this "I support the troops" phrase

I think there are a few missing pieces here that are dependent upon each other:
(These are only my opinions)

1. We should support our troops by giving them the equipment they need to do their job, that means funding the war, whether you're against it [the war] or not.
2. If the populus would like the troops out of Iraq, let Congress VOTE to end the war NOT vote to defund the war. This is where the politicians have got it all wrong, instead to sinking their teeth into the situation, they are all trying to dance around the situation not hurting anyone's perception of them and in turn damaging their all important political reputation.

Voting for the funding of the war and voting to end the war are two different concerns.
I think if you support the troops you would allow them receive the funding to do their job.
Or if you're in Congress you could vote to fund the troops and vote to end the war.
Imagine, if you can, being sent to battle an enemy and not being properly equiped or trained to defeat that enemy.

Edited to add: I do understand the theory behind defunding the troops to end the war but I find it un-American, cowardly, wrong, irresponsible, regretful and very damaging to present and future of our military.

Edited by VeganMan 2007-05-31 8:47 AM

"I support the troops" is about as empty a sentiment as you can have. You support the troops? Well golly, that's awesome! Seriously, who *doesn't* support the troops? It's like having a bumper sticker saying "I love puppies." Or "breathing". Duh! Everyone does! You don't need to waste your breath telling us.

That's a great post. It's funny 'cuz it's true.

Personally I'm against the way this war was conducted. If GW would've just said `we're going to go kill Saddam because he's genocidal tyrant' I would've been OK with that. But to rely on iffy (at best) intel and ignore the worst-case scenarios and having NO exit strategy whatsoever is just asking for caskets. I hear of eight or four or 10 U.S. troops dying every day and it breaks my heart.

As former military myself I know the soldiers, Marines, airmen and seamen (I just like to say that) are doing their jobs over there regardless of whether they believe in `the mission' or not. Though for the life of me I don't know what the mission is anymore. I don't think anybody knows. We're not going to `stabilize' Iraq. It's in a state of civil war and there's nothing we can do about it now. Sending 30,000 more kids over there as IED fodder isn't going to solve the problem. As far as funding goes -- if the only way to get our guys and gals home is to cut off funding then I'm all for it. Whew.

Oh by the way ... `I support the troops.'

VeganMan, it's important to understand that the only means Congress has of ending this or any war is via appropriations. They have have no authority to end a military operation other than by removing funding.

defunding the war doesn't mean that soldiers will be throwing bullets or having to hitch a ride out of iraq. and this presupposes that there haven't already been problems with equipment shortages. (see here for an example). there have been equipment problems almost from the beginning of the war, whether it was not enough body armor, vehicles without proper armor, broken down vehicles, etc. and with the "surge," there are already troops being sent to iraq without full training.

this war hasn't been paid for anyway. it's been charged to the national debt. it has not been included in the defense budget. that's why they always have these "emergency supplementals." it's an accounting trick.

defunding the war is the way congress is able to end the war. that's how it's set up in the laws of the nation. not sure how that makes it "unamerican." defunding the war means that a strategy has to be devised and implemented to redeploy the military out of iraq. and it's pretty clear that such a strategy was not devised before the war started (other than "topple saddam, install chalabi, bask in flowers and candy"), and no plan has been devised since.

bush said yesterday that he sees iraq as following the south korea model. what's that mean? iraq 4 ever. of all the stupid things he has said and dumb analogies he has made, that one ranks right up toward the top given how different those two countries are. and he has said before that the only way to lose is to leave, and that the military won't be withdrawn during his presidency.

Edited by jimbo 2007-05-31 9:20 AM

My puppy has crapped in it's crate the last 3 days in a row, if it's not in it's crate it craps next to the back door, when it does make it outside it craps on the deck less than a foot from the door.  Now that I think about it, I think the lawn is the ONLY place that it hasn't dropped a deuce in the last few weeks. 

