General
Supporting the Troops
This has been digging at me for, oh, about 4 years now. I have been hesitant to express this thought, in comments sections and in discussion with other people about the Iraq quagmire for fear of, I don’t know, being called mean. Or, un-American. Or something.Supporting the troops essentially means supporting the illegal war. It seems that us anti-war types have been doing all sorts of mental and philisophical gymnastics to try and work around this. What has emerged is a sort of low impact, mealy-mouthed common wisdom that is palatable to everyone but is ultimately going to allow us to stay in Iraq for years to come.
HT to LGF
Is it really possible to do what the Democrats and most leftists claim to be doing? That is support the troops, but not their mission or leadership? This diarist thinks the answer is nope.
Discussion
Comments are disallowed for this post.
The lefty gets it. And better yet, admits it.
I respect them, I honor their sacrifice, I don’t want them to die or be injured, I want them to have the best training and equipment for as long as they are in harm’s way. But, I think the war they are fighting is needless and stupid. I want my country to start getting them home as soon as possible.
In what way am I not supporting the troops? It’s the war I don’t support.
I really don’t get what is hard to understand about that.
Jeff, what the diarist is saying, is that if you support the troops in the way you say we should, by giving them the best training and equipment, you end up supporting the mission as well, whether you want to or not.
At some point in here there’s a classic paradox, in order to stop the war, you have to somehow get our troops off the field of battle, whether or not they win. In essence you have to defeat the troops to support the troops.
You can oppose the war, but opposing it while supporting the troops is extremely tricky, rhetorically.