The Irreconcilable Position

[Adam's Apple]

Jacoby has put down on paper what many people are thinking about the hot-air politics of "supporting" the troops. It makes me think of a bumper sticker I saw some time ago that said: "We support the troops--but not their guns." The lib lefties have yet to inform us how they "support" the troops while clearly undermining their mission.

Irreconcilable Positions: Support Troops, Oppose War
By Jeff Jacoby, Boston Globe
February 18, 2007

WHAT DOES IT mean to support the troops but oppose the cause they fight for?

No loyal Colts fan rooted for Indianapolis to lose the Super Bowl. No investor buys 100 shares of Google in the hope that Google's stock will tank. No one who applauds firefighters for their courage and education wants a four-alarm blaze to burn out of control.

Yet there is no end of Americans who insist they "support" US troops in Iraq but want the war those troops are fighting to end in defeat. The two positions are irreconcilable. You cannot logically or honorably curse the war as an immoral neocon disaster or a Halliburton oil grab or "a fraud . . . cooked up in Texas," yet bless the troops who are waging it.

But logic and honor haven't stopped members of Congress from trying to square that circle. The nonbinding resolution they debated last week was a flagrant attempt to have it both ways. One of its two clauses professed to "support and protect" the forces serving "bravely and honorably" in Iraq. The other declared that Congress "disapproves" the surge in troops now underway -- a surge that General David Petraeus , the new military commander in Iraq, considers essential.

It was a disgraceful and dishonest resolution, and it must have done wonders for the insurgents' morale. Democrats hardly bothered to disguise that when they say they "support and protect" the troops, what they really intend is to undermine and endanger their mission.

for full article:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ed...ncilable_positions_support_troops_oppose_war/

 

[Annie]

Jacoby has put down on paper what many people are thinking about the hot-air politics of "supporting" the troops. It makes me think of a bumper sticker I saw some time ago that said: "We support the troops--but not their guns." The lib lefties have yet to inform us how they "support" the troops while clearly undermining their mission.

Irreconcilable Positions: Support Troops, Oppose War
By Jeff Jacoby, Boston Globe
February 18, 2007

WHAT DOES IT mean to support the troops but oppose the cause they fight for?

No loyal Colts fan rooted for Indianapolis to lose the Super Bowl. No investor buys 100 shares of Google in the hope that Google's stock will tank. No one who applauds firefighters for their courage and education wants a four-alarm blaze to burn out of control.

Yet there is no end of Americans who insist they "support" US troops in Iraq but want the war those troops are fighting to end in defeat. The two positions are irreconcilable. You cannot logically or honorably curse the war as an immoral neocon disaster or a Halliburton oil grab or "a fraud . . . cooked up in Texas," yet bless the troops who are waging it.

But logic and honor haven't stopped members of Congress from trying to square that circle. The nonbinding resolution they debated last week was a flagrant attempt to have it both ways. One of its two clauses professed to "support and protect" the forces serving "bravely and honorably" in Iraq. The other declared that Congress "disapproves" the surge in troops now underway -- a surge that General David Petraeus , the new military commander in Iraq, considers essential.

It was a disgraceful and dishonest resolution, and it must have done wonders for the insurgents' morale. Democrats hardly bothered to disguise that when they say they "support and protect" the troops, what they really intend is to undermine and endanger their mission.

for full article:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ed...ncilable_positions_support_troops_oppose_war/

Excellent article and a good job of bringing the relevance of the article's posting to reader's attention.

A note: With a bit of commentary those interested will read the article and often the links. There is no need to c & p the entire article, which is a no-no in the rules.

 

[Gurdari]

I have to disagree (surprise).

What does support our troops even mean, exactly?

They don't order themselves to other nations, or decide how many go to fight, or what role force provides in any situation. Politicians do.

I think people can support troops, who sign up to do good, follow orders, and live under fire, yet NOT support the suits who send them into war in the first place. Also, there are abuses, there are horrible atrocities, violations that occur in any conflict, why support that? Blanket support makes no sense, I support my friends, but not 'no matter what'... if one of them murdered a child, I'd certainly not support that.

And just because someone is a Colts fan, doesn't mean they have to support management's decisions. Didn't they sneak out of Baltimore under cover of darkness?