Thank You, Troops. Good Luck Iraqi Allies
There was a telling moment in the 2004 debates between Bush and Kerry when I knew that Kerry was doomed. At the time, one of the Dems' criticisms of GWB was his inability to maintain a credible coalition in the wars in Iraq in Afghanistan, citing popular disapproval of the war in nations like France and Germany.
Senator Kerry was belittling the viewed-as-meager coalition and appeared to gain some momentum in the debate, when President Bush chastised the Senator by pointing out that making little of what allied contributions there are is no way to increase the support of one's allies and reminded him of the biggest ally in the Iraq War - the Iraqis themselves. There's a lot of unrest in Iraq and I'd like not to debate at this point whether nation-building was a good plan (don't forget, Left, that it was under the Clinton administration that the idea was first embraced vis-a-vis Somalia and Bosnia).
For those of you who don't know--and given the fact that the media is apparently sick of reporting on the Iraq war, I wouldn't blame you--we're reaching a major milestone in the Iraq war tomorrow when U.S. troops withdraw from the front lines of Iraqi urban areas in order to yield to Iraqi police and military. My thoughts have always been that, having made our bed and it being appropriate to lie in it, we should stay the course in Iraq until such time as the government there asks us to leave. This timetable and milestone was set at their request (even mandate) and we are honoring that request tomorrow.
To U.S. and allied troops who have been learning on the fly how to fight an urban war and who have fought so bravely even in the face of, shall we say, lukewarm support from the home front, we are grateful for you and we wish you a safe return and hope to honor your service with the support you need here. To the Iraqi soldiers and police force, best of luck.
Posts
32 comments:
I differ with your hme support appraisal.
The Troop support from home haas been RED HOT, while the War support has been luke warm.
Nonetheless, progress is being made, with great cost in lives and families as well as dollars, but progress all the same.
This is a topic that I'd prefer not to be the topic of the thread, but even a staunch supporter of the value of dissenting opinions in a democracy like myself can't quite see how you can support the troops and so ardently decry the value of what they're trying to do.
Just my take.
If I were fighting for something that a loud minority opposed while voicing support for me, I'd call that talking out of both sides of one's mouth.
Again, just me.
You should ask the ROTC candidates at Harvard about the RED HOT troop support.
This view is unfortunate and disturbing.
It smells of the common neo-con accusation that the Left is un-patriotic, it is really quite sad that people actually think this way, to say that one can not support the troops while opposing the war is a simplistic view.
Harvard decided 40+ years ago to disassociate with ROTC, this has no bearing on today. The reasons they are not associated today are varied, but by no means is it a lack of support for the troops. Again, a simplistic explanation for a complex issue.
So, my liberal friend, who just 3 years ago retired from 20+ years active duty in the Marines, who was and is apposed to the War in Iraq, you are saying he does not support the troops?
A loud majority have opposed the war. Including many of those risking life and limb on foreign sands.
However, as you say, it is your take, and we are entitled, it just seems so absolute.
Dude, read this again to yourself. "Harvard decided 40+ years ago to disassociate with ROTC, this has no bearing on today. The reasons they are not associated today are varied, but by no means is it a lack of support for the troops." I would think barring the military from campus is the perfect example of "not supporting the troops". I don't think anyone is implying that every idealogical liberal is anti-troop, so I cannot offer an opinion to your Marine friend. However, several trends and groups, embraced by/steering the democrat party, choose anti-troop strategies to profess their anti-war stance.
I disagree. It is again too simplistic and sensationalist to say that Harvard Admin does not support the troops.
Back to the original post.
I raise a cup, in hope that peace reigns in Iraq and elsewhere, that our troops, and others, can come home, alive and healthy, soon.
amen to this post.
My boss tells me everyday that he supports me but that my work is rubbish.
My previous boss told me she supported me but she also told me she appreciated the work I was doing.
