, and Madrid. how about slitting the throat of an AUTHOR who dared to speak up on radical Islamic issues in Denmark. How about stop whitewashing issues and stop calling them "Insurgents." I guess that I could understand the term insurgents when they were in Central America. The Contras, and the Sandanistas before them. Even Fidel was once an "insurgent." These guys in Iraq, Chechnya, the Phillipines, Kashmir, "Palestine," the Sudan, and yes Iraq and Afghanistan are nearly always called "insurgents" or "militants." Why is that I ask, unless you care to ignore the obvious. All of these people have a sworn alliance to each other through the Koran's most extreme verses. Noone seems to bring up this fact when they are blowing up SCHOOLS, pizzerias, and discotheques or beheading Nick Berg or Daniel Pearl or worse yet some "sell-out" who is working for the "oppressor" and trying to make his country a better place. The immutable truth is that much of the world, not just the "West" is at war with Islamic fascism. These people are hell bent at restoring the Caliphate and Sharia law. Why isn't anyone noticing this? You can blather all that you want about "opium production," but really? Isn't that just capitalism in action? Even if it is destructive, guess what? There is a market for their goods, so they grow it, and grow it well. The point is, to put out straw men like the opium producers is to ignore the argument altogether. These are the most in-human, mis-guided least understood people in the world. The Christians were once pretty damn terrible on their extreme end: note "the Inquisition," and then they had an "Enlightenment." It is time for an Islamic Enlightenment. Once they can live with another religion without wanting to hack their heads off, I will be able to live with that. Is that such a sad request? Can they stop slaying children? Can they stop bombing Synagogoues in France? Stop slaughtering us, and that is all that I require. As far as equal rights, non-torture, whatever, I would be willing to live right next door to a Muslim, even live in a Muslim neighborhood if they were not going to kill me. When will the Imams stop preaching such hate? Oh, thats right, in SpiDers world, they hate us because we can't stop slaughtering them and occupying "their" lands...Well guess what? They have been slaughtering us and trying to occupy our lands since the Koran was written. They were at the gates of Vienna only a few hundred years ago, occupying all of the Middle East, Northern Africa, most of Spain and Italy, and all the way to damn China. Call it what you want, but I will call it radical Islamic fundamentalists that want to restore the Caliphate and make all of us Dhimmi's. If Iraq can spur Libya to give up their plans, let's start rewarding Libya by allowing more trade and tourism, and invite them open-armed into the international communities. Let's show that that Islam isn't the problem, racism isn't the problem, that their Imam's preaching hate against Jews, Christians, gays, women, education and free speech and criticism of their Holy book. sigh...
I think Sgt Hook said it best really by saying that he would be a soldier regardless of who was in office. I don't like our current president for reasons outside of GWOT, but I support my spouse and the military regardless of who is in office. So I don't like the President because I don't like the President, it really has nothing to do with GWOT or the troops. I support the troops because I do.
I think the strongest point you made is right here: "However, one can't help to feel that they are veiling their anti-military stance. Protesting ROTC at colleges, recruiting offices, and Walter Reed doesn't smack of military support." How is protesting at a soldier's funeral (which is another stupid pet trick they do) supporting the military? Or even supporting the soldier for that matter?
I think to some extent that no matter who was in office someone, somewhere would be protesting about an Administrative decision made - regardless.
HH6
CVG, you have a nice little debate going on here. I think I got here too late to add much of anything new. I have been waiting for this post, though.
Instead of jumping into the current commentary about the logic of war and invasions, I will stick to the text of your post. I support the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I also support the troops. I don't, however, support the president. I think my stance on these issues is probably very common in America.
What is happening is the polarization of the issues. People, both sides, assume the either with us or against mentality and want nothing to do with anything in the middle. I think it is very possible, and necessary, that there be a huge middle ground here.
One thing I will highlight is the reference in the post to the anti-war movement and its link to the one during the Vietnam War. I do not think the current movement today really has much of anything in common with the one in the late 60s and early 70s. Sure some left-over old hippies are still doing some marching, but there is something very different with this current war movement. I'm not even sure it's anti-war, I think it might be more anti-Bush. Of course that is my opinion and nothing more.
But if the anti-war movement did learn lessons from its actions during Vietnam, and if the current one is an extension of the 1960s, then I will say that I do agree much more so with its corrected actions now than in the past. I just wish our government would also learn from its past mistakes and actions during the 60s and 70s.
