Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
US Troops don’t buy the "support the troops, but not the mission"
Posted by: McQ on Tuesday, January 30, 2007

For those of you out there who still think that the "I support the troops but not the mission" is a position the troops accept as valid, this may finally make the point I've been making all along:


As I said in another post:
“While I can appreciate the argument that you can support the troops by wanting them home or wanting them properly equipped or any of a number of other reasons, if you don't support their mission then whatever support you do claim is qualified support. A bit like saying "we want you to look like a soldier, and we love you for being one, but we can't support you acting like one it this instance".

To most troops, that makes absolutely no sense ... trust me.”

 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Oh man, what I would have done to have this video for the last four years—if for nothing else, at least to separate those who don’t support the overall mission from those who don’t support the particular strategy. Both include many people who claim to support the troops. I wonder what the response of each of those groups will be to this (if it’s even acknowledged).
 
Written By: Bryan Pick
URL: http://www.qando.net
i’m not surprised to read the troops aren’t able to grasp the depths of nuance mixed with the heights of hypocrisy.

i’ve been told point blank because i don’t have a uterus i cannot be taken seriously on womyn’s rights, and because i’m white i can’t have a say in affirmative action (of course, i would be embraced like the prodigal son if i were to change my stances). so i wonder, when will the left lose the will to trot out "absolute moral authority" - or some such meme - and let us win?
 
Written By: window licker
URL: http://
McQ,

I know you’re smarter than this. I know there are many troops who believe this, but that doesn’t mean it makes any logical sense. There are certainly a lot of troops who don’t believe this. I’ve seen them interviewed. These are anecdotes, not logic.

There is nothing at all logically inconsistent if you 1) wish the troops well and hope they succeed and 2) believe that success is unlikely and therefore a different objective should be pursued.

The war’s critics aren’t hoping the troops fail. They just believe that the mission they’ve been given is futile or not worth the cost in blood and treasure required for success. In other words, we think that our troops have been put in a very difficult and dangerous situation. We hope that they achieve success, defying all odds, but we think such an outcome is unlikely and therefore would like our leaders to change course.

The flaw in your reasoning is this: you interpret criticism of the war as lack of support for the troop’s mission. But that’s not accurate. It’s not that we don’t support the objectives that the troops are trying to achieve. We just think that the mission is unwinnable, the goals unachievable. I fully support the troops and I believe they are laboring in pursuit of a worthy goal. I just don’t think it’s a realistic goal, so I’d like to see a more realistic policy.
 
Written By: Anonymous Liberal
URL: http://www.anonymousliberal.com
The flaw in your reasoning is this: you interpret criticism of the war as lack of support for the troop’s mission.
No, the troops "interpret criticism of the war as lack of support for their mission" as I’ve been trying to get across to critics for a couple of years.

This simply puts an exclamation point on that. As was said in the report, the troops believe those who make that claim are trying to have it both ways and they simply aren’t buying it.

Now you may not agree and want to continue to rationalize that position, but as a supposed "reality based" blogger, you have just seen reality.

And your reaction?

Denial.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
The war’s critics aren’t hoping the troops fail.
Are you prepared to back that statement up? I think, as I intimated above, that there are different kinds of critics, and that many do not share your position. Would you agree?
 
Written By: Bryan Pick
URL: http://www.qando.net
anon lib wrote:
There is nothing at all logically inconsistent if you 1) wish the troops well and hope they succeed and 2) believe that success is unlikely and therefore a different objective should be pursued.

***

We hope that they achieve success, defying all odds, but we think such an outcome is unlikely and therefore would like our leaders to change course.
you seem to be conflating "hope" with "wish". i hope i don’t get stomach cancer, yet once having it, i wish it would go away. if you truly believe success is unlikely, then what hope is there? please be plain: you wish the troops would fail, maybe not overtly, but this can certainly be demonstrated with your word choice. all it takes is a quick peek in what you believe ("they will fail if they try to succeed").

i happen to believe our troops & leadership are likely to succeed, where "success" is defined as a significant rooting out of insurgent presence (not chasing to syria/iran), and transitioning 100% control to the provisional iraqi gov’t by the end of w’s term.

perhaps your skepticism lies not w/in the troops & leadership, but with the perceived intractable political problems w/in iraq (i.e., allotting authority)?
 
Written By: window licker
URL: http://
what is the troop’s mission?
 
Written By: asb
URL: http://
This was on NBC!!!!

I think that’s a big story all on its own.
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://inactivist.org/blog/keith_indy
what is the troop’s mission?
Secure the population. From the Senate confirmation hearings for General Petraeus:

P 5 (Gen. Petraeus’ opening statement):

In response to the deterioration of the situation in Iraq, a new way ahead was developed and announced earlier this month. With implementation of this approach, the mission of Multinational Force- Iraq will be modified, making security of the population, particularly in Baghdad, and in partnership with Iraqi forces, the focus of the military effort.

For a military commander, the term "secure" is a clearly defined doctrinal task, meaning to gain control of an area or terrain feature and to protect it from the enemy. Thus, the tasks will be clear-cut, though difficult.
P 42:

GEN. PETRAEUS: It certainly is a change in mission, where the focus will be on — security of the population is the foremost objective and transition is not foremost. And really throughout much of 2006, transition has of course been — and, frankly, I thought for a very long time myself that that was the right approach to take as well. It was in the wake of the violence, of course, of the fall of this year and the winter that that has proven to be undermined as the way ahead.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
No, the troops "interpret criticism of the war as lack of support for their mission" as I’ve been trying to get across to critics for a couple of years.
No, McQ, SOME troops interpret criticism that way. Some don’t. And just because SOME troops interpret it that way, doesn’t mean they are right. People believe a lot of things that aren’t logical.

I’m simply stating a fact: Despite my criticism of our war policy, I support the troops 100%. And there’s nothing whatsoever logically inconsistent about that. The troops in the video are entitled to there opinion, but that doesn’t mean their opinion makes any logical sense.

Furthermore, if the American people simply did what the troops in that video asked, i.e., supported the war despite any misgivings about the wisdom of it, it would be a recipe for catastrophe. It would mean that we would just pursue any policy, no matter how ill-advised, forever, because criticism of that policy would be tantamount to not supporting the troops. That’s a totally untenable situation. In fact, it would be downright ridiculous.
 
Written By: Anonymous Liberal
URL: http://www.anonymousliberal.com
Oh no, you mean that because I think that this was a poorly concieved, poorly executed, and poorly represented adventure, because we did it anyway I should just shut up, wave the flag and say HooAhh?

I am not surprised that the troops would not be thrilled that a majority of Americans think there mission is likely to fail, but you sound a liberal soccer mom who doesn’t want to let her kid know that he runs like a girl.

It is what it is McQ, Bush lead us into this without preparing the American people for what was likely in the post-war occupation, and the American are responding exactly as you would expect. If Bush could not sell this with total honesty about the worst case scenario’s and even the most likely scenario’s, then he should never gone ahead. To blame American’s for Bush’s failure is typical, ridiculous, and will be bought hook, line, and sinker, by most of your readership here.

Cap

 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
correction in order: i wrote "you wish the troops would fail", but i meant "you with the troops would succeed". ok, that makes it a little closer to making my point that anon lib lacks faith in our troops/leadership. don’t let it be missed these 2 are tightly coupled, as leadership roles w/in the troops increases w/ rank, & the civilian element of leadership leans heavily upon troop leadership.
 
Written By: window licker
URL: http://
Anon. Lib. mayhap YOU aren’t:
The war’s critics aren’t hoping the troops fail.
But the organizing core of the Anti-War Movement IS. Yeah, I don’t question their patriotism, because I know Code Pink, ANSWER, Moveon.org, Michael Moore ARE FOR THE OTHER SIDE.

At a minimum I question your JUDGEMENT and if you keep the same company year after year I question your patriotism....

My example, Skokie IL. The Nazi’s want to march and the ACLU supports them. Well when the Nazi’s spoke and the ACLU spoke I could tell the two sides apart. The Nazi’s wanted to demonstrate against the K*kes and Mud People and the ACLU wanted to guarantee the right of Speech and Assembly. I could see a difference between the two groups.

But if you turn up at the ANSWER-sponsored "Peace Rally" it’s like the ACLU supporting the Nazi’s BELIEFS, not their right to Speak. So whilst you may hope for Victory, the people you hang with don’t and unless you distance yourself from them I’m forced to conclude, that OBJECTIVELY you’re pulling for the Other Side, too.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
No, McQ, SOME troops interpret criticism that way. Some don’t. And just because SOME troops interpret it that way, doesn’t mean they are right. People believe a lot of things that aren’t logical.
Ah, but ALL critics "aren’t hoping the troops fail."

Is that right?

Speaking of logical inconsistency.

But again, you miss the point ... it doesn’t matter whether you consider what they think or how they interpret something is "right", the fact is, that’s how they consider such things as criticism which doesn’t support their mission.

So while you may find that to be inconvenient to the meme you use, i.e. "I support the troops but not their mission", the reality is the troops you claim you’re supporting are criticizing you for claiming that postion. And they are making the same argument you’re trying to make ... your claim is logically inconsistent as far as they’re concerned.

That’s reality.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
"the troops"?

Every single American soldier holds the same belief? wow.
 
