Does The Left Honestly Support Our Troops?

"If it means believing that their sacrifices are of value, that their work is just, and hoping that they succeed, then the Left does not support the troops."

Is it your contention that one ought to believe this even if every ounce of rationality and political analysis and understanding that one has says that it is not so?


If one even could.

To however it was that remarked "Bingo" I'm glad that person verified my take on Prager's piece. But it is sad that the same person doesn't see any subtle argument here, but rather a condemnation of an amorphous group known as "the left". You might be shocked at my opinion and support of National Security. You might also be served by investigating situations a little more closely before you paint with such a broad stroke. As a nation we make a mistake when we try to pinpoint what can divide us instead of what can unite us. But what the hay, if the entire radical Muslim extremist threat isn't enough for you, by all means, attack other Americans.

Finn wrote:

But now we find a Lefty (FD) who just can't resist arguing that Righties don't care whether or not American men and women die in Iraq.

Bush and Cheney care that soldiers are dying in Iraq, but not for the right reason. They care because it makes their ill-conceived and illegal campaign look bad. But if anyone really believes that either one of those evil bastards would shed a tear for a fallen soldier because of the waste of the young one's life and the tremendous anquish felt by the soldier's family, then you're sadly mistaken.

Those evil bastards could care less about that.

That was nothing but a specious contention comprised solely of opinion, and supported neither by demonstrable fact nor even a justifiable rationale. I cannot but wonder if you have ever served your nation in time of war.

When i was in the Army, anti-war protests barely impinged on our awareness, we had far more important things to worry about. Even the Kent State massacre was a brief topic of discussion, and did not long engage our attention--although Ohio Guardsmen quickly learned it was unwise to venture from barracks alone or after dark.

This is a republic which demands unquestioning obedience from officers and private soldiers. Supporting them means assuring that they are as well trained as possible (they largely are), as well-equipped as possible (they largely aren't), as well lead as possible (they largely are, below the level of the White House and the Secretary of Defense), and properly reinforced (they aren't) and replaced (they aren't). It is ludicrous, and exemplary of a complete ignorance of reasonable military doctrine to suggest that one wishes them success in any venture which it not properly planned and executed. The failures of the current administration in this military adventure are appalling--insufficient force was originally committed, and insufficient reinforcement has been provided; troops are rotated too infrequently, and sent for second and even third tours because the nation if militarily stretched beyond its means and recruiting goes begging; the troops are ill-equipped and publicly complain of it.

To claim that support of the troops demands wishing them well in completion of a fool's errand is inane. To support the nation and troops requires the patriotic citizen with a due regard for his or her fellow citizens serving in the armed forces to speak out against the sort of incompetence and cupidity which has characterized this administration's clueless policies.

I do not object to the expression of opinion--i object to the expression of opinion as though it were a statement from authority without even a supporting rationale.

Kettle calling the pot black!

You have provided some supporting rationale, something you hadn't done before. I consider it to be a feeble rationale, but it is an improvement over opinion offered as a statement from authority.

You can't imagine how happy even this luke warm endorsement makes me feel!

Does the phrase "pompous beyond belief" ever appear in your job performance evaluations?

dlowan wrote:

"If it means believing that their sacrifices are of value, that their work is just, and hoping that they succeed, then the Left does not support the troops."

Is it your contention that one ought to believe this even if every ounce of rationality and political analysis and understanding that one has says that it is not so?


If one even could.

Whether one ought to believe this is not even relevant. If one does not, one can hardly be said to support the troops in the manner in which they themselves hope to be supported. That is the point at hand.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

dlowan wrote:

"If it means believing that their sacrifices are of value, that their work is just, and hoping that they succeed, then the Left does not support the troops."

Is it your contention that one ought to believe this even if every ounce of rationality and political analysis and understanding that one has says that it is not so?


If one even could.

Whether one ought to believe this is not even relevant. If one does not, one can hardly be said to support the troops in the manner in which they themselves hope to be supported. That is the point at hand.

Yes - so, is your argument that one OUGHT to believe this? That one is somehow morally inferior if one does not?

That is the opinion that seems to underly most of the bumpf on these sorts of threads.

Setanta wrote:

I do not object to the expression of opinion--i object to the expression of opinion as though it were a statement from authority without even a supporting rationale.

Kettle calling the pot black!

Quote:

You have provided some supporting rationale, something you hadn't done before. I consider it to be a feeble rationale, but it is an improvement over opinion offered as a statement from authority.

You can't imagine how happy even this luke warm endorsement makes me feel!

Does the phrase "pompous beyond belief" ever appear in your job performance evaluations?

Those who do not support the war in Iraq do not, in my opinion, support our troops there. This has nothing to do with morals save for the fact that Lefties who oppose the mission but argue that they support the troops are dishonest.

The left's argument is with the government, not with those who have to do the killing and dying.

July 24, 2005
All Quiet on the Home Front, and Some Soldiers Are Asking Why
By THOM SHANKER
WASHINGTON, July 23 - The Bush administration's rallying call that America is a nation at war is increasingly ringing hollow to men and women in uniform, who argue in frustration that America is not a nation at war, but a nation with only its military at war.

From bases in Iraq and across the United States to the Pentagon and the military's war colleges, officers and enlisted personnel quietly raise a question for political leaders: if America is truly on a war footing, why is so little sacrifice asked of the nation at large?