Which boss do you think I like more, and which boss do I think likes and supports me more?
I don't get why it's difficult to be able to support the troops and to not support the reasons for war.
It seems like the questions, "do you want our troops to honorably complete their duty and return home safely?" and "do you think we should be at war?" are two extremely distinct questions. Simply put, as a Christian, I'm anti-war. But at the same time, if we are in a war, I definitely want our troops to be safe.
The freedoms for which these very soldiers have fought for and subsequently protected are the very reason why we the citizens
can support the troops and their safety, but not the reasons why they are in harm's way.
"If we want to claim this land as the land of the free, then the symbol of your country can't just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising
his right to burn that flag in
protest."
Look, I understand that objectors of the war still feel a great respect, honor, and pride in our troops themselves. I understand that people who oppose the war want the troops to come back safely and have the supplies they need and all that.
Let me give an illustration that illustrates my point. Say one of us wants to get into a business venture. Our spouse hates the idea. She thinks its a ridiculous venture. She's sure it's going to amount to no good. She probably doesn't have all the facts that we have, nor does she have the background that we have. What's more, she isn't much of a fan of the friends that we're investing with. But of course, she's our loving spouse. She "supports" us in everything that we do. She knows that we're going to probably do it anyway because we're just a bit pigheaded. She bites her lip and says, "Honey, I support you in everything that you do. If this will make you happy and you're SURE you won't bankrupt us, then knock yourself out. I've got your back."
But at the same time, you know that she's all over the phone with your in-laws and her friends about how dumb this idea was and how much she hates it. Of course she wants you to succeed, if for no other reason than your mutual livelihood depends on it. But every time you're with friends who are asking you how it's going, you can tell that she's already told them what she thinks. You can feel it with every interaction, every phone call you take for work, every conversation about the budget, even though she tells you that she wants you to succeed, makes your lunches just like before, and is in every day doing her part to make this work.
You're telling me that you'd feel supported?
I wouldn't, but that's just me.
that's an interesting illustration, and I like it except for one point: ent is that in this scenario, you feel like she isn't supporting you because she's critical of your idea. That's the difference. It's not like the troops got together and decided to go to war. So I don't think they (in general) feel unsupported because those who are anti-war are not critical of a decision they made. What if we modified your situation a little:
Your employer re-assigns you to a different location, and you have no choice in the matter. Your wife loves your current location and doesn't want to move. However, instead of leaving you or telling you to go by yourself and she's staying behind, she supports you, your career, and your marriage, and goes with you. She still will make cynical comments about the company forcing this move upon you, but she doesn't blame you for it. In essence, she supports you, the good trooper who's doing what they need to, but disagreeing with the company/gov't that's forcing this decision down.
Okay, I like where you're going with this. Good point.
So say that your plan is to stay with the company that made you move. You're doing all the things that are required of you to be successful in the company. It's been years.
At some point, if the critical remarks about the company haven't lost much steam, don't you take that as something of an indictment on you? At some point, don't you have to say, "Look, I know this was hard on us. But you've made your point. We had our time to decide and we decided. You're not helping. Quite the opposite, actually."
ANd the largest fallacy of each of the workplace comparisons, the risk of you losing life or limb are close to nil, the risk of others losing life or limb are close to nil, generally, none of us has to worry about IED's in our offices, nor do we have to worry about split second life or death decisions. That and, as Zar points out, we have a choice, If I was told by my boss that I had to move for my job, I could say know and seek other employment.
There are problems with every analogy so if you take it to the extreme about life and limb then obviously the analogy breaks down. But the workplace reassignment or promotion analogy is really instructive, imo.
And what if you, as the employee/executive that got reassigned or promoted, not only went along with the move, but were in full support of it? Not all employees support such moves, just like not all troops have supported their assignments/missions, but nonetheless, what if you were in full support of the decision and the reasons behind it? What if you wanted it?
