11/7/2006
So eloquently said.
American Soldier says,
I don’t usually repost comments from my threads but this one sums up my mindset and what it means behind the slogan ‘Support our Troops’.
To David, thank you!
I really like it when people try to straddle the fence on, “I support the solders but hate the war.” Usually such fuzzy thinking then turns to a hatred of George W. Bush (Commander in Chief) and then somehow also gets back to agreeing with many of the articles that newspapers like the New York Times publishes. For many, there is a disconnect between being able to support the soldier, but then actively campaigning against either the job or the command structure that puts that soldier in harms way. There is that failure to realize that that split decision harms the soldier as that warrior realizes the hypocrisy of such a decision.
If you really support the soldier, you would do anything to get the job done; to give that soldier (he/she) all they need to do the job; to support them in their decision to go (and to fight), and to come home when (and only when) the job is finished. If you agree to the redeployment (cut and run) then you end up under cutting the warriors that are on the front lines of this war. So, how can you support the troops, when you vote and decide issues that are counter to the well-being and care of our warriors?
As I stated, if you support the warriors (soldiers) then you want to make sure they get what they need ( in tactical, logistical and moral) to complete the job; but also that they finish the job they set out to do. Any other decision undercuts the warrior; and reveals to that individual where the true loyalty lies (which is not to the solder.)
If there are discussions (and thing were/are done wrong in this war) lets win it first, then go back and see what we need to improve and/or change. That is the appropriate time to do so; not when our men and women are on the front lines, defending our right and freedoms as Americans.
Maybe, the question needs to be asked, “What are you willing to die for?” Is there any cause that you would be willing to lay down your life? Your God? Your freedom? Your children’s Freedom? The Freedom of this great country of ours?
AS found that there are decisions in life that have to be made. He volunteered for service, and thank God he came back. He did what needed to be done so that many of us can give him a heart felt thanks, while others can put silly remarks on this blog about his sacrifice and the decisions he and his lovely wife (and the new arrival) have made.
THX AS
Filed under: General
13 Responses to “So eloquently said.”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
TrackBack To This Entry (Right-Click and Copy Shortcut)
Your Welcomed. I am humbled you thought my post was that important to post. Again my heart felt thanks.
Thank you for your eloquent comment, David. It pretty much says it for me too.
It’s saddens me that so many people can’t, or won’t, see the honor of our military and all that they stand for. That these young people can and do step outside their own personal world and step up to defend something much bigger.
I respect this position, but have to point out that the philosophy of essentially supporting the war simply becuase the soldiers are committed to the war doesn’t necessarily serve American interests.
Ultimately, it is a soldier’s duty to serve in the chain of command and a civilian’s duty to make sure our government of the people is making sound decisions. If the political leadership conducts a grossly counter-prodctive war, then it is my absolute duty as a civilian to support a change in policy.
We must all be bold in making tough decisions and must start by not characterizing any change in policy as a fearful cut ‘n run reaction. Significant changes must be made in our handling of this war to actually get the job done.
Tom
How do you define a “grossly counter-productive war?”
We have choices to make. We either stay there and fight it out, or leave. What other choices are there?
When you say, “Significant changes must be made….” what changes are those?
In war, there are either one of two choices. Either to win the war, or tuck our tails between our legs and leave. There are no other options open. A holding action, trying to keep the status quo is another way to say we did not win. If we lose the initiative; if we retreat, that is just another way to say we lost the war. How would the soldiers look at that but a fancy way of saying, “Cut and Run?”
A war against terrorists is counterproductive when it increasingly creates more terrorists.
I agree that we do have choices to make if we really want to win. I would suggest that we either stop inflaming the local and regional population against us with some sort of intellegent redeployment or start drafting civilians into military service and drop another 500,000 soldiers into Iraq. We need to follow something like one of these courses of action to find success. Whatever we do, success must be defined as Iraqis forming their own stable government or governments. Sticking it out on the same old plan is a badly failing strategy.
Negligent planning for this war combined with stubborn refusal to adapt to changing circumstances by our leaders has put us in this position. The sooner we accept this and change course accordingly, the sooner we can actually start reducing the number of terrorists and win.
And back to my earlier point: We should not make decisions based on what the soldiers will think. They are part of the chain of command and must be able to follow orders that are in the best interest of the American people. That we are left with such a demoralizing course of action as one of our few options pains me to no end; but the fact of the matter is that this is where our incompetent leadership has left us.
The vast majority of the people are fed up with this war. They know that the Bush neoconservative cabal cooked the available intel and tricked us into starting this war.
Our President has proved himself continually to be an incompetent fool. He has historically low approval of the American people.
neocons…. such a great word. I’m pretty sure conservatives values are much closer to the founding fathers, than any democrat. they went off the deep end.
Interesting point Chad, but not quite right. The Founding Fathers of the United States could be characterized as radical liberals if you will. These folks that founded our great nation knew first hand that power absolutely corrupts, and that all government power must be held in balance to prevent tyranny at home. The greatest enemy of the people , in their view, was our own government itself, especially during a time of crises.
Even our first President stated in 1796; “”The Great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign Nations is in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. . . . ‘Tis our true policy to steer clear of permanent Alliances, with any portion of the foreign World.” This view was shared across the board by all our Founding Fathers!