Written By: Francis
URL: http://
It is what it is McQ, Bush lead us into this without preparing the American people for what was likely in the post-war occupation, and the American are responding exactly as you would expect. If Bush could not sell this with total honesty about the worst case scenario’s and even the most likely scenario’s, then he should never gone ahead. To blame American’s for Bush’s failure is typical, ridiculous, and will be bought hook, line, and sinker, by most of your readership here.
Talk about a red herring ... this is about what troops in the field believe to be the truth. They really don’t give a rip about the whining going on back here about who prepared who for what, they want those they fight for to back them when they’re committed to combat ... and that means backing their mission.

Why is that so freakin’ difficult for some to understand?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Every single American soldier holds the same belief? wow.
Yeah Francis, we can get all literal about it. That always makes for a powerful rebuttal.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
"the troops"?
Every single American soldier holds the same belief? wow.
Just like the "American People" are against this war....Francis. It’s called polling you can reject it or accept, but you MUST accept it in toto, not just when you like.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Anon Lib - "No, McQ, SOME troops interpret criticism that way. Some don’t."
Francis - "Every single American soldier holds the same belief? wow."
Well, I don’t know - do you? And short of every one of them being polled directly to every one’s satisfaction....

But I’ve sat here and watched Anon Lib (and probably you) assume that NBC managed to find the small core who feel like McQ, and somehow avoided, either intentionally or not, the vast majority of those who you seem to think feel like you and Anon Lib.

And you think NBC has decided to suddenly start supporting the war, is that it, so they only taped guys who feel like McQ does? Speaking of
People believe a lot of things that aren’t logical.
Ya know - given McQ’s credentials, I’m not sorry to say I trust him on this one - you two, I doubt you have much street cred in the ’man in the barracks’ arena.

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
>>
Just like the "American People" are against this war....Francis. It’s called polling you can reject it or accept, but you MUST accept it in toto, not just when you like.
>>

Three soldiers in a 30 second NBC report is polling ??!! Are you nuts.

Polling is November election where the Republicans and Bush got a thumpin’.

Polling is Military times poll showing 35% of the troops supporting Bush’s handling of the war.

http://www.militarycity.com/polls/2006_main.php

Polling is Rasmussen showing Bush at 42% approval

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Bush_Job_Approval.htm

Three soldiers on NBC is not polling.


 
Written By: Alex
URL: http://
No patriot can always support the troops. Let’s say that the troops were called in to violently disband an elected state government in the United States because it removed itself from the War on Drugs, allowed everyone 21 or older to own a machine gun without a license as part of a reorganization of a state militia and threatened all federal agents violating the federal or state constitutions with felony charges if caught by the state police. Would you still "support the troops" if you saw them violently disbanding a constitutional, elected government on our own soil?

I use that extreme example because extreme examples are the best way to take an idea to its natural conclusion. They are purer than "moderate" ones for representing where an idea can go.

The military is not automatically owed our respect and support. No part of the government is.
 
Written By: MikeT
URL: http://www.codemonkeyramblings.com
That Military Times was a survey, not a poll, and includes the disclaimer:
The mail survey, conducted Nov. 13 through Dec. 22, is the fourth annual gauge of active-duty military subscribers to the Military Times newspapers. The results should not be read as representative of the military as a whole; the survey’s respondents are on average older, more experienced, more likely to be officers and more career-oriented than the overall military population.
And it includes this statement...
while they want more troops in Iraq and Afghanistan
So, while they may not approve of President Bush’s handling of the war, they likely would approve less of the Democrats handling of the war.
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://inactivist.org/blog/keith_indy
You’re right Alex but OTHER polling data showing that 70% of the troops and veterans support the war effort IS polling... and any way the larger point was that, IMO..."All troops" is a mis-nomer, OK it is, as long as you and others are willing to accept that "Americans are turning against the war" is equally a mis-nomer. Really "ALL Americans" see it doesn’t work for me and it ought not work for Francis.

Bottom-line: "All" = All or "All"= "Some" but the equation must balance, both ways when Left OR Right use it.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Polling is Military times poll showing 35% of the troops supporting Bush’s handling of the war.
It was not a "poll". It was a voluntary readers survey which has no scientific validity.

And, in fact, the Service Times made the following disclaimer:
The mail survey, conducted Nov. 13 through Dec. 22, is the fourth annual gauge of active-duty military subscribers to the Military Times newspapers. The results should not be read as representative of the military as a whole; the survey’s respondents are on average older, more experienced, more likely to be officers and more career-oriented than the overall military population.
What you don’t seem to understand is the troops don’t care what the "feeling of the population" as a whole is, or what Bush’s rating is, they want to be fully supported when committed to combat.

Why is that so hard to understand and accept?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Link to the polling please? I see a newsclip that confirms McQ’s beliefs (confirmation bias, anyone?), but no evidence that this belief is universally held.

GWB’s popularity rating is bouncing around 30%. According to Polling Report here, 24% of Americans support the way Bush is handling the situation in Iraq. I doubt you could get even 90% of Americans to ever hold one belief. You could probably get 15% who disagree with gravity.

I do not doubt that there are many soldiers who are immensely frustrated by the sentiment of support the troops, not the war. But since the President is only C-in-C of the armed forces, not all citizens, not only can I have that belief, I can advocate for it.

As I see it, the best case is that Petraeus provides a short-term boost to the credibility of the Maliki government ... which is largely made up of Shia radicals. So the security environment we are trying to create is to bolster a theocratic pro-Iranian government.

No thanks. I do not wish a single more American (or, for that matter, Iraqi) death. The President said that he was going to create a unified, secure, democratic, secular, pro-western state that would be a beacon in the Middle East and a reliable ally in the war on terror.

That mission has failed. The Iraqis must be allowed to find their own path.

[hypothetical — The British win the war of 1812 and place a medium-sized garrison in DC and smaller ones across the country. Under pressure from British citizens, the viceroy issues an order banning slavery. The south erupts in violence while abolitionists celebrate. Small garrisons across the South are overrun, and in Parliament backbenchers start asking what the h*ll British troops are doing getting killed over this issue. Meanwhile state militias start to form into standing armies ... Sound familiar?]
 
Written By: Francis
URL: http://
The military is not automatically owed our respect and support. No part of the government is.

I don’t think anyone here is arguing that MikeT. We argue that this IS the middle-case. This ISN’T some putsch being carried out, but a Just War being Fought Justly.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
No thanks. I do not wish a single more American (or, for that matter, Iraqi) death. The President said that he was going to create a unified, secure, democratic, secular, pro-western state that would be a beacon in the Middle East and a reliable ally in the war on terror.

That mission has failed. The Iraqis must be allowed to find their own path.
Mutually contradictory...IF we fail then THOUSANDS more will die...which is it you care about the Iraqis or you don’t? And i would dispute the failed mission statement any way? Or would you say that the US had failed with the "Whisky Rebellion" or the Civil War?
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
[hypothetical — The British win the war of 1812 and place a medium-sized garrison in DC and smaller ones across the country. Under pressure from British citizens, the viceroy issues an order banning slavery. The south erupts in violence while abolitionists celebrate. Small garrisons across the South are overrun, and in Parliament backbenchers start asking what the h*ll British troops are doing getting killed over this issue. Meanwhile state militias start to form into standing armies ... Sound familiar?]
OK Francis what IS the right answer to this hypothetical? Do the British withdraw and allow MILLIONS to be returned to Slavery or do they FIGHT the state militias? You brought it up, presumably to make a point. Carry on and make the point...

Tell me do you urge British withdrawl at the cost of untold suffering? Can we say, then, that Francis is IN FAVOUR OF SLAVERY? Or is Francis saying it’s morally complex with no easy answers?

I certainly await the response.....
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Unconditional support of anything is not desired...

Support of our troops and their mission against the enemy, is desired. Support of the goal, to defeat the enemy and help create a sustainable government in Iraq, is desired.

**********

I also found the following in that survey/poll...
The poll asked, “How do you think each of these groups view the military?” Respondents over overwhelmingly said civilians have a favorable impression of the military (86 percent). They even thought politicians look favorably on the military (57 percent). But they are convinced the media hate them — only 39 percent of military respondents said they think the media have a favorable view of the troops.

The poll also asked if the senior military leadership, President Bush, civilian military leadership and Congress have their best in terests at heart.

Almost two-thirds (63 percent) of those surveyed said the senior military leadership has the best interests of the troops at heart. And though they don’t think much of the way he’s handling the war, 48 percent said the same about President Bush. But they take a dim view of civilian military lead ership — only 32 percent said they think it has their best inter ests at heart. And only 23 percent think Congress is looking out for them.

Despite concerns early in the war about equipment shortages, 58 percent said they believe they are supplied with the best possible weapons and equipment.

While President Bush always portrays the war in Iraq as part of the larger war on terrorism, many in the military are not convinced. The respondents were split evenly — 47 percent both ways — on whether the Iraq war is part of the war on terrorism. The rest had no opinion.
So, if we are to believe these numbers, the military disapproves of the media and Congress almost as much as or more then the approve of the Presidents handling of the war.

But, the numbers also seem contradictory. If 58% think they are being supplied with the best possible weapons and equipment, wouldn’t that mean Congress was somehow looking out for them?
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://inactivist.org/blog/keith_indy
francis, why put forth the hypothetical, when we can put forth the actual? that is, what happened when we pulled back from vietnam before finishing the job (assuming the liberal trope of iraq == vietnam). pol pot ring any bells?
 
Written By: window licker
URL: http://
when we pulled back from vietnam before finishing the job (assuming the liberal trope of iraq == vietnam). pol pot ring any bells?
We also have the Vietnamese Boat People, the several MILLION of them, Francis, then we have the Montagnards, the Meo and Hmong all refugees from their homeland, all victims of the Agrarian Reformers that were the Viet Minh and Pathet Lao.