The nagging dissent would get old. Especially when you're providing the well being that she has to be able to complain.
I better stop typing, however, because I'm starting to imagine my wife nagging about my first job out of B school and it's no good. :)
Just make sure when you resign, SB, you do it verbally. If you do it in writing, you might confuse your employer:
"to your reassignment request i say, 'know!' "
but the lack of risk in each analogy is important to note.
fair point as well Chris, it woudl get old, but the soldiers don't wake up every day with a reminder from the anti-war people of their disdain for the war - the gov't does. my analogy breaks down there, because a wife wouldn't protest at the company HQ, and if she did, it would hinder your career, while protests against the war doesn't hinder any soldiers' standing in the military.
actually, a better analogy is to pretend that a baseball team travels from Seattle down to LA and wins an important series on the road. oh wait, we don't need to pretend.
LOL. I'll take that baseball quip as a sign that we've reached a point of mutual understanding.
Two more points. 1) I think the troops know full well what popular opinion (or at least audible/media opinion) is of what they're doing. 2) @SB, last I checked, we've been able to fight a war on two fronts for 8 and 5 years respectively with a completely volunteer armed forces, most of which go back for more.
No, Know, Knew, new, newt, no not Newt, butt (but) newt, as in
"She Turned me into a newt!..... I got better"
"BURN HER!!!"
"As a Christian I am anti-War."
I wish I could live in a world where the choice was to go to war or to live in peace. Oh wait that place is called Canada.
Oh snap, I just made a Canada joke on the eve of Canada day.
Seriously do you really think the choice is between war and peace? It is a little more nuanced than that.
Jehovah was the greatest military general of all time. He never lost a battle.
You misinterpreted my comments.
I'm a pacifist, that's all. I don't like war/killing/etc etc, I don't own a gun...
If I lived in other times, I'd like to think I would have been an Anti-Nephi-Lehi. Just a personal decision and belief. I don't believe that everyone/anyone needs to believe like that, I just do. I hope that belief is okay.
I'll grant you that it's a simplistic view, but it is the one I have chosen for myself.
That is a perfectly acceptable point of view. I'd venture to say that we are all pacifists. I do not know anyone that is a war monger (despite what the HuffPo might say about neo-cons) But even the A-N-L's had to deal with the reality of war, and they did what all societies have always done - they sent their kids off to fight. And they went willingly.
And just as a thought exercise:
The A-N-L were attacked, and instead of defending themselves they knelt down and were murdered in cold blood until the attacking army felt compassion and stopped.
If you or your family were attacked violently would your pacifist nature, or your parental/husband nature win out? Would you kneel in submission or fight for your (and their) lives?
I know for me, I'd kill anyone without hesitation if my life or my families life was at stake.
The more important question Zar, is do you like not killing enough such that you are willing to violate your principles to prevent the killing of innocent people?
I want peace, but just as Nephi learned, and later Teancum and Moroni rediscovered, it often ends up requiring hardcore killing to protect liberty.
Good post, Chris. I have always had strong feelings about the war and I think we'll look at it collectively as a dark time in our history. But I have no problem supporting our troops as they have sacrificed their free will to serve where their commanders deem appropriate. I like their intentions. Their actions are not up to them. I'll place blame for those elsewhere.
I wonder if the free people of Iraq will view this as a dark time in their history. More likely they view it as the dawn, the beginning of a great experiment in democracy.
I suppose France could have looked at 1776 as a dark time in their history when they intervened and helped us throw off the Brits but incurred some loss of life and cost, but I think they took a longer term view on it.
-The war lasted 8+ years.
-Public support was fervent in the beginning, but faded over time.
-The troops were ill-equipped.
-Recruitment efforts sputtered.
-There was a whisper campaign against the Commander-in-chief.
-There was a massive cost in money and in lives.
-Strategic blunders were rampant.
-Politicians declared that the war was a lost cause.
But does anyone view the War for Independence as a dark period in our history?