There is no serious talk of a draft to share the burden of fighting across the broad citizenry, and neither Republicans nor Democrats are pressing for a tax increase to force Americans to cover the $5 billion a month in costs from Iraq, Afghanistan and new counterterrorism missions.

There are not even concerted efforts like the savings-bond drives or gasoline rationing that helped to unite the country behind its fighting forces in wars past.

"Nobody in America is asked to sacrifice, except us," said one officer just back from a yearlong tour in Iraq, voicing a frustration now drawing the attention of academic specialists in military sociology.

Members of the military who discussed their sense of frustration did so only when promised anonymity, as comments viewed as critical of the civilian leadership could end their careers. The sentiments were expressed in more than two dozen interviews and casual conversations with enlisted personnel, noncommissioned officers, midlevel officers, and general or flag officers in Iraq and in the United States.

Charles Moskos, a professor emeritus at Northwestern University specializing in military sociology, said: "My terminology for it is 'patriotism lite,' and that's what we're experiencing now in both political parties. The political leaders are afraid to ask the public for any real sacrifice, which doesn't speak too highly of the citizenry."

Senior administration officials say they are aware of the tension and have opened discussions on whether to mobilize brigades of Americans beyond those already signed up for active duty or in the Reserves and National Guard. At the Pentagon and the State Department, officials have held preliminary talks on creating a Civilian Reserve, a sort of Peace Corps for professionals.

In an interview, Douglas J. Feith, the under secretary of defense for policy, said that discussions had begun on a program to seek commitments from bankers, lawyers, doctors, engineers, electricians, plumbers and solid-waste disposal experts to deploy to conflict zones for months at a time on reconstruction assignments, to relieve pressure on the military.

When President Bush last addressed the issue of nationwide support for the war effort in a formal speech, he asked Americans to use the Fourth of July as a time to "find a way to thank the men and women defending our freedom by flying the flag, sending a letter to our troops in the field or helping the military family down the street."

In the speech, at Fort Bragg, N.C., on June 28, Mr. Bush mentioned a Defense Department Web site, Americasupportsyou.mil, where people can learn about private-sector efforts to bolster the morale of the troops. He also urged those considering a career in the military to enlist because "there is no higher calling than service in our armed forces."

While officers and enlisted personnel say they enjoy symbolic signs of support, and the high ratings the military now enjoys in public opinion polls, "that's just not enough," said a one-star officer who served in Iraq. "There has to be more," he added, saying that the absence of a call for broader national sacrifice in a time of war has become a near constant topic of discussion among officers and enlisted personnel.

"For most Americans," said an officer with a year's experience in Iraq, "their role in the war on terror is limited to the slight inconvenience of arriving at the airport a few hours early."

David C. Hendrickson, a scholar on foreign policy and the presidency at Colorado College, said, "Bush understands that the support of the public for war - especially the war in Iraq - is conditioned on demanding little of the public."

Mr. Hendrickson said that after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, just as after the recent London bombings, political leaders urged the population to continue life as normal, so as not to give terrorists a moral victory by giving in to the fear of violence.

But he said the stress of the commitment to the continuing mission in Iraq was viewed by the public in a different light than a terrorist attack on home soil.

"The public wants very much to support the troops" in Iraq, he said. "But it doesn't really believe in the mission. Most consider it a war of choice, and a majority - although a thin one - thinks it was the wrong choice."

Maj. Gen. Robert H. Scales Jr., who served as commandant of the Army War College and is now retired, said: "Despite the enormous impact of Sept. 11, it hasn't really translated into a national movement towards fighting the war on terrorism. It's almost as if the politicians want to be able to declare war and, at the same time, maintain a sense of normalcy."

General Scales said he had heard a heavy stream of concerns from current officers that "the military is increasingly isolated from the rest of the country."

"People associate being an officer with the priesthood," he added. "You know, there is an enormous amount of respect, but nobody wants to sign up for celibacy."

Private organizations like the Navy League of the United States that support the individual armed services have identified the tension and are using this theme to urge greater contributions from members now in the civilian world.

"We have recognized that and we have tried to sound the alarm," said Rear Adm. Stephen R. Pietropaoli, retired, the executive director of the Navy League.

"As an organization that is committed to supporting them by ensuring they have the weapons and tools and systems to fight and win, and also at the grass-roots level by providing assistance to families," Admiral Pietropaoli said, "we are aware that the burden has fallen almost solely on the shoulders of the uniformed military and security services and their families. We have used that in our calls to action by our members. We have said: 'We are at war. What have you done lately?' "

Morten G. Ender, who teaches sociology at West Point, has been interviewing soldiers, their spouses and cadets since the Iraq war started in 2003. Because the all-volunteer military is a self-selecting body and by definition is not drawn from a cross-section of America, he said, those with direct involvement constitute a far smaller percentage of the country than in past wars.

Mr. Ender said that the "rhetoric from the top" of the civilian leadership of the United States "doesn't move people towards actions."

Most Americans support the military, he said, and "feel like there is somebody out there taking care of the job."

"They say, 'I'm going to support those people, I believe in those people and God bless those people,' " he said. "By doing that, they can wash their hands of it."

goodfielder wrote:

The left's argument is with the government, not with those who have to do the killing and dying.

Yes, it always is.

msolga wrote:

goodfielder wrote:

The left's argument is with the government, not with those who have to do the killing and dying.

Yes, it always is.

Can somebody help me here, which group is it that believes we need less government?????