Centerfield

All this jibber jabber about "supporting the troops" is nonsense. Most people just go about their daily lives, maybe they have a tattered yellow ribbon on their bumber, they probably sing along to the Anthem at sporting events, and that's about it.

It's utterly inane that so much ink should be spilled over such a silly, meaningless slogan.

I agree with jpe. It's only a slogan and it's not truly supported by anyone, even Bush.
Tell you what I would do but that no one, not even Murtha is willing to do, and that is to get a WW2 footing with regard to industry. We still don't have enough up-armored vehicles, helmet liners, etc. for the troops. (I mean if AL Franken AND Cher of all people have to hold bake sales for helmet liners there is a serious problem here) Production delays are cited or lack of production capacity. What a lame excuse. I say it's a lack of competency(oh what a surprise) and will.
Truman or Roosevelt wouldn't have stood for it, neither Johnson or Nixon during Viet Nam.
I say buy everything the soldiers need now. If there aren't enough armor plates or whatever then commandeer those production facilities, put them on 24-hour shifts. Add more facilities if needed by taking over other shops. The business affected will all get fairly compensated and our soldiers will be better equipped.
That's supporting the troops.

BTW Donations to Operation Helmet are tax-deductible and they have almost no overhead. It's all volunteer. They've sent about 34,000 helmet upgrades and need to send about a thousand more. Given the "surge" that number may increase.

here's what it costs:
$71 per upgrade for Marines. $99 for Navy and USAF. The Army is already up to speed.

Join me and open up your checkbooks kids. One of my family organizations has already donated and I'm chipping in 50 more bucks. It only takes a minute to write a check and another to address an envelope. You can do it during commercials tonight. If 10 CC'rs donate $50 that's $500 bucks or 5 to 7 kits.

by mail:

Operation Helmet
Dr. Bob Meaders
74 Greenview Street
Montgomery, TX 77356

or by visa/mc but they charge 3% so be a good kid and send checks instead.
You can donate via M/C or Visa here

How can you support the troops without supporting the war? This isn't a Boy Scout camp out - all sitting around a fire roasting marshmellows.

It is all verbage, verbal garbage, trying to have it both ways without tainting yourself. The war and the troops are the same thing!

Danny L. McDaniel
Lafayette, Indiana

How can you support the troops without supporting the war?

How can you argue with someone who asks that question? Implicitly, it denies that such a thing is possible. I read that question and assume that the asker has most likely previously dismissed any and all rational arguments to the effect that troops are distinct from their mission. So why would anyone who feels it's perfectly rational and sensible to support the troops regardless of the nature of the mission bother to argue with someone who denies it's possible? Better to just agree to disagree.

Gee, Brian, how can you argue with statements such as:

It's only a slogan and it's not truly supported by anyone, even Bush.

And:

All this jibber jabber about "supporting the troops" is nonsense.

Well, I can certainly argue with both of those statements. Only someone trying to discredit and dismiss those who support both the troops and the mission can utter such inanities. It's ranting cant, designed to undercut the troops.

Here's some actual troops in Iraq weighing in on "supporting the troops without supporting the mission." They're not terribly interested in the philosophical parsings and squishy sophistries of the anti-war crowd. In fact, what they say sounds remarkably similar to:

It is all verbage, verbal garbage, trying to have it both ways without tainting yourself.

Saying you support the troops but don't support the mission is saying they're really nice guys but you want them to lose. Which as far as those troops themselves are concerned is "support" they can do without. They know why they're there. All of them are volunteers, and all enlisted or re-enlisted after the war began. If you wanna argue about the parsings, I sincerely suggest hunting up some recently-returned troops that you "support," and explaining your "support" position to them. But pay up your insurance first.

Is there some URL for the helmet thing?
Something vouching for its legitimacy?
I'm wary of sending a check based on one post but am interested.

Operation Helmet is for real, and is not a scam. They're almost out of requests from troops. Not quite there yet. If they run out of requests, they'll still do good with any extra funds.

"Once all troops are provided the blast/impact protecting helmet upgrades, we will utilize residual funds to help other charities providing for rehabilitation and support of our wounded troops and their families. We are researching several charities and will support those we find to be well managed, little or AT LEAST MINIMAL administrative fees and have a proven track record of helping our wounded warriors cope with their injuries and return to either civilian or military life."

The problem wasn't that the current helmets are bad helmets, but that the helmets weren't designed for IED/blast protection. The new helmets were a vast improvement over the old steel buckets, and the shock-absorption padding makes them even better.

Saying you support the troops but don't support the mission is saying they're really nice guys but you want them to lose.

Maybe that's what some of those folks mean, but probably not all. Are your mind-reading skills on the wax these days. :-) If you say that the above is so, I'm just chalking it up to you being entitled to your opinion, just as the troops are entitled to their opinion. But I don't agree. Calling it philosophical parsing doesn't do a thing to show the reasoning is wrong, BTW. But then you already knew that.