Bad comparison, Adam.
And yes, our war of independence was a dark time full of political/economic instability, genuine concern and uncertainty over what direction our country would take, inter-regional rivalry at best and disdain at worst, and real ideological battles being fought all over. It gave birth to an ineffective government that put the U.S. in a tremendous amount of debt. We were barely strong enough to repel an attack on our homeland 40-ish years later. We didn't resolve a major issue that would lead to a terrible Civil War.
But that's not the reason why the comparison is bad. Of course no one looks at the war of independence as a dark time because even in the face of the adversity I mentioned above, it wasn't too hard to see that it was the right thing to do. That's still in debate here, but for reasons that are less glamorous than writing this off as an oil war or a bumper sticker slogan but no less important: our role in the international stage, the merits of a preemptive war, nation-building, etc. (By the way, these are all questions that it irks me to no end that the liberal-intellectual "elite" refuse to analyze with any real effort)
That being said, Sam, this isn't as dark a time as Vietnam. This will probably go down historically as a war whose motives were questionable and either radically changed or proved unchangeable our attitude towards foreign policy, and that will probably depend on how it all turns out. And that's something that we won't have a proper handle on for years.
You are further proving my point. The War for Independence was a terribly difficult thing. But today we don't look back on it and call it "unjust" or "dirty" or all the other epithets being thrown at the War on Terror. Even in the Civil War and WW2 are remembered for their positive results as much as for the great cost.
My point was not to compare the two wars, but to note that difficult wars are often the means to an end that provides incredible opportunity for those who follow. (although there are similarities that are a little uncanny)
Today it is the Iraqi people who have the same opportunity that Americans had in the 1780s and on through the 1800s, that is, the opportunity to (re) build a nation as THEY see fit, and not how a king or a dictator wants.
It's the best opportunity a nation can ever have.
Since I just had a conversation about the limitations inherent in comparisons and the pointlessness of nitpicking them, I'll do my best to back off.
If you want the comparison to stand, don't call them equivalent, but instead highlight the comparisons in the viewpoint of the wars in 1784 and 2009 respectively--debatable, potential for good opportunity, but would take years to fully evaluate and understand.
Wow, this exploded.
I am still as I always was against the war, the original premise was false, further premise' were false and innocents lost lives. Yesterday 30 innocent people died as a result of a car bomb, you think their loved ones are celebrating. Cost of freedom my behind. It is easy for us to say when we aren't at risk or directly affected.
Beside the point really, i support our troops and our allies and yes even our enemies, because I learned this, in church, regardless of what some fabled biblical warrior did, the love and peace is the true message for me. Yep, i am a hippie at heart.
Anyways, 20 years from now, Iraq will be a mess, the seeds of tribal and ethnic unrest were sown when the Kurds were allowed to set up an autonomous 'government.' This philosophy has worked out well for India and Pakistan, against Ghandi's wishes. Iraqi Kurdistan is worse, because Oil (Billions of dollars) is at stake.
I hope it remains peaceful, but it really hasn't for oh., lets say Centuries.
So yes, let us pat ourselves on the back for Bringing 'Car Bomb Democracy' to Iraq, and hope it doesn't get worse.
This is relevant: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124631664790370713.html
And then this is the film it speaks about:
http://www.brothersatwarmovie.com/
You're worried about 30 trees so you would prefer the forest burn?
People do not like living in oppressive dictatorships. They just don't, I'm not sure why but it is pretty much a miserable horrible existence. Lives are being lost to transfer from a country that was living under a murderous horrible dictator to a democracy.
That pretty much always happens when dictatorships are managed out. Generally dictators and ruling parties don't like giving up power.
Trees!?!?!? We are talking about HUMAN lives, and sorry if I am not so fast to dismiss loss of lives as a cost of 'freedom'
BTW several 'Forests' have already burned in Iraq over the last 8 years.
Post a Comment