 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
>>>
What you don’t seem to understand is the troops don’t care what the "feeling of the population" as a whole is, or what Bush’s rating is, they want to be fully supported when committed to combat.

Why is that so hard to understand and accept?
>>>

The troops report to the President and the President reports/gets elected by the people. The troops are in effect working/fighting for the people / on behalf of the people.

It is convoluted logic to say that arguing/working to stop the war is not supporting the troops.

If the majority of the people don’t like the war and/or don’t want *this* war to go on, it is their right to force the president one way or the other to stop it.

It was the President’s job to clearly explain the war rather than the sloganeering of "we will be there till we succeed", "we will fail if we don’t stay", "we will stay the course", "we will stand down when they stand up" etc etc.

He has lost the majority of support on the war and wars end when the majority stops believing the President.
 
Written By: Alex
URL: http://
It was the President’s job to clearly explain the war rather than the sloganeering of "we will be there till we succeed", "we will fail if we don’t stay", "we will stay the course", "we will stand down when they stand up" etc etc.
I agree, "Remember Pearl harbor" and the "Four Freedoms" now there’s an explanation for a war...why oh why could not Dubya have adopted FDR’s clear messages?

Yeah, I’m being snarky, because the point being made is silly... sloagans ARE the message, in part..."It’s the Economy Stupid." "The Worst Economy in Fifty Years." Or were those GOOD slogans, whilst Dubya’s were BAD slogans?

It’s not the President’s job to provide a multi-page 5 Paragraph Field Order at the Pressers, and if it IS , I assume you asked the same of Bill Clinton in Bosnia and Kosovo...
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
It really bugs me that people think it’s the Presidents job to keep them informed.

That’s the job of the press, and the individual.

You are as informed as you want to be.

If you don’t know what our strategy has been all along, or what has been said all along about the difficulties we would face, then I take it you use the mainstream media (and like minded new media) as your sole source of information.

The information has been out there, this whole time, since before the war started.

The primary job of citizens in our country, with regards to politics, is to be an INFORMED voter. When the information is lopsided, would you not expect the opinion formed from such information to be lopsided as well.

Of course, pointing this out, I expect to be called various names, and to be told I see Iraq through rose-colored glasses. That is hardly the case. In every human activity there are positive and negative outcomes, and consequences.
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://inactivist.org/blog/keith_indy
on slavery: no, i don’t support it. But British citizens in the early nineteenth century may have felt that it was an issue for americans to decide. more to the point, british citizens may well have felt that they simply could not field a large enough army for a long enough time to put down the rebellion.

on vietnam: last I checked, the signing of the Paris Peace Accords was tremendously popular among Americans. If Nixon and later Ford were unable to rally support once North Vietnam re-invaded, maybe it’s because we were tired of a war we didn’t understand and didn’t think was winnable.

 
Written By: Francis
URL: http://
>>>
I agree, "Remember Pearl harbor" and the "Four Freedoms" now there’s an explanation for a war...why oh why could not Dubya have adopted FDR’s clear messages?
>>>

He actually defined the Four Freedoms in the congressional address before the slogan became widely-used.

The first is freedom of speech and expression ...
The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way ...
The third is freedom from want ...
The fourth is freedom from fear ...

The explanation came first and did not change throughout the war - unlike this war.

The message and a clear pact with the people about why we need the war comes first; the slogans are just reminders.

Remember when this administration wanted to retire the phrase Global War on Terror and instead use "Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism" or GSAVE ???
 
Written By: Alex
URL: http://
I was one of the troops last year. I can’t stand it when people tell me that they support the troops but not the war. They can say it all they want, but I don’t have to believe it.

You can agree with the war or not, but have the courage to pick a side and commit to it.
 
Written By: kevin
URL: http://
But, the numbers also seem contradictory. If 58% think they are being supplied with the best possible weapons and equipment, wouldn’t that mean Congress was somehow looking out for them?
I assume most of those weapons were bought by a previous Congress.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
The first is freedom of speech and expression ...
The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way ...
The third is freedom from want ...
The fourth is freedom from fear ...
Ahh, positive freedoms.

Essentially, freedom to something provided by someone else’s labor.

So, was FDR a communist or a fascist?
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
francis, why put forth the hypothetical, when we can put forth the actual? that is, what happened when we pulled back from vietnam before finishing the job (assuming the liberal trope of iraq == vietnam). pol pot ring any bells?
The troops did finish the job with respect to the VC, and the North Vietnamese promised not to invade.

However, when the North invaded with 22 divisions in ’75 despite the promise, we failed to provide support for the South—because of the leftist Watergate Congress.

We could have made the North’s rout as bad as it was in ’73.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
But again, you miss the point ... it doesn’t matter whether you consider what they think or how they interpret something is "right", the fact is, that’s how they consider such things as criticism which doesn’t support their mission.
Again, McQ, while I’m sure you are right that SOME troops feel this way, perhaps even a majority, that doesn’t mean it makes any sense. I’m sure there are plenty of soldiers out there who are capable of separating criticism of Bush’s war policy on the one hand from lack of support for the troops themselves on the other. This is just basic logic.
So while you may find that to be inconvenient to the meme you use, i.e. "I support the troops but not their mission", the reality is the troops you claim you’re supporting are criticizing you for claiming that postion. And they are making the same argument you’re trying to make ... your claim is logically inconsistent as far as they’re concerned. That’s reality.
McQ, logic isn’t relative. It’s not in the eye of the beholder. Either I’m being logically inconsistent or they/you are. But you have yet to provide any explanation—besides bare assertion—as to why I cannot logically be critical of Bush’s war policy while supporting the troops. Does John McCain no longer support the troops when he is critical of Bush or Cheney? How about John Warner? And if they aren’t suddenly troop-haters, why is it that war critics on the left are?

I don’t begrudge those troops who think criticism of the war means lack of support for them. That’s how they feel. But I’m sure if you actually pressed any of them, they’d concede that there is nothing unpatriotic about questioning the President’s policies. And while many troops may wish that pubic support for the war was stronger, I highly doubt that these troops think that 70% of the country wishes them harm or hopes they fail. That’s nuts. They all likely have family members who are critical of the war to some degree.

This whole argument is just totally divorced from logic. It’s emotional nonsense that breaks down under any type of real scrutiny.
 
Written By: Anonymous Liberal
URL: http://www.anonymousliberal.com
Essentially, freedom to something provided by someone else’s labor.

Nice to see you coming around to Marxist thinking, Don.
 
Written By: Fledermaus
URL: http://
The troops report to the President and the President reports/gets elected by the people. The troops are in effect working/fighting for the people / on behalf of the people.

It is convoluted logic to say that arguing/working to stop the war is not supporting the troops.

If the majority of the people don’t like the war and/or don’t want *this* war to go on, it is their right to force the president one way or the other to stop it.
Arguing against the war is not supporting the mission of the troops. Not supporting their mission is not supporting them. The fact that "the people" have the ultimate say in no way contradicts this . . .

Also, it isn’t clear to me exactly that the people don’t support the war. It is clear that people don’t support how the war is being conducted. At least some of the "Non-supporters" probably think we need to loosen rules of engagment and go "Roman on their asses".

A large reason for the outcome in the last elections was the various scandals, acording to some polling at the time. The winning Democrats were mostly conservative Democrats.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Nice to see you coming around to Marxist thinking, Don.
That was FDR’s "freedoms", not mine.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
McQ, logic isn’t relative. It’s not in the eye of the beholder. Either I’m being logically inconsistent or they/you are.
Please AL, you have to know better than this.

Logic is a process. And it all begins with a premise.

One can be logically correct but if the logic is based on a false premise, you’re still wrong.

The premise here, whether you agree or not, is that most troops regard support of them to include support of what they do, i.e. the mission. If you don’t support their mission, then they do not accept as logical the claim/argument that you support them.

What premise are you operating from (because it certainly isn’t that one)? Given that premise - the one on which they base their argument - they view your non-support of their mission as logically inconsistent with your claim of support for them.

And so do I.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
The first is freedom of speech and expression ...
The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way ...
The third is freedom from want ...
The fourth is freedom from fear ...
And they differ from "As they Stand Up We Will Stand Down"? Freedom from want, is that a guaranteed wage, guaranteed housing, guaranteed medical care? Or is it a call for an expanding economy so that a "Rising Tide Floats All Boats"? And freedom from fear...no police, no police interrogation, Prozac/Soma for all. Nice try but they ae STILL empty slogans, yet empty slogans given out to the Home Front and seemingly accepted.
The message and a clear pact with the people about why we need the war comes first; the slogans are just reminders.
I thought that smoking hole in the ground in NYC provided the FIRST reason and then the continued video of "insurgents" chanting "Allahu Akhbar" and then severing heads of their captives might have provided FURTHER incentive, car-bombing markets might intrude here and then the most recent mortar attack on a GIRLS SCHOOL SHOULD SERVE as the most recent reminder, but I guess watching the News and thinking for yourself is a bit much, so the President must every day catalogue the reasons for "Why We Fight?"

As to GWoT v. GSAVE a decent point, we changed from WoT because some ever-so bright Lights kept pointing out that "Terrorism is a Tactic, not an Enemy." So the President changed it...he tried, once, the best title, The War Against Islamo-Fascists(ism) but many of the same Bright Lights felt that "objectionable" so we are left with GSAVE. But the larger point seems odd, if the President comes up with a really GREAT NAME for it, e.g., "The Struggle for Cute Bunnies, Rainbows, and Chocolate Fountains" or "The Global Struggle Against Christian-Like Rightwing Extremists" you’ll be on-board?