FWIW, I wouldn't say that I personally don't support the troops' mission. I do. I would love it if our soldiers are able to help with successfully installing a sustainable democracy in Iraq. I support the mission, but I do question its prospects for success. I don't know whether that counts as failure to support. I hope not. I would be surprised if I were to find that there isn't a substantial segment of soldiers in Iraq who wonders whether the difficult task they've been given is in fact achievable.

So, Tully, if I disagree with the rationale for the war and think we should not be there, I must, therefore, be not supporting the troops? I assume you are NOT saying that opposing the war is the same as actively opposing the troops, as in Viet Nam. At least, I hope you are not saying that. Of course, some of the troops are not supporting the war. In fact, I know personally a reserve infantry officer that might be called back to Iraq and is not showing a lot of enthusiasm for it.

The US has always had, from the beginning of the republic, a somewhat ambivalent view of the military. Until after WW II, there was a strong distaste for large standing armies,which explains why, in 1939, the US army was the 17th largest in the world. Frankly, I think it's good that Americans are skeptical of the military. I believe that the military is necessary and that most members are honorable. But, I think we should always be skeptical about the resort to war. Obviously, in recent years, this skepticism has been lost to a large extent, at least among the policy makers who find it much easier to militarize an issue than to actually find other solutions. I find it disturbing that, not only is our foreign policy becoming more militarized in the sense of using force more often, but we are also relying on the military to perform functions that used to be performed by diplomats. This isn't to criticize the military itself; it's really to bemoan how deracinated our diplomatic resources has become. The military has stepped in to fill the vacuum. We now have military commanders that essentially perform the role of proconsuls.

...I sincerely suggest hunting up some recently-returned troops that you "support," and explaining your "support" position to them. But pay up your insurance first.

Is that to suggest that someone's willingness to beat you up over his disagreement with your position is somehow indicative of the strength of his opposing position? (And I generally respond to people who don't want to see me killed or maimed by beating them up.)

1. I supported this war from the start.

2. I continue to belief that we have to do everything possible to produce some acceptable degree of success. Thus, I support the "surge" strategy.

3. I'm less convinced than I was 12 months ago that some acceptable degree of success is possible.

4. I'm frustrated.

5. I support the troops.

6. Accusing people of being anti-troops because he or she opined that this was an unwise endeavor is, frankly, BS.

I am saddened by the pointless debate that the House and Senate have had over Iraq. If the Democrats feel a mandate to end this war they should defund.

However, Murtha's plan has "some merit". Troops should be sent back into a combat zone only after they have been allowed to refit, retrain and only when properly equipped. The last part is a rub, and this is particularly true when one considers that this may be when Congress chooses to try the defunding end game.

Having been in the military, I volunteered for the Airborne, and am proud of my service, I think that most soldiers would be more than a bit demoralized by the debate. I remember how it lifted our spirits when President Reagan was talking about the troops. Many of my comrades, this was before the Democratic Party had all but abandoned the military, really felt a connection to the public during that time.

Real support of the troops is not just pasting a bumper sticker on your car. One activity I have been involved in is to send cards from my students to soldiers in Iraq. Sadly, this was met with some resistance by the general public.

We didn't let them know that!

AVR;

One activity I have been involved in is to send cards from my students to soldiers in Iraq. Sadly, this was met with some resistance by the general public.

AVR,

I find it hard to believe that there was resistence to sending cards to soldiers. I have seen no evidence of any such sentiment; my daughter has done a variety of things like that through her school and our synogogue. Even people that oppose the war--which is a significant portion of the population in our neck of the woods (suburban Maryland) generally respect the troops' sacrifice and want to ease their way. For the most part, I think there has been very little, if any, of the anti-soldier sentiment that existed during Viet Nam or, for that matter, much true anti-military sentiment. If it exists, I suspect it is on the very extreme fringe. Most of the animosity has been directed toward the Administration.

And I don't think it's pointless to discuss the war, unless you think that Congress should just mindlessly follow the President. Whether or not Congress actually defunds the war--a highly unlikely prospect--I can't see how debate is problematic. I'm getting tired of people that equate supporting the troops with supporting the Administration's policy.

I don't see how people can claim to support the troops and not the war. That doesn't mean they don't like the troops, or are against the troops, but it’s not support. You can't show up for your football team game and hold up a sign saying "take a knee before someone gets hurt" and call that support. I don't think there are only two choices, support the troops or animosity. I think most people don't care about the troops, not in a bad way but they are indifferent. I get tired of politicians trying to use "support for the troops" as a tool for their personal priorities or political advantage. This goes for both sides.

