“We ___________ The Troops”
Wednesday, December 7th, was the sixty-fourth anniversary of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor that plunged America into World War II. While we all hopefully took some time that day to reflect on what was one of the darkest periods this nation faced during the 20th Century, I don’t think it’s possible to do so anymore without calling to mind other dark periods we have faced, some of a much more recent vintage. As I do so now, I can’t help but compare and contrast where we were as a nation yesterday with where we are today and, more importantly, where we are likely to find ourselves tomorrow.
Sadly, the pure, untainted solidarity this nation came to know in the wake of Pearl Harbor – and its most recent incarnation immediately after 9/11 -- is gone now, maybe for good. As of this writing, sentiment against our ongoing military operations in Iraq has reached a rude and shrill crescendo here in America, and the invocation of the specter of Vietnam, at first only whispered, is now being screamed at ear-piercing volume and with sickening regularity by the Left. It took a little while to ramp up, but the comparison has begun.
Rather than spend our brief time together anatomizing all the various ways that Left and Right disagree on the issue of Iraq and similarities to the Vietnam War, I would like to discuss the one thing that neither side seems to want to dispute. Namely, that unlike during the Vietnam era, we ALL support our troops unwaveringly and without question.
Or do we?
When it comes to this conflict, one hears a singular phrase overwhelmingly among anti-war types: “We support the troops, but we do not support the mission, the reasons they are there, or the president that sent them into harm’s way.” Older so-called “peace activists,” those who remember and took part in the protests of the Vietnam era in particular, seem especially eager now to distance themselves from the treatment Vietnam vets routinely received at their hands once they came home -- sometimes with cool, aloof indifference, sometimes disdain, or occasionally even naked hostility, but NEVER with the respect they damn well earned and deserved – while at the same time making their feelings about the current war abundantly clear. Perhaps they now realize that, whatever their motivations at the time, their animus of those who fought on their behalf in the jungles of Southeast Asia became a central theme of the Vietnam legacy, and was arguably the most shameful facet of the anti-war movement. So, they and their Generation X counterparts of today go to great lengths to differentiate between the troops (who they “support”) and those who sent them (who they don’t).
And yet I submit to you: it is simply not possible to support the troops without supporting the mission. In order to comprehend why, it’s important to understand and recognize many factors, chief among them one of the most striking differences between the War in Iraq and the Vietnam War:
Unlike Vietnam, our military force, from top to bottom, is ALL-VOLUNTEER. There is not one man or woman on the ground in Iraq at this moment that did not join his or her particular branch of service of his or her own free will. There is no compulsory draft, nor is there any serious talk of instituting a draft. As a volunteer, anyone joining the military is made aware of the job description, as well as the potential for death and disability, prior to their induction. Even if this were not so, the idea that killing people and/or dying yourself in armed conflict might be a possible consequence of joining the military ought to be self evident, what with all the gunplay and violence that is a well known part of the military experience. Or, to put it another way…any fool who’s ever seen a war movie knows that dying young is a possible side effect of joining the armed forces.
So, nearly all of the people signing up for military service know exactly what they are signing up for and what they very well might be called upon to do. In addition, since military service is still elective in America, the ones who later claim not to know what they were signing up for have only themselves to blame.
That coupled with the fact that the vast majority of troops currently serving actively support the president and his policies in Iraq make it very difficult to draw distinctions between supporting the troops and supporting their Commander-In-Chief. Contrary to what some on the Left contend, our men and women in uniform who are fighting and dying in Iraq at the behest of President Bush are not stooges, or puppets, or mindless pawns being unwittingly (or unwillingly) manipulated to achieve goals that are not their own. They are, as a whole, highly motivated and willing participants. They know all too well why they are there, and they know all too well the consequences of failure: they come home in defeat and shame, having left the job undone for some other men and women to go back later and finish (or die in the attempt to finish).
So, when you say that you support the troops, but not the president or his reasons for committing them to combat, what you are saying to our troops is, in effect:
“You are not there in our name. We believe that the reasons you were sent there are illegal, immoral, and based upon a lie; ergo, your ‘service’ is likewise illegal and immoral. We think what you’re trying to accomplish is foolish, irresponsible, naïve, and almost certainly impossible. We don't think you will succeed. We think you are unlawfully occupying a sovereign nation that did not deserve your invasion. Nothing you have accomplished is worth it. Most importantly, we think you are all throwing your lives away for nothing. But that doesn't mean we think you're bad people.”
I can’t think of a single person who would characterize that as “support.”
So, in summary…anti-war activists can “love” the troops. They can “appreciate” the troops. They can “respect” the troops. They can “fear for” the troops, “worry about” the troops, or even have a wish to “protect” the troops. But, unless they believe in the mission that Bush has set out for the troops and which roughly four out of five of the troops share…they do NOT “support” the troops. It’s that simple.
Speaking for myself, I support the troops. You’ll have to fill in your own blank.
by
Nach dem Fleisch