 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Don, True I was a bit unclear there. I’d understood that you thought that "freedom to something provided by someone else’s labor" is a bad thing.

Likewise Marx also thought that it was a bad thing - do the words surplus value of labor ring a bell?
 
Written By: Fledermaus
URL: http://
>>>
I thought that smoking hole in the ground in NYC provided the FIRST reason ...
>>>

This sleight of hand "We are going to get Osama for 9/11" to "We are going to get Saddam for 9/11" is the primary cause of President Bush’s troubles ... people were sold this for a while ... but a majority of the people are not buying the 9/11 - Iraq linkage.

It’s been a good conversation ... I have to get back to work. Appreciate your differing point of view.
 
Written By: Alex
URL: http://
This sleight of hand "We are going to get Osama for 9/11" to "We are going to get Saddam for 9/11" is the primary cause of President Bush’s troubles

Dude the President NEVER equated Saddam and 9-11, BUT OIF I & II IS a part of the GWoT...so yes, tangentially noting 9-11 is valid, IMO. Or is it your contention that Hussien had NO ties to terror, even if he had no ties to 9-11, not the same as no ties to Al-Qaida or Terrorism.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
This sleight of hand "We are going to get Osama for 9/11" to "We are going to get Saddam for 9/11" is the primary cause of President Bush’s troubles ... people were sold this for a while ... but a majority of the people are not buying the 9/11 - Iraq linkage.
To bad the people who sold this were mostly newsmen and pundits...

Saying that "because of 9/11, we can no longer accept the threat Saddam poses in Iraq and the region," is not the same as trying to link Saddam with being behind 9/11 some how. Yet, that is exactly the way the media portrayed it, and how many pundits willingly pushed it.
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://inactivist.org/blog/keith_indy
Likewise Marx also thought that it was a bad thing - do the words surplus value of labor ring a bell?
Obvisously he didn’t think it was a bad thing when he wrote: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!"

And since I do not believe in the labor theory of value, I don’t buy the surplus value thing . . .
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
This sleight of hand "We are going to get Osama for 9/11" to "We are going to get Saddam for 9/11" is the primary cause of President Bush’s troubles ... people were sold this for a while ... but a majority of the people are not buying the 9/11 - Iraq linkage.
And here I thought we were going after the Axis of Evil. Not because any one of them in particular were responsible for 9/11, but because any one might be responsible for the next one . . .

 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
McQ,

I’ve read posts where you were critical of Bush’s war policies. Does that mean YOU don’t support the troops? If not, explain.
 
Written By: Anonymous Liberal
URL: http://www.anonymousliberal.com
I’ve read posts where you were critical of Bush’s war policies. Does that mean YOU don’t support the troops? If not, explain.
Not McQ, BUT I can criticize the failure to privatize Iraqi SOE’s or feel we rushed a National Convention, HOWEVER, that is not the same thing as calling for a precipitous pull-out or believeing the war a lost cause or that the war was NEVER a just cause or winnable. Murtha and Code Pink Do think these things, they do NOT support the mission and the troops feel they are not supported.

Do you love your partner? Do you love EVERYTHING about your partner or does s/he snore? If s/he snores and it bothers you does that mean yo don’t love your partner or aren’t committed to the relationship or you want to end it? No, it means your partner snores and it’s annoying...Analogously saying, "I made a mistake in my choice of partners" suggests you do NOT believe in the relationship.

I hope you can see the difference.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
I’ve read posts where you were critical of Bush’s war policies. Does that mean YOU don’t support the troops? If not, explain.
The mission of the troops has been transition (not Bush’s war policy or lack thereof). This isn’t about his war policy, but instead specific resolutions which are aimed at condemning the troop increase which is militarily necessary to their new mission, secure the population.

I’ve been a supporter of their previous mission (train up the ISF to take on the insurgency and provide security for the population) since the beginning of the post-invasion phase.

I was dubious of their new mission and took the time to read both the applicable (and new) counterinsurgency doctrine and look carefully at the numbers (two posts on "surge math" can be found in the archives). It is an operation which, in my military opinion, can succeed. And even if I thought it might not, I would still want them to succeed and would support them in doing so and would also want them to have everything they needed to make the effort.

My criticism, for the most part, has been about such things as equipment shortages, armor, not making ISF training the priority it should be (and now is), ROE concerns, and recently unity of command and other issues (political and economic). All of those are concerns which could (and do) negatively effect the ability of the troops to accomplish their mission.

I’ve firmly supported the troops and their mission(s) from day one. That’s because, having been in their position before and seeing then precisely what I’m seeing now, I recognize it for what it is, despite all the double-talk and pretzel logic to the contrary.

Now, you tell me — if their new mission is, by way of a doctrinally necessary troop increase, to secure the population until the Iraqis can do it all by themselves — how is supporting resolutions which condemn such an increase and thus their mission supposed to be translated by soldiers on the ground as "support" for their mission and ultimately for them?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
During Vietnam, SOME Americans who opposed the war we actively hostile toward the military and individual soldiers, expressing the suggestion that these servicemen should have disobeyed orders to participate in that war. Over time, Americans, even those that opposed the war, came to believe that this attitude towards our servicemen was horribly misplaced.

Fast forward to 2003-2007, and Americans who oppose this war are almost universally in agreement that the servicemen are following orders and doing the best they can to carry out those orders, and directing their disapproval at the civilian leadership who’s policy is directing the military.

But that’s good enough for McQ, nope, if we are not marching in goosestep with our support or silence in relation to the strategies and policies of the civilian leadership, then we are opposing the troops.

I swear, this is sounding more like propaganda than thoughtful analysis every day.

Cap
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
But that’s good enough for McQ, nope, if we are not marching in goosestep with our support or silence in relation to the strategies and policies of the civilian leadership, then we are opposing the troops.
This has nothing to do with any of that Cap, it has to do with not supporting the specific mission to which the troops have been committed.

They understand the difference, even if you don’t. Your emotional and childish characterizations aside, any soldier viewing resolutions which specifically condemn what is doctrinally necessary to accomplish their new mission isn’t going to view that as ’support’ for them. Would you?

And btw, no one has said "be silent", at least not here. That’s a red herring and you know it. What is being said is all you "reality based" types need to realize how what you’re saying (or "resolving") is being received by others — specifically those in harm’s way. As the good SSG in the video says, "you can’t have it both ways" despite your feverent attempts to do so.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
As the good SSG in the video says, "you can’t have it both ways" despite your feverent attempts to do so.
So the choice you offer, though you claim not to, is not to voice a negative opinion on the mission, or be cast as not supporting the troops.

Here’s your logic turned around; The troops are going to be supportive of their own mission if they are asked to storm the gates of hell, that’s what we train them for. Being supportive of such a mission, while it would be in agreement with the troops self analysis of their mission, would be counter to the best interest of the troops, and our national interests, and supporting ANY mission just because it IS the mission, is not necessarily supporting the troops and can in fact be the opposite of supporting the troops.
Your emotional and childish characterizations aside, any soldier viewing resolutions which specifically condemn what is doctrinally necessary to accomplish their new mission isn’t going to view that as ’support’ for them. Would you?
If your only point was to have us note that anyone who does not support the mission is viewed by at least some servicemen as not supporting the troops, then fine, point made, irrelevant as that point is, you made it.

Cap
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
After reading the comments it’s clear that grown-up words aren’t working, and so I give you this children’s tale. I call it McQ the Butcher.
I have a friend called McQ who is a butcher. Everyone likes him because he cuts their deli meat for them and he grinds up their beef for meatballs. If he didn’t do his job all the little girls and boys wouldn’t have sandwiches to eat at lunch, and their dinners would only be spaghetti marinara. So everyone always says thank you when they see him because he keeps them from being vegetarian, which all good children know is even worse than going without dessert.
One day I came in to pick up my deli meat, but something was wrong. McQ the butcher was hurt very badly. "What happened?" I asked him. "When we were trying to slice the meat for all the children’s sandwiches today, I got mauled very badly and am bleeding profusely. Two of my butcher friends have lost their legs and another is dead." "My goodness," I said. "Why is it so dangerous today? What were you doing?" "Well," he said, we were trying to carve up a live tiger for tiger sandwiches."
I tried to point out that he probably couldn’t carve up a live tiger with his butcher knives, but he just stamped his feet and shook his head and said, "You don’t support me as a butcher."
I tried to point out that children don’t like tiger sandwiches, as they taste too much like Serengeti, but he just stamped his feet and shook his head and said, "You are undermining my moral as a butcher."
I tried to suggest that maybe he should take the day off, or maybe carve up some dead cows like he usually does, but he just stamped his feet and shook his fists and said, "You don’t support me as a butcher. It’s qualified support."
And that, dear reader, is where our story ends, unless you can think of a way to convince my friend McQ the Butcher to stop without hurting his feelings.
 
Written By: Enid Blyton
URL: http://
Cap and AL,

You are confusing different things.
there is nothing unpatriotic about questioning the President’s policies. And while many troops may wish that pubic support for the war was stronger, I highly doubt that these troops think that 70% of the country wishes them harm or hopes they fail.
I have talked at great length with my brother and other soldiers, and you are right. Few would argue with you. What they would argue with you about is the idea that you are supporting them. If you harm their mission, you are not supporting them. They don’t feel you are necessarily unpatriotic, or wish them harm, or that you want the policies you do for reasons that do not include their best interests. They don’t believe you are supporting them, because you are not. It is a different concept.