My point... "I love puppies" is the sentiment of "Everyone" minus one... some days it pays to be a cat person.

bts

Edited by Brett 2007-05-31 9:50 AM

That's something I might do. Good idear Scout!

awwww, but it's so much easier just to slap a yellow ribbon sticker on my SUV and then drive around with a self-righteous attitude

edited, as always, for grammar

 

Edited by ScottoNM 2007-05-31 10:24 AM

That sounds like too much work... but I can do this:

 

Attachments
----------------
churchsign.jpg (15KB - 1 downloads)

One of my closest friends is stationed in Afganistan and we have had a nice dialogue on this very subject and I really wanted to hear what a military person's POV was concerning the very popular critics arguements for and against the war. Here is some of his correspondence from a few weeks ago (hope I edited all the profanity):

Ryan,

So rarely do I get to remark on political matters; I'm here to fight a war, not comment on it. First off I'll talk about the recent back and forth between the legislative branch, most notably the House of Representatives, and the executive, on the funding of the war. It's very simple: the Congress should give the Army more money and in turn the President should end the war, or at least set a timetable for withdraw.
I know it's not that easy, but it really should be. Everything in Washington recently is all or nothing, either you are for tax cuts or tax hikes, pro-life or pro-choice, the dichotomy could go on and on. Most people will say that this drastic conservative versus liberal head butting is just the way our government works and that's how it's always been. Such is just simply not true, the current situation probably only dates back to the Reagan years and the Republican tactics of polarizing people. We did win the cold war but calling the Soviet Union an "evil empire," isn't the most tactile of language, and that's how they treated everyone.
Anyway, both sides should sit down and hammer things out, come to a compromise. "We'll give you the money, but you need to do this and that." Although the President is an elected official the House of Representatives is the political body closest to the pulse of the nation. They most clearly represent what the population wants, and most people want to get out of Iraq. The President's defense—why we should stay—changes often but the common tread is that he is further sighted on the issue or that he somehow knows something that nobody but he and the VP know. I don't think that these vague "stay the course" arguments are going to hold up much longer even within his party.
Let's say for instance that he does have pocket aces and staying there is the right thing to do. So what? The United States is supposed to be a democracy right? If the people want to go, and they have elected a new Congress to represent that, we go. Right? Die hard Republicans counter this argument in two ways: First, they say you can just make decisions by putting your finger to the wind. Well, the wind has been blowing one direction for a long time now. Secondly, they say that technically the U.S. is a constitutional republic and not a democracy. That argument, although popular on Sean Hannity, is just ridiculous.
Still though, I haven't given a good solution. The President always gets on his critics for criticizing but not offering a solution, so I'll offer a few solutions. One of two things needs to happen immediately: we need to give all the money requested to the Army, or we need to bring everyone home right now. The current situation must change; it can't stay like it is now. The "surge" was a bunch of crap, not enough people, not even close. I won't even get started on fifteen month deployments. Actually, we don't have a big enough Army to give enough troops that the current situation requires. Enough said.
We won't bring everyone home right away, it just won't ever happen. So we give all the money that everyone needs while at the same time implement a new plan. Iraq is divided into basically three sections, it's more complicated, I know. The Kurds are in the north, Sunnis in the west and south, and Shia in the east. We can't solve the Sunni versus Shia problem, we need to let the other Arab countries get involved and they can work that whole mess out. The Kurds are a good and consistent ally of the U.S., we should us that to our advantage. If we pulled back to the north, into what can be loosely called Kurdistan, we would be cooperated with and invited. That would allow us to keep a regional presence and also get out the mess in Baghdad and the Anbar province.

shannon


Ryan,

I almost got into the implications of leaving the Middle East too soon in my previous letter, but I decided to save your eyes and my fingers. Since you bring it up though, allow me to elaborate my position. The Hannitys of the world say that setting a timetable for withdraw is an admittance of defeat. I personally don't agree that it would be defeat; we just need to redefine our goals to something that is achievable. The current goal, what ever it is today, is simply out of reach. We gave these people a chance to be free and have our way of life, they rejected it. Its time for the current administration to reevaluate what we want to accomplish in Iraq.

To me what this whole argument boils down to is a pride issue. People who say that setting a date for withdrawal is synonymous with defeat are worried about America's pride being hurt and how we will look. Thinking that way is just plain wrong, and it is a very American way of thinking. Other countries have gotten out of similar quagmires and not worried about it as much as we are right now. Look at history, from the beginning of time governments have eventually found conflicts to costly to continue and pulled out, it's nothing new and history won't judge you for it. The Romans pulled south of