That’s right, no entangling political alliances or engagements!
And Why did they take such odd views? I quote; “They understood that to yield to the powerful temptation to “do good” abroad carries an enormously expensive and hidden price tag: the loss of our own liberty at home.” Did someone say Patriot Act???
Yes, even then the Founding Fathers knew and wrote, “that handing the political class the power they demand to impose “benevolent global hegemony” on the rest of the world permits them to impose a malevolent domestic dictatorship on Americans at home.”
All the Founding Fathers clearly understood “once we compromise the safeguards against domestic tyranny written into our own system of law, no matter how compelling the rationale, we will rapidly cease to be the nation others once considered worth emulating. We would instead soon resemble the very nations we so confidently set out to “reform” and “enlighten.”
The Founding Fathers views are very clear. However, growing up in an age of neo-conservatism, many Americans have truly forgetten their own nations roots, and core values…That is true shame.
Supporting the troops but not the war is like supporting teachers but not education. Or policemen but not the law.
That is qoute from a speech given on Veterans Day at the Massing of the Colors in Wilmington by a man that served in Vietnam and Iraq and everything inbetween.
I try not to be bitter, but dam it, lets’ just win this war. Politicians and media whores dummy up!
God Bless the American Soldier.
Here’s how you can support the troops, but not the war:
When you have a government that has not been or never was fully committed to winning this war from the start.
Our government completely ignored the entire culture of the Middle East from the start of this war. It believed information from all the wrong people who had their own terrible agendas that ran contrary to ours.
And we must continually examine how this war is being carried out every step of the way or else corrections will not be made.
I am saddened our country has forgotten all of the lessons of Vietnam and guerrilla warfare and has continually denied aspects of what is going on until the last minute. Really, is anyone really surprised that those in Iraq fled during the initial push into Baghdad only to resume a guerrilla war? Come on, it’d be like putting Pee Wee Herman in the ring with Mike Tyson.
Then, after reading Thomas Friedman’s book From Beirut to Jerusalem (written 15 yrs ago) when it comes to warfare in the Middle East there is insight in that book that our government completely ignored. Hell, anyone who read it is probably not surprised US forces now find them in between a civil war.
SO
82nd ABN Div, 90-93
You make a very good point but still it is a simple fact, if you truly believe lessons from ‘Nam, you cannot just pull out and bail on people to whom you have made promises. They are cannon fodder and our lost soldiers have been wasted. That is what leaves bitterness. Our real progress has been ignored by the press and is astounding. I believe that vascillating support of the war does destroy troop morale and rather than stepping ahead with decisiveness and clarity of purpose everything becomes muddied by cheap politics. My son went to Afghanistan just after 9/11. He went again, along with his wife that time, and the progess we have inspired in that country was simply amazing to behold. I have always believed that if you are not willing to go all the way, then do not go at all. I blame our gutless congressional leaders. I was in ‘Nam in 1968 as a grunt. If we had our politicians and press in WWII part of the country would be speaking Japanese and part German.
Moon Mullins,
I think the most poignant statement you made is, “if you are not willing to go all the way, then do not go at all” and is dead on. My point is, from the start of the Iraq War, the US Government failed to plan miserably and many of those who urged the US Government to do things it did not do are now seen as prophets (safeguarding ammo dumps, stopping the looting, getting electricity and water going again, et cetera).
It has been well documented that those urging the US to do things the Bush Administration did not want to do were eventually excluded and marginalized in pre-war planning meetings. At one point it was reported Rumsfeld even told planners he no longer wanted to hear about post-war planning at all.
Where you lost me is your assertion about WWII and the speaking of Japanese and German. These wars are completely different. Apples and oranges and your assertion is off base.
What Bush could have done, if Iraq truly was the threat it was portrayed to be, would have been to build a true coalition and for those countries not willing to send troops to “hot zones” the US Government could have assured them they would be used for more civil affair type exercises, like guarding ammo dumps and the sort.
Frankly, I’m sick and tired of reading about troops getting blown up and how the number of bombings and attacks are consistently growing. Something needs to change and rapidly and people brighter than I better come up with a solution quick.
I respect your thoughts, sir, because you are not anti-war or anti-soldier for their own sakes. You are against how we are conducting the war and I must agree in that we have backed away from a commitment to victory in fact, to maintain an apparent promise to verbal victory only, posture. Perhaps we have are being misled by the press about how the war is being conducted. In 1972 I attended a speach by Frederick Nolting, Jr. He was Kennedy’s original Ambassador to South Vietnam. He cautioned Kennedy to not commit unless it was a commitment to do whatever it took to win. He was summarily discharged. I was one of a dozen, in a room filled by 200 attendees, who admitted having been to Vietnam. I probably was one of the very few who went. In college in those days, with vet status, was an interesting experience. I know first hand the press lied about what was going on then, lied about the photo ops they themselves created (something that has frequently happened in this war) as is the press now. That is why I said something about WWII. They are directly comparable. Pearl Harbor could have been prevented except for reluctant politicians who would not heed the warnings of professionals. Even then, did we not declare war in Europe before we declared in the Far East? The point was valid. If the press then behaved, prevaracated and operated without loyalty (the news article about soldiers urinating on the Koran?) to this country I believe we would be speaking a different language.