I’ll give an example (not an analogy.) My wife goes into the backyard and decides to start a garden. I think it is a bad idea. I think she will regret it, she won’t follow through and it will be an eye sore, she generally has a brown thumb, etc. All of which might be true, a real concern that a month from now we’ll both be looking at a big bare patch of yard which she’ll hate (I could care less.) So in this example I am being completely selfless and only interested in her own well being. So I go outside and bug her about it, complaining incessantly and trying to point out that this is a bad idea and refusing to help her in any way. Now that might be the right thing to do. I may be right, but am I being supportive? No, and no one would claim I am being so regardless of the fact that I am doing it for no reason other than her own benefit.

Let us look up the definition of support:

# the activity of providing for or maintaining by supplying with money or necessities; "his support kept the family together"; "they gave him emotional support during difficult times"
# give moral or psychological support, aid, or courage to; "She supported him during the illness"; "Her children always backed her up"
# aiding the cause or policy or interests of; "the president no longer had the support of his own party"; "they developed a scheme of mutual support"
# support materially or financially; "he does not support his natural children"; "The scholarship supported me when I was in college"
# something providing immaterial assistance to a person or cause or interest; "the policy found little public support"; "his faith was all the support he needed"; "the team enjoyed the support of their fans"

Go look at all the examples, none of them include anything like nagging my wife in her interest, or passing resolutions against what someone is doing.

You confuse having someones best interests with support. They are different things. It may be right not to support the troops, but don’t claim it is something different than it is.

This resolution will harm the troops. It does not help bring them home, but it hurts their morale and raises their opponents. That is not supporting them, it is undermining them. Wishing them well is not the same as supporting them. Once again, that may be the right thing, but it isn’t the same thing.
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
Wow. You really see the world in black and white, don’t you?

The military is nothing more than an instrument of national power; war is nothing more than a continuation of politics by other means. Certainly it is possible to support our military... and not support the conflict or the politics-of-action they are involved in. There are likely many members of the military who disagree with this conflict, and yet they are in Iraq doing their jobs because that is what they do.

As a reservist, and I am, I have to respond when called; I will deploy when told to, and I will do my best, my utmost. And I will encourage those under my command, and I will watch out for them... and I can do that while believing, and saying, that the policy is wrong.

The world is grey... or gray, if you prefer... not black or white, but shades ranging from pure white to pure black. It is, I suggest, possible to "support the troops but not the mission" for that very reason.
 
Written By: Peter Stinson
URL: http://tidewatermuse.blogspot.com
McQ, logic isn’t relative. It’s not in the eye of the beholder. Either I’m being logically inconsistent or they/you are.
Or, you could both be inconsistent (not saying that’s the case).
But you have yet to provide any explanation—besides bare assertion—as to why I cannot logically be critical of Bush’s war policy while supporting the troops. Does John McCain no longer support the troops when he is critical of Bush or Cheney? How about John Warner? And if they aren’t suddenly troop-haters, why is it that war critics on the left are?
The difference is in not supporting the mission vs supporting the mission but being critical of its implementation.

From a theoretical point of view, you can probably support the troops while not supporting the mission. It isn’t strickly logically impossible, and this is where you think you are right and McQ is wrong. However, in any practicle manner, this is a difficult balance to maintain, particularly since the troops are volunteers who have sacrified for their mission, and they don’t want to see that sacrifise be in vain.

This is where dismissive Kerry-type comments come in; either the troops are too stupid to realize they are being taken for a ride, else they were taken advantage of previously and want to get out of now. Or else, they are a willing tool of the evil W. You can’t have it both ways: either the troops are tools or they are fools. The are a willing and neccessary part of the mission.

The way in which abu ghraib et cetra have been siezed by the antiwar left and the media suggests a willingness to sell out the troops for political gain. It isn’t simply a matter of news or debate, either: the failure to print the Mohammed comics, the general slant of the news suggest a myoptic view that only "supports" the troops when doing so hurts the Bush administration.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
I think McQ would just prefer that everyone were either in agreement with him, or Ted Rall, all this stuff in between just makes it difficult to paint people with that big broad brush.

McQ the Butcher, lmao.

I may be right, but am I being supportive?
Back to the Soccer Mom mentality. The military is a tool, more precisely a weapon, and it WANTS to be used, and when it is used, people die, so being supportive of military action when every fiber of your being says the action is wrong, is a bit different than allowing a no-harm, no-foul mistake proceed with your "support"

Yeesh

Cap
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
>>>
As the good SSG in the video says, "you can’t have it both ways" despite your feverent attempts to do so.
>>>

You have a video of 3 officers saying you can’t have it both ways.

http://www.militarycity.com/polls/2006_main.php

Here’s the survey/poll filled out by 954 active duty (... respondents are on average older, more experienced, more likely to be officers and more career-oriented than the overall military population ...)

42% disapproved of Bush’s handling ... = 400 officers

13 percent said we should have no troops there = 125 officers

50% don’t think success in Iraq is likely ... = 475 officers

By your convoluted logic, these officers don’t support the troops as well ?!!

The fact that you have a video with 3 officers is only that - anecdotal evidence - upon which you are basing your premise and treating as proven.

The only thing the video proves is that it is difficult to find soldiers criticizing the president / operations on camera.

***

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/012307B.shtml

Here are 1000+ soldiers who have signed a petition to withdraw. By your logic, these officers also don’t support the troops ??



 
Written By: Alex
URL: http://
Wow. You really see the world in black and white, don’t you?
Oh please ... buy a clue would you?
Certainly it is possible to support our military... and not support the conflict or the politics-of-action they are involved in.
That’s not the point here is it? We’re not talking about "the conflict". We’re talking about a specific mission and resolutions which condemn that specific mission.

You guys keep trying to change the subject into some one-over-the-world policy debate. That isn’t what this is about. I would love to see you focus on the point instead.

The troops have a new mission. That mission requires, doctrinally, that they have more troops in theater to successfully carry it out. There are resolutions passed and pending which specifically condemn that increase in troops and thus mission success.

So how about you answering the question I’ve asked previously. How do you, as a soldier on the ground, interpret that as ’support’?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
What exactly about the troops are you supporting if you don’t support their mission, which is to make America safer by killing terrorists and turning ME theocracies into democracies? And this is the rub: Since Bush’s main presidential goal is to kill terrorists and turn ME Theocracies into Democracies, liberals can’t support the war because then horror of horrors they’d be supporting Bush.

Yeah, just like all you compassionate libs who support affirmative action and higher taxes. You support A.A. for OTHERS, i.e.: would you give up your job to a minority? Of course not. You support higher taxes as long as someone else is paying.

You support the troops, A.A. and higher taxes only as a philosophical exercise.

Saying you support the troops but not the mission is like saying: I support the Bears, but I want the Colts to win the Superbowl.
Here are 1000+ soldiers who have signed a petition to withdraw. By your logic, these officers also don’t support the troops ??
Oh, they support the troops all right, just not the American ones.

 
Written By: Come on, Please
URL: http://
So how about you answering the question I’ve asked previously. How do you, as a soldier on the ground, interpret that as ’support’?
If you disbelieve the doctrine of the surge.
 
Written By: unaha-closp
URL: http://warisforwinning.blogspot.com/
so being supportive of military action when every fiber of your being says the action is wrong,
Unless of course the commander in chief is one you voted for, then your fibers tend to be, shall we say, more flexible, eh, Cap? What did your fibers tell you when Clinton was lobbing Cruise Missiles into Baghdad?

Lemme guess: I support the rockets, but not their trajectory!
 
Written By: Come on, Please
URL: http://
>>>
The troops have a new mission. That mission requires, doctrinally, that they have more troops in theater to successfully carry it out.
>>>

You keep saying "new mission" as if it was sent down by the Gods ... it’s a new mission because President Bush got a thumpin’ in the elections. The day after he sacked Rumsfeld and in Nov and Dec cooked up this mission.

If he had lost more/all the Senate/House seats, the new mission might have been a withdrawal.

If he had won more/all the Senate/House seats, the mission would have been exactly as last year with Rumsfeld still running it.

***

The next mission could be Syria ... and the next mission could be Iran ... and, doctrinally, those would require more troops .... According to the President, he is the Decider and he can keep on deciding on new and newer missions and the population and the house/Senate is just supposed to suck it up and keep supporting it ... because they can’t have it both ways ... support the never-ending war with new missions or you are against the troops.

This logic is just absolute lunacy.
 
Written By: Alex
URL: http://
Back to the Soccer Mom mentality. The military is a tool, more precisely a weapon, and it WANTS to be used, and when it is used, people die, so being supportive of military action when every fiber of your being says the action is wrong, is a bit different than allowing a no-harm, no-foul mistake proceed with your "support"
You know cap, I stated it was an example of what support is as opposed to an analogy so you could understand such responses are beside the point. What you are claiming might be wise, it might be patriotic, it might be many fine things, but the word support has a very specific meaning. When troops are performing a specific action and you oppose that action you are not supporting them. You might have their best interests at heart (though I cannot see how this resolution can be spun that way, a withdrawal maybe, but just carping no)but you are not supporting them.

