Explaining Iraq, pt. 5
Question #5: Can I support the troops but not the mission?
A: Yes.
Oh, I'm sure a lot of people would disagree with me on that one, but let me explain. Hell, I'll even give an example.
Kathy Griffin does not support the war. She has been vocally anti-action over there. This is partially because she tends toward being a pacifist, and partially because she is a strong believer in leftward philosophy.
That said, she has gone on tour with the USO on multiple occasions to support the troops. And, unlike some others who went over their for personal gain, her forays did nothing but interrupt her moneymaking gigs.
She is undoubtedly supporting the troops and not supporting the mission.
HOWEVER, something many fail to realize is that by not supporting the mission, you are undermining the morale of the troops, and also increasing the morale of the enemy. That is not to make a judgmental call on that position; there is honor in defending a position in which you firmly believe. But you should be willing to admit the ramifications of your activity.
If that sounds like I'm saying someone can both be supporting and not supporting the troops at the same time, that's because it's exactly what I'm saying.
If it helps, picture in your mind a kitchen sink. If the water is running from the faucet, and the drain plug is in, then you have water entering the sink. If you then take the drain plug out and turn the faucet off, you have water exiting the sink. If you then turn the faucet on again, you have water entering and exiting the sink at the same time.
Support is like that sink. You can add support, and you can drain away support, and sometimes the same person can do both things simultaneously, like Kathy Griffin. Too many people believe it's purely an either/or proposition, incorrectly.
It's worth noting, however, that the most vocal of the anti-war critics are NOT representative of the majority of the population, no matter how much they, or some of the people featuring or interviewing them, wish to promote that image.
In the latest large rally in Washington, many of the attendees were not Democrats, or Republicans, or even members of the major Independent parties, but rather avowed Communist Party members or Socialist Party members. This is not representative of the average US citizen. The spray-painting of grafitti on the Capitol building's steps was also not something the average American would encourage.
There were also counterprotestors, some of which were former military, or even current military on leave. The police eventually had to cordon them off, because the anti-war critics were running over and spitting on them. Again, this is not typical of the majority of Americans, but according to interviews with some of the counterprotestors, it is typical of the demonstrators.
Calling for the troops to come home because you want them safe, and then spitting on them when you see them, is more than contradictory, it is dishonest. The unavoidable fact is that some of those who say they support the troops, but not the mission, are simply trying to put an amenable face on their dislike or even hatred of the US military. And these seem to be the people who are most incensed, and therefore most likely to attend the rallies.
What the percentages are is undeterminable. Unless you can see people take action to undermine or bolster their credibility, I believe in taking people at their word. Most people who say they support the troops but not the mission, I believe them. But I expect them... especially politicians... to disavow the anti-war protestors if I'm going to believe they intend for an overall positive effect on the troops. And if they don't intend for an overall postive effect, they're being duplicitous in their wording.
A: Yes.
Oh, I'm sure a lot of people would disagree with me on that one, but let me explain. Hell, I'll even give an example.
Kathy Griffin does not support the war. She has been vocally anti-action over there. This is partially because she tends toward being a pacifist, and partially because she is a strong believer in leftward philosophy.
That said, she has gone on tour with the USO on multiple occasions to support the troops. And, unlike some others who went over their for personal gain, her forays did nothing but interrupt her moneymaking gigs.
She is undoubtedly supporting the troops and not supporting the mission.
HOWEVER, something many fail to realize is that by not supporting the mission, you are undermining the morale of the troops, and also increasing the morale of the enemy. That is not to make a judgmental call on that position; there is honor in defending a position in which you firmly believe. But you should be willing to admit the ramifications of your activity.
If that sounds like I'm saying someone can both be supporting and not supporting the troops at the same time, that's because it's exactly what I'm saying.
If it helps, picture in your mind a kitchen sink. If the water is running from the faucet, and the drain plug is in, then you have water entering the sink. If you then take the drain plug out and turn the faucet off, you have water exiting the sink. If you then turn the faucet on again, you have water entering and exiting the sink at the same time.
Support is like that sink. You can add support, and you can drain away support, and sometimes the same person can do both things simultaneously, like Kathy Griffin. Too many people believe it's purely an either/or proposition, incorrectly.
It's worth noting, however, that the most vocal of the anti-war critics are NOT representative of the majority of the population, no matter how much they, or some of the people featuring or interviewing them, wish to promote that image.
In the latest large rally in Washington, many of the attendees were not Democrats, or Republicans, or even members of the major Independent parties, but rather avowed Communist Party members or Socialist Party members. This is not representative of the average US citizen. The spray-painting of grafitti on the Capitol building's steps was also not something the average American would encourage.
There were also counterprotestors, some of which were former military, or even current military on leave. The police eventually had to cordon them off, because the anti-war critics were running over and spitting on them. Again, this is not typical of the majority of Americans, but according to interviews with some of the counterprotestors, it is typical of the demonstrators.
Calling for the troops to come home because you want them safe, and then spitting on them when you see them, is more than contradictory, it is dishonest. The unavoidable fact is that some of those who say they support the troops, but not the mission, are simply trying to put an amenable face on their dislike or even hatred of the US military. And these seem to be the people who are most incensed, and therefore most likely to attend the rallies.
What the percentages are is undeterminable. Unless you can see people take action to undermine or bolster their credibility, I believe in taking people at their word. Most people who say they support the troops but not the mission, I believe them. But I expect them... especially politicians... to disavow the anti-war protestors if I'm going to believe they intend for an overall positive effect on the troops. And if they don't intend for an overall postive effect, they're being duplicitous in their wording.
posted by AM | 10:29 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home