MJ....thanks for keeping to the subject...Spider has been keeping us busy while putting the war on trial.
I think the anti-war movement now is very similar to the movement during the Vietnam War. I think it's essentially an anti-military stance, which they thinly veil by aligning themselves with such people as Cindy Sheehan (her son was a soldier...so gee, how could she be anti-military?) But when it comes down to it, they don't have high regards for soldiers.
I agree with you that there is another group in the middle, which have mixed feelings about the war, but wouldn't necessarily come under the title "anti-war," and certainly not "anti-soldier."
Thanks for stopping by!
There is a "rule" out there about arguing your point. I can't for the life of me remember what it's called... but the first person to compare anyone to either Hitler or the Nazi's loses... *grin* So, as soon as spider pulled out that one - I stopped reading the argument portion...
I have always wondered how a person could "support the troops but not the war"... I know that Allicadem compared it to garbage men and what they do - but really compare it to any other line of work...
Say it in your head "I think it's so cool that you are (this profession) but (your job) is really quite horrible and I want it to stop and I want the entire thing to shut down... you can keep (your job) though and we'll be very nice to you - because you deserve to do what you want in life.
It's pretty insulting not to mention it just sounds downright idiotic... and yes, I support the troops and the war.
Teresa,
I disagree slightly. For example, you can say, that you support soldiers, that you aren't anti-war, but that you don't support this particular war.
I think it's very possible.
And the fact that many soldiers who are proudly serving in Iraq, but don't feel they should be there, for many reasons, and not just because "they don't want to" is proof that it is possible. I guess taking AlliCadem's example, they would say, they support garbagemen picking up trash, but they disagree with what some people are defining as trash, and don't think it needs to be picked up.
Having said that, I am very much in support of this war, and of course the troops.
And it's called Godwin's Law...;-)
People who claim that they "Support the troops, but not the President," or people who claim that they "Support the troops, but not the war" are people of extremely low intellectual capacity.
"Supporting the troops, but not the President," is an impossible position because not supporting or not agreeing with the President on a particular policy issue means that you do not agree with the mission of the troops as it relates to that particular policy issue.
"Supporting the troops, but not the war" is an impossible position because you are essentially insulting the job the troops are doing. After all, they are only doing their job and following orders with which you purport to disagree.
This futile attempt to 'have it both ways' demonstrates a lack of core values.
Wow Kent, I would have to disagree with you on my low intellect. I do support the troops everyday as well as my husband who is an active duty service member. Supporting my husband and what he chose as a career path does not depend upon the current President. Our lives and welfare may be effected by a President's policies but that does not diminish the pride I have that my husband wants to serve his country.
I firmly believe that you can't complain unless you vote and have voted in every election since I was 18. Well I voted, but I did not vote for this President in either election - even before the US was attacked I did not like his public presence, his public speaking skills, his stance on women's rights, his ties to big oil companies, his ideas on the environment, nor his lack of foreign affairs experience.
I find your paragraph about not supporting or agreeing with the President but supporting the troops as a form of post hoc reasoning. You may be able to correlate a rebound effect such as a European's attitude towards a soldier being coloured by the President's new policy but I fail to see any correlation to how disagreeing with the President is not supporthing the troops. That is just the rethoric that's being pushed by rigth wing extremists.
HH6
Kent,
You're quite harsh, calling people stupid, because they don't think a certain way. It doesn't exactly promote discussion.
I think you are confusing, respecting and supporting the Constitution, with supporting the president. I think you can respect the authority of the president to make certain decisions, and disagree with these decisions. If you look at the government as a business, the president is a project director, and sometimes the boss makes decisions employees don't agree with, but they follow them and complete these projects. Doesn't mean they don't support the authority of the president, or the projects, but they might just not agree with how the project was directed.
One should be allowed to disagree with certain decisions in a democracy and not be called stupid.
Awwww, Kent, I see you have found your way here.
Judging from your words Kent, I will conclude that in 1999 you totally supported the action taken by President Clinton in Kosovo. Not only that, but because of your supreme intellectual mind, I will also conclude that you have also offered your services to the American military for intelligence and anti-terrorism operations. They are taking volunteers.
I don't know about the protest movement CVG. At least I'm not convinced that it is an extension of the 1960s movement. So much was different back then, a draft, 125 soldiers dying every week and so on. But what if I were to argue that the current war in Iraq is an extension of the one in Vietnam?
Post a Comment
<< Home