Of course your statement makes that clear. You feel the action is wrong so you don’t support it. They will be doing the mission, so you are not supporting them. If I don’t support the making of the garden, it is silly to claim I am being supportive of my wife while she is making it if I don’t give her some support. It doesn’t mean that in general I don’t care for her, I just don’t care for what she is doing now. Thus I am not being supportive and there is no way to claim I am. It doesn’t make me a bad person, it doesn’t mean I won’t be supportive in the future, but I am not supporting her at that point.

As McQ pointed out in his last comment, you want whether you are supportive or not to be premised upon the wisdom of the particular mission. If you don’t like the mission you withhold your support of the mission, which means you are not being supportive of the troops carrying it out.

Let me be clear, you are refusing your support. Whether you are a fine, patriotic person who is wiser than those who support the mission does not change that fact. Words have meaning, you don’t get to redefine what support means so that it has no negative connotation. It does, the question is whether it is the right thing to do anyway. That is real life. I think you are wrong to withdraw your support, but if I thought you were right to do so I would still blanche at the thought that you could claim you support the troops making the effort by undermining what they are doing. That is an abuse of language.
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://www.asecondhandconjecture.com
Alex,

They don’t support the troops in this mission, that is correct. They may care about them, they may want the best for them, but they don’t support them.

You also don’t seem to understand McQ’s point. One could be opposed to the war and vote for them to come home. That might be the right thing to do as well, but while they are fighting you are not supporting them (unless they are trying to avoid fighting, whereupon you would be supporting those who are trying to get out of fighting.) It has nothing to do with the wisdom of Bush’s strategy.
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://www.asecondhandconjecture.com
support the never-ending war with new missions or you are against the troops.
Damn, must be one hell of a strawman sale over at CafePress today.

Alex, you seem to be some sort of historian. Enlighten me: when exactly did Gulf War I end? Hint: on 9/11/01 (you remember that date, right?) CNN.com reported that the man who posed no threat to the US fired upon a US fighter plane that very same day.

If the day ever comes when I hate a US president more than I love this country, 1) ban me from this website and 2) shoot me. Thanks....
 
Written By: Come on, Please
URL: http://
You know what some people are missing...

This is about PERCEPTION.

There is anecdotal evidence that some troops don’t buy the argument that you can "support the troops but not the mission."

No one can dispute their perception. They watch the same news channels we do, and probably read much the same headlines that we do. They see members of Congress saying that the war should be completely defunded. They probably saw the front page coverage of the tens of thousands of people who gathered at (and defaced) the Capital protesting the war.

So, when the troops are constantly hammered by how their mission is doomed to failure, and how we should stop "wasting their lives," how are they supposed to get the impression that people who opposed their mission, are supportive of them.

***********

Some other things you can gleen from that survey/poll:

Would you recommend a military career to others? 81% Yes

If you had a son or daughter who was planning to enter the military would you support that step or would you suggest a different occupation? 72% would support

Should the U.S. have gone to war in Iraq? 41% said yes

 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com/
last I checked, the signing of the Paris Peace Accords was tremendously popular among Americans. If Nixon and later Ford were unable to rally support once North Vietnam re-invaded, maybe it’s because we were tired of a war we didn’t understand and didn’t think was winnable.

No, it was because leftists in Congress stabbed the South Vietnamese in the back and left those we promised to help without ANY help whatsoever. Perhaps the USA wasn’t up for fighting the NVA and VC directly anymore, but thanks to Congress we cut off the South Vietnamese ability to even defend themselves.
In December 1974, the Democratic majority in Congress passed the Foreign Assistance Act of 1974, which cut off all military funding to the South Vietnamese government and made unenforceable the peace terms negotiated by Nixon. Nixon, threatened with impeachment because of Watergate, had resigned his office. Gerald R. Ford, Nixon’s vice-president stepped in to finish his term. The new president vetoed the Foreign Assistance Act, but his veto was overridden by Congress. By 1975, the South Vietnamese Army stood alone against the well-organized, highly determined, and foreign-funded North Vietnamese. Within South Vietnam, there was increasing chaos.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_war#South_Vietnam_stands_alone.2C_1973.E2.80.931975

Are we going to see history repeat itself with a Democrat majority in Congress once again leaving allies at the mercy of their enemies?
 
Written By: John
URL: http://averagegayjoe.blogspot.com
Is it just me, or is the whole method here ludicrous?

I mean, I do not seem to remember FDR announcing D-Day in a speech two months before it happened.

Whether or not we you support the surge is irrelevant. What is relevant is that, by announcing it so far in advance, Bush has condemned many more of our troops to die by losing the element of surprise.

The State of the Union speech should have been more along the lines of “here is what I have decided to do and the troops are already in the air and will arrive by nightfall,” as opposed to what was essentially a two month warning to those wishing to kill us that we were coming.

This is what folks mean by supporting the troops but not the mission. By announcing it and losing the element of surprise, Bush is essentially killing more of our troops then if this had been handled more secretly.

I support the troops. I do not support giving the enemy a two month Heads-Up that they are on the way.
 
Written By: TastyCurry
URL: http://
Why is it so simple to me? This convoluting left wing surrender monkey message, sent via mainstream media, makes me ashamed of the home front, not the true warriors.

Has it dawned on even the most left winger, that if we had done zero after 9-11,,, ? Civil unrest would have ensued within our borders by very pissed off Americans. Just think of the Watts Riots, or South Central Riots and multiply it by 1000. If hitting poor Rodney with a stick caused civil unrest? What the heck do we think would have happened to 7-11’s across this nation, had we been led by nothing? After an unprovoked attack. The message was loud and clear! Do Not Profile America,,,,, We Will Take It To Them. Even the Democrats understood, until they saw a chance to screw the President.

Kick some ass soldier boy, then come home safe.
 
Written By: Alaska Ketchikan
URL: http://
Is it just me, or is the whole method here ludicrous?
It’s just you.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
After reading the comments it’s clear that grown-up words aren’t working, and so I give you this children’s tale.
Don’t give up your day job, ’kay?

Yeesh.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
What the heck do we think would have happened to 7-11’s across this nation, had we been led by nothing?
Well this puts it all in perspective, you see I was under the misguided idea that we went into Iraq because Iraq possessed MASSIVE STOCKPILES of WMD’s, located to the North, East, West of Tikrit, a reconstituted nuclear program, aerial drones that could be launched on our shores within 45 minutes.

I had no idea that we invaded a country that had NOTHING to do with 9/11 in response to 9/11 in order to protect people in 7/11’s. It’s so obvious now!

Thank you for clearing that up.

Cap (sarcastic)
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
You also don’t seem to understand McQ’s point.
No kidding. And at some point you say to h*ll with it ... you can’t debate willful ignorance backed by an army of strawmen, non-sequiturs and a school of red herring.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Let me be clear, you are refusing your support.
Alright, if you want to play semantics, fine, then whatever this message conveys, it is my feelings about the next mission, the last mission, the mission before that, and pretty much every misguided policy decision that has been made by the administration.

I think the plan is awful, I do not believe it will make anything better, and more Americans will die, but I wish the troops Godspeed and pray that I am wrong.

Call it whatever you want, I am not blaming the the troops for the bad policy that put them there, and the military has a very limited ability to express themselves politically, and their job is to follow orders, our civic responsibility as civilians is to express our views, not to shut up and salute the CinC because he’s the decider, and if SOME servicemen are upset by my exercise of free speech that they are willing to die to defend, I am truly sorry. I would sincerely hope that they prefer that free speech is exercized and not stifled by misguided patriots who think the wrong kind of speech sends a bad message and should be kept to oneself.

Cap
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
So McQ, you are a big fan of letting the enemy in on our plans?


Lets be clear.

Support troops, yes.

Support Surge, yes.

Support our idiot leaders telling every enemy in the region we are coming weeks in advance, no.

Disagree?
 
Written By: TastyCurry
URL: http://
TastyCurry -

As reported one post below this one:
Eyewitnesses in some volatile areas said that large numbers of militants have fled to Syria to avoid being trapped in the incoming security operations.

According to those witnesses, residents and shopkeepers are no longer concerned about militants whose existence in public used to bring on clashes that put the lives of civilians in danger.

A shopkeeper in al-Karkh [western Baghdad] said that many of them [militants] packed their stuff and headed to Syria to wait and see what the operations are going to be like.
While experts consider this a failure in protecting the plan’s secrecy which might lead to the loss of the surprise factor, they also say it indicates the seriousness and resolve in this plan that is already scaring away the militants. PM Maliki pointed out that seeing them run away is a good thing but he returned and said the security forces would chase them down everywhere after Baghdad is clear.
Would you then admit there’s some utility to this announcement, especially given the clear and hold nature of the operation?
 
Written By: Bryan Pick
URL: http://www.qando.net
Perhaps it has already been done, but it might be useful to define "support"
as it refers to "support the troops". By both sides. But maybe that is what is going on here, but it is hard for me to tell.

" that’s how they consider such things as criticism which doesn’t support their mission."
"the reality is the troops you claim you’re supporting are criticizing you for claiming that postion."


I am dubious about an argument that seems to say that my opinions should be based on the opinion of others. I am sure the Greeks had a name for that particular logical fallacy.



"they want to be fully supported when committed to combat"

I can undertand and empathize with that, but in the real world, it ain’t gonna happen. It’s the price we have to pay for living in a democracy, and I hope the troops understand that, or we may have other problems.

*************************
"all victims of the Agrarian Reformers"

I thought that Mao & Co. were the agrarian reformers. Ho was a Vietnamese nationalist, I thought. Ah, well, it’s hard to keep the euphemisms straight.

*********************************
"It’s not the President’s job to provide a multi-page 5 Paragraph Field Order at the Pressers,"
"It really bugs me that people think it’s the Presidents job to keep them informed."