I get tired of politicians trying to use "support for the troops" as a tool for their personal priorities or political advantage. This goes for both sides.

Me too. That's the spirit in which I interpreted "jibber-jabber."

You can't show up for your football team game and hold up a sign saying "take a knee before someone gets hurt" and call that support.

It could. First, you can root for your team without that meaning that you expect that they are going to win, or believe they are invincible. And if you showed up for your kid's football game to find out the other team outweighed your peeps by 50 pounds apiece, you'd re-think the notion of support. There's ample reason why discretion is the better part of valor is a well known aphorism.

Here's the thing, for me anyway. The brave folks who volunteered to protect us as soldiers agreed to do so while also agreeing to leave the details of what that means to other folks who make the big decisions and give the orders. So my understanding of "support the troops" is to respect and honor the noble sacrifice they've agreed to make. They have to follow orders and go into the breach when called upon, without hesitation. So all other details aside, they deserve proper equipment and training, judicous deployment, fair compensation, support for their families, generous recompense should they be harmed or killed in the line of duty, and the gratitude of the people they've volunteered to protect. Just to name a few.

To me, supporting our troops means to honor and pay heed to all those ideas. So IMO, if you are a non-soldier, it absolutely is a form of support to protest if you believe that the deployment of the troops has been injudicious.

At the same time, I appreciate that the perspective of the folks under fire is going to be primarily informed by facts on the ground. It doesn't surprise me that soldiers want the moral support of public approval and enthusiasm for their appointed mission. Our soldiers want us to believe that the particular goal is worthwhile and that they can do it. What could be more insulting from a soldier's viewpoint than the suggestion that their sacrifice could be in vain. But those of us who are not soldiers have to be true to ourselves, and true to our respect for the precious national capital that our soldiers represent. If that means protesting the mission, that's what it means.

Bernie:
"I don't see how people can claim to support the troops and not the war."

I posted today about this, as did Oak Leaf. Part of Rep. Murtha's plan, which I distrust due to political machinations which would follow, has merit. The question is do you support THE MISSION or THE TROOPS. These are not always the same thing. Supporting the troops means giving them the materials and personnell - properly trained - to complete the MISSION.

Marc,
"I find it hard to believe that there was resistence to sending cards to soldiers."

I also found it hard to believe, but it did happen. Amazingly public schools can do some zany things, but sending words of encouragement may be too hot to handle for middle school kids.

BK said it about as well as it can be said.

Saying you support the troops but don't support the mission is saying they're really nice guys but you want them to lose.

Wow, Tully. How can one argue with logic like that?

On the basis of that argument, one would never be able to protest against a war they feel in unjust without "wanting" our troops "to lose."

Interesting thing, AQ is growing by most accounts. Mossad, CIA and the Brits seem to be on the same page. AQ and the Muslim Brotherhood are expanding and the latest reports indicate the renewed ability to plan strikes against the US.. These two are main Sunni threats now operating in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, North Africa, Gaza, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan.. One can expected seasoned operatives and a steady stream of increasing firepower, expanding operations being aimed at Sunni regimes and Shiite ones.

Capabilities

The Iraq Effect has some Independents wondering how options in Iraq are impacting the larger struggle. Whether in Iraq or defending sea lanes in the Gulf, one can have real concern for the safety of our force given a series of poor tactics in Iraq and escalating extremism. One can be alarmed at the lack of international support. We haven’t been as prepared as we now are becoming

Unfortunately, even the Iraqis are warning us to have a plan B. here Discussing options which might run counter to administration views is not dishonoring our troops.

Many in middle America would rather see an honest discussion of our criteria of force. Tomorrow might bring new headlines of conflict. Are we going to guard the Gulf, create peace in the Middle East and de-arm regimes all by ourselves? Given the desperate need for a real debate about our strategic goals and bottom lines, the Left is locked in re-defining “failure”, while the Right is fractured and is hoping for events on the ground to better the news. Their best news may be political irony predicted.

Why has this view become a “conservative” perspective? “Supporting the troops” debates seem to go much deeper into the political philosophies characterizing the extremes. Plainly, one does not honor our armed forces by regarding their actions as illegal, violations of human rights and indicative of “mercenaries” working for Imperial Capitalists seeking world domination. How can these soldiers be heroic or honorable?

On a more honorable note, Confucius says

Bird in Tree Lead to Endless Possibility Now if this had come out of Darpa! Hawks v Pigeons?

And as for the weather: unusually mild temperatures mask some harsh trends

Why has this become a "conservative" perspective?

Without being argumentative, I would like to ask those who feel one cannot support the troops without supporting their mission in the case of Iraq, is there a point at which a mission becomes so misguided that one can support the troops without supporting the mission? Is there a point at which not supporting the mission becomes a way in which one can support the troops?