Today I am going to attempt to wrap my mind around a topic – a difficult topic: “Supporting the troops but not their mission”. I am not for a second buying into the fact that the majority of the people who make this claim actually believe it – far from it. These people really don’t support the troops, the mission, or this country when it comes down to it – I am convinced of that. But taking them at their word for a moment let me tried to logically understand how someone could “support the troops” without supporting their mission.
On June 14, 1775 the Continental Congress adopted the New England army, which is officially recognized as the first United States army. On the same day it voted to raise 10 companies of riflemen to be the first directed enlistments into the Continental Army. The next day, June 15th, General George Washington took command and you should know the rest.
From the beginnings in 1775 to present day the United States has maintained an army (I use the term “army” to also represent the marines, navy, air force and coastguard) to do two things and two things only: (1) blow things up and kill people, and (2) threaten to blow things up and kill people. That simplifies it a bit, but at the end of the day, those are the two reasons we keep a fighting force.
So, having defined what the role of the army is, everyone knows what the role of the soldier (the “troops”) is. Sure, there are thousands of different specialists – from the electrical engineers, the supply coordinators, the medics, etc. - but they all have one thing in common…the electrical engineers keep the weapons systems going (blow things up), the supply engineers keep the bombs and ammo moving (kill people) and the medics keep the force in fighting shape (to blow things up and kill people).
Now that we have clearly defined the role of the army and the role of the troops – please explain to me how you can “support the troops” without “supporting” what it is that “troops” in general do? How can you say to a soldier: “I support you and all that you do” if you are against what it is that soldiers do? Could I go up to Dirk Nowitzki and say “Dirk – I support you in your bid to become the best basketball player ever. But I am totally against this sport called basketball…and will be protesting your upcoming game against the Spurs.” I suppose I could do that –what with free speech being what it is…but how utterly stupid would that sound?
Saying “I support the troops but not the war” is a catchy little phrase that helps liberals deflect attention away from their lack of understanding or their inability to develop any rational, fact based argument about war. “War kills”. No -Really? “War never solved anything”. Are you kidding me? Except for ending slavery, fascism, Nazism, and communism – you are right…war never solved anything.
There is no doubt that 95% of all Americans want every US soldier, sailor, marine and coasty home safe (I don’t say 100% because I am convinced there is a subversive element to society that truly wishes harm on the US and all it is associated with – while hypocritically reaping the bounty brought forth from living in the US…another story for another day). But here is the deal – Conservatives want the same thing too. Liberals don’t hold the copyrights to wishing all our soldiers safety. The difference is that conservatives want our troops home when they win. Liberals want our troops home ALWAYS – nothing is worth fighting for. They want them home no matter the cause, and if millions of Vietnamese or now Iraqis have to die as a result of the US leaving before finishing the job, well, so be it.
So, am I saying that in a time of war there can be no dissent as to the prosecution of the war? Of course not. I am saying that during a time of war, there should be no question as to whether or not the US will really “support the troops” by giving them the weapons, ammo, clothing, food, equipment, and rules of engagement they need to WIN. What they do not need is hollow lip service that smacks of dishonesty.