Well, it seems to me if the President wants to build and maintain support for his policies, any policy, it is up to him to do it. Not the press or anyone else. Since the press is, shall we say, an imperfect instrument at best, any President who relies on the press or an individual to dig up facts and formulate arguments supporting his policies is not quite "ready for prime time".

"If you don’t know what our strategy has been all along, or what has been said all along about the difficulties we would face, then I take it you use the mainstream media (and like minded new media) as your sole source of information."

I see you agree with me, although I would add that the non-mainstream media is not always any better.

*************************************
"You can agree with the war or not, but have the courage to pick a side and commit to it."

So, Kevin, if someone does not support the war is it necessary for them to think ill of the soldiers involved? To have the same low opinion of them that they have for the President et al.?

*********************************

"The primary job of citizens in our country, with regards to politics, is to be an INFORMED voter."
"Of course, pointing this out, I expect to be called various names,"

If you actually expect the citizens to do so, then you are naive. There is a wealth of historical, worldwide evidence showing that your expectations are too great.

********************************
"What premise are you operating from (because it certainly isn’t that one)? Given that premise - the one on which they base their argument -"

I think that is more of a definition-one definition of "support" evidently includes support of the mission/war, while another does not. You are correct, I think, using your definition, to say that if someone does not support the war they do not support the troops. This does not mean, of course, that those who do not support the troops(your definition) think ill of them or hold them in the same low esteem in which they hold Bush & Co. They may also not support(your definition) the troops and yet have a favourable opinion of them.

****************************
"so the President must every day catalogue the reasons for "Why We Fight?""

Pretty much, yeah. Hey, if it was good enough for Lincoln and FDR, it is certainly good enough for Bush.

****************************

""We are going to get Osama for 9/11" to "We are going to get Saddam for 9/11""

I would certainly be interested in the source for those quotes.

"It’s been a good conversation ... I have to get back to work."

I certainly hope that was sheer coincidence, as I am very curious.

*********************
" If s/he snores and it bothers you does that mean yo don’t love your partner or aren’t committed to the relationship or you want to end it? No, it means your partner snores and it’s annoying."

Could I say, then that while I support my partner, I do not support her/his/its/their snoring? (May I assume you were not intentionally slighting non-gendered or multi-partied relationships?)

*******************************
"I’ve firmly supported the troops and their mission(s) from day one."

So would I be safe in assuming that you would support the mission even if you thought it to be ineffective and/or counterproductive, because to support the troops necessitates the support of their mission?

*




 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Cap,
our civic responsibility as civilians is to express our views, not to shut up and salute the CinC because he’s the decider, and if SOME servicemen are upset by my exercise of free speech that they are willing to die to defend, I am truly sorry. I would sincerely hope that they prefer that free speech is exercized and not stifled by misguided patriots who think the wrong kind of speech sends a bad message and should be kept to oneself.
I am certainly not arguing otherwise, but it isn’t support, and don’t be surprised when people point that out, or that soldiers don’t see it as support. It isn’t playing semantics, it is what support is about. If you had read any of my posts at my place, starting with my letter to the senators, I make it clear I am not arguing that dissent is always wrong, or that support is always the right course of action.

This resolution is wrong, but if you want my explanation for that, go to my blog.

Tim,
I can undertand and empathize with that, but in the real world, it ain’t gonna happen. It’s the price we have to pay for living in a democracy, and I hope the troops understand that, or we may have other problems.
Fine, but don’t get offended when people point out that it isn’t supportive.
So would I be safe in assuming that you would support the mission even if you thought it to be ineffective and/or counterproductive, because to support the troops necessitates the support of their mission?
I’ll answer that for McQ and he can set me straight if I am wrong, but no. McQ would say that he doesn’t support the mission and he would be honest enough to admit he isn’t supporting the troops while they are undertaking that mission.

I would also guess that in a similar situation such as this war, that he would give his misgivings ahead of time, but support whatever it takes to give the mission its best chance of success after they are engaged. He wouldn’t make it his mission to undermine it from that point. At that point he would be supporting the mission and would until he felt that continuing that support was worse than ending the mission. That is a way of being supportive.
 
Written By: Lance
URL: www.asecondhandconjecture.com
that soldiers don’t see it as support.
I am not terribly surprised that SOME soldiers don’t see it as support, but I do, and their opinion of support is inconsequential to my opinion of support, other than along with supporting the military in general, I wish that I COULD support the mission.

The military is made if big boys not a bunch of Cosmo girls that can’t function unless you say pretty things to them.

I am saying the prettiest thing I can say without lying, good luck, Godspeed, I pray you will be victorious and return home safe to a hero’s welcome, and I disagree with the policies that put you there.

Cap

 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
Neo-neocon has the right of this:
“The idea that Vietnam [Iraq] might not have been a hopelessly lost cause at the end, worthy only of abandonment, threatens the Leftist "narrative" (love that word!) so strongly that it must be fought off at all costs, no matter where it originates
...there is no shame to being ignorant, but it is shameful to cling to blind ignorance and let other (sic) suffer instead of you.
We see in this thread several liberals staunchly defending the “Leftist narrative” (love that word!). It is unfortunate that the narrative has no alternate workable solutions for Iraq; other than bringing back Hanoi Jane and the over-the-hill gang and their pandering pols to reprise Vietnam.
 
Written By: notherbob2/robert fulton
URL: http://
The most entertaining part of reading this is everyone trying to insist that the troops understand efforts to pass a resolution to condemn the surge is really ’support’.

That’s the absolute best, the idea that you honestly believe the troops view continual condemnation of the effort they have been, are, and will be making, until they are brought home, as ’support’ is just ludacris.
Argue your point about how you feel you are supporting them all you like.

The issue at hand is how the troops feel, not how YOU feel.

Copperheads.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
The issue at hand is how the troops feel, not how YOU feel.
No, the issue at hand is what is right. Are you really suggesting that people do something they believe to be wrong in order to make the troops "feel" better about the homefront?
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
McQ, one of your commenters unintentionally provided the perfect analogy for this situation, one that proves how totally wrong you are:
Saying you support the troops but not the mission is like saying: I support the Bears, but I want the Colts to win the Superbowl.
No. Saying you support the troops but not the mission is like wanting the Colts to win the Superbowl but criticizing Tony Dungy’s game plan. Everyone wants America to "win." The problem is that 70% of the country has lost faith in the play-caller. We think he’s been calling a terrible game so far, but we really love Peyton Manning and Marvin Harrison and the rest of the "troops" and want them to win the game. Get it?

Now, I’m sure some members of the team really like the coach and view criticism of him and his gameplan as lack of support for them. It’s not logical, but it’s human to feel that way. But that doesn’t change the fact that Dungy’s critics are still big Colt’s fans and want their team to win (which is why they are so critical of Dungy). As for the "surge", to many of us that seems like calling a draw play on 4th and 25 late in the 4th Quarter with the team trailing by 20 points (hence the loud booing).

 
Written By: Anonymous Liberal
URL: http://www.anonymousliberal.com
Everyone wants America to "win."
Everyone???

So, retreating from the field of battle is now winning?

Missing that key in my decoder ring.
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://inactivist.org/blog/keith_indy
So, retreating from the field of battle is now winning?
Oh please, stop being obtuse. My point is that everyone wants our country to succeed. Many of us believe that "victory"—at least in any meaningful sense—is no longer possible in Iraq, so we should start thinking about ways of cutting our losses. That doesn’t mean we want America to lose; it means we think we have already lost.
 
Written By: Anonymous Liberal
URL: http://www.anonymousliberal.com
No, the issue at hand is what is right. Are you really suggesting that people do something they believe to be wrong in order to make the troops "feel" better about the homefront?
Proving Cap, that you really don’t even understand the issue.
It’s not about what’s right, it’s about how the troops feel.
So it doesn’t matter how you logic yourself into feeling good that you support the troops and not the mission.
If the troops think you’re full of rubbish, even if you aren’t,then for all intents and purposes you’re full of rubbish.

Now, if you don’t ’like’ that, it’s the same as them not liking that you say you support them, but not their mission.
You can not ’like’ it all you want, it won’t change things, it won’t change their perception that you really don’t support them, and that you’re talking out of both sides of your mouth.

You want to make them feel a certain way, you want them to feel you support them, even if you don’t support their mission.
Yet when you have to reckon with the concept that they don’t ’feel’ you support them, you demand to know if you have to do the wrong thing just to make them feel better. Well, get a handle on the fact that, yeah, maybe to make them feel good you have to do what you call the wrong thing. And if you don’t, well you’re not supporting them. Period. This isn’t that hard.

But the bottom line is you, and how you feel, don’t have to enter into how they feel about what’s going on here. It’s their feelings we’re discussing, not yours.
For once, it’s a fuzzy, warm, feeling thing, and you guys just ain’t makin it with the people who live on the pointy end of the stick.

The problem is, you call just can’t handle the idea that regardless of how logically you think you’ve come at it, they, the troops, may still think you’re full of rubbish.

Get it?



 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Oh please, stop being obtuse. My point is that everyone wants our country to succeed. Many of us believe that "victory"—at least in any meaningful sense—is no longer possible in Iraq, so we should start thinking about ways of cutting our losses. That doesn’t mean we want America to lose; it means we think we have already lost.
You think we’ve lost, but you want our country to succeed, so we should leave and cut our losses.

That’s a funny way to win.

No, I’m not the one being obtuse.
Retreat - The act or process of withdrawing, especially from something hazardous, formidable, or unpleasant.

Surrender - 1 To relinquish possession or control of to another because of demand or compulsion.
2 To give up in favor of another.
3 To give up or give back (something that has been granted): surrender a contractual right.
4 To give up or abandon: surrender all hope.
Yep, those are the words for what is being considered by enough Americans. That will do wonders for our national security in the future.
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://inactivist.org/blog/keith_indy
Oh please, stop being obtuse. My point is that everyone wants our country to succeed.
Everyone?

Really?
Many of us believe that "victory"—at least in any meaningful sense—is no longer possible in Iraq, so we should start thinking about ways of cutting our losses. That doesn’t mean we want America to lose; it means we think we have already lost.
I don’t agree. Furthermore, I note that most people on your side of the fence were rooting for failure from the beginning.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Mainly because so much time was spent tying George Bush to Iraq that the two are now inextricably linked in their minds. If we ’win’ in Iraq, it’ll validate something about Bush II.

Can’t have that.
They don’t see this as being about America and national safety, they think it’s some scheme George Bush came up with to be king or something.

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
You think we’ve lost, but you want our country to succeed, so we should leave and cut our losses.

That’s a funny way to win.

No, I’m not the one being obtuse.
Yes, you are. And embarassingly so. Look, this isn’t complicated. I want America to succeed as a country. I don’t believe "victory" is possible in Iraq, so I think it is in our best interests as a country to stop pouring blood and treasure into that endeavor. Is that really too complex for you to understand? I don’t want to break our military and waste precious lives and money on something that has almost no chance of success.

Imagine you’re an investor. You want to succeed, to make money. But one of your investments is failing badly and dragging down everything else. You can either pour a whole lot more money into that failing investment and hope for the best. Or you can cut your losses and move your money somewhere else. If your friend counsels you to cut your losses, does that mean that he is rooting for you to fail or that he doesn’t want you to succeed. Of course not.

Catch a clue.
 
Written By: Anonymous Liberal
URL: http://www.anonymousliberal.com
It’s not about what’s right, it’s about how the troops feel.

This, I think, is the nub of the argument. But if it were that simple, I could say that my right to advocate for a better course outweighs their feelings or their interest in not having their feelings hurt. Politics is not so simple, though. No politician can be so blunt without being tarred with the "stab in the back" argument so conveniently made above.

so we get these weird arguments like we have seen on this thread, where liberals like me say: Support the Troops; bring them home! and supporters of the president say, even though you say that, the troops don’t believe it, so you’re not really supporting the troops.

which then leads to the question, are our troops a bunch of pearl-clutching fainting weepy high school girls incapable of completing their mission when criticism is addressed to their boss, the C-in-C?

i hope not. If the COIN manual does not include a section on dealing with the stresses caused by domestic discontent with the war, then the manual needs revision.
 
Written By: Francis
URL: http://
Catch a clue.
I love all these little analogies to justify the positions.

You folks just can’t cope with the idea that some, perhaps large, percentage of the military currently in Iraq thinks you’re a bunch of hypocrites.

You just can’t cope with the idea that every time some US politician says "withdraw" that some Islamic fundamentalist or foreign fighter in Iraq says "we’re winning".
i hope not. If the COIN manual does not include a section on dealing with the stresses caused by domestic discontent with the war, then the manual needs revision.
I don’t know, you folks seem mightily desperate to be perceived as being supportive, are you a bunch of pearl-clutching fainting weepy high school girls who are afraid that maybe the troops don’t see it that way?
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
"Fine, but don’t get offended when people point out that it isn’t supportive."

That would depend on what their definition of non-support includes.

**************************
"The issue at hand is how the troops feel, not how YOU feel."
"It’s not about what’s right, it’s about how the troops feel."


While the opinion of the troops may be important, or even correct, let’s remember who works for who, and what they are supposed to be fighting for. I would love for the troops to feel all warm and fuzzy, but that is not going to dictate my opinions, and I hope that it doesn’t dictate anyone elses.


"If the troops think you’re full of rubbish, even if you aren’t,then for all intents and purposes you’re full of rubbish."

Perhaps for their intents and purposes, but we are all entitled to our own perceptions, right or wrong.


"it won’t change their perception"

Is that what this is all about? Everyone is supposed to act in such a way as to fit the perceptions of a certain percentage of our military? At the risk of seeming insensitive, I am certainly not going to conform my opinions and/or behavior to the expectations of a 21 year old SP/4 who doesn’t have nearly the education, experience, or most likely the intelligence that I do. The same goes for a 21 year old college student, or anyone else, for that matter. If they interpret any possible disagreements as an attack on them, or disrespect, that reflects poorly on them.

 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Is that what this is all about? Everyone is supposed to act in such a way as to fit the perceptions of a certain percentage of our military? At the risk of seeming insensitive, I am certainly not going to conform my opinions and/or behavior to the expectations of a 21 year old SP/4 who doesn’t have nearly the education, experience, or most likely the intelligence that I do. The same goes for a 21 year old college student, or anyone else, for that matter. If they interpret any possible disagreements as an attack on them, or disrespect, that reflects poorly on them.
Is this a sign of the apocalypse, or am I misreading something... are Timeactual and I in agreement that we need to do what is right, not what will make the troops "feel" good about the sentiment at home, nor should we blame the troops for the mission they have been ordered to undertake?

Cap
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
Is that what this is all about? Everyone is supposed to act in such a way as to fit the perceptions of a certain percentage of our military?
Where did anyone say that? The point is strictly that Cap can say
"I support you, but not your mission" to the troops all day long, and the troops can say "BullShirt!" all day long in response.

They’re not telling anyone to act a specific way, they’re just saying they’re tired of seeing people say "I support the troops, but not their mission", and would probably rather have them say nothing at all about their "support" if they have to qualify it in this way.
And that would be mainly because they know pretty well that a good many of the people who are using the "I support you but not your mission" meme, really support NEITHER of the above.
let’s remember who works for who
This isn’t about who works for who.
Is your country not their country as well?
Do they not have family and friends here they might feel they’re protecting?
Sorry, I just don’t get that angle on our relationship to people who volunteer to defend our country, even it we do provide the money that pays them.

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
US Troops don’t buy the "support the troops, but not the mission
In case you’ve forgotten - this is how McQ titled the post.

Not how we, the non troops, feel about whether or not we’re supporting them and their mission.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
At the risk of seeming insensitive, I am certainly not going to conform my opinions and/or behavior to the expectations of a 21 year old SP/4 who doesn’t have nearly the education, experience, or most likely the intelligence that I do. The same goes for a 21 year old college student, or anyone else, for that matter.
My daughter happens to be one of your "21 year old [SGT/5] who doesn’t have nearly the education, experience, or most likely the intelligence that you do. According to YOU! She spent a year in Iraq as a medic in the ER and came home with a whole lot more intelligence than the statements I read that you made! You sure think an awful lot of yourself, don’t you? Are you by any chance John Kerry?
 
Written By: armymomrwb
URL: http://
It is impossible to compare the thoughts of a service member of any age, who deals with death, stress, sleep deprivation, unthinkable living conditions,etc, on a daily basis with the average American citizen, or any civilian for that matter.

Any negativity toward what they are doing is taken with greater impact than it was meant, simply because of the stress levels they endure. Possibly because they are fighting to stay alive, while so many civilians are living in their comforts at home complaining and criticizing what they are doing.

I do support what they are doing. I think of the stories, the pictures, and the recollections of countless service members who are greeted by the Iraqi’s with open arms when they roll into their villages.

One picture that comes to mind often is that of an Iraqi woman, about 50 years old, holding up her ink stained hand after the elections with a homemade sign that reads "Thank you America"

Yes we are losing lives. It is unfortunate. We also lost lives during the American Revolution, WWI & WW2, and the Korean War, etc. Were those lives in vain? There were more civilians killed in the attack of 9/11 in one day than we lost in the first years of the invasion of Iraq. Should we have ignored the loss of those lives. Just ask a family member of someone lost 9/11 and get their opinion.

Another arguement that I get tired of hearing is that so many Iraqi civilians are dying in this war. Wake up, and educate yourself !!!! We are not killing those civilians, yes we are responsible for a few, but it is not our service members setting car bombs, IED’s, and strikes that are killing the Iraqi civilians. There were Iraqi civilians being killed long before we invaded Iraq.

Wouldn’t it be nice if we lived in a cookie cutter world. I support the troops, in everything they do, and I refuse to do anything less...........
 
Written By: Marine Mom / Avid Troop Supporter
URL: http://www.myspace.com/nsbharleygirl
"Where did anyone say that?"

"Now, if you don’t ’like’ that, it’s the same as them not liking that you say you support them, but not their mission.
You can not ’like’ it all you want, it won’t change things, it won’t change their perception that you really don’t support them, and that you’re talking out of both sides of your mouth."


 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
"Where did anyone say that?"

"Now, if you don’t ’like’ that, it’s the same as them not liking that you say you support them, but not their mission.
You can not ’like’ it all you want, it won’t change things, it won’t change their perception that you really don’t support them, and that you’re talking out of both sides of your mouth."

Tim, there’s a difference between me talking, and them talking.

And the point I’m trying to make is exactly what McQ posted - say it all anyone likes, be as logical as they think they may be in defense of their stance, the troops don’t have to believe anyone who says they support the troops, but not the mission.

A key part of my phrasing was the use of the words "their perception" (the troops).
Perception, as I was often told, is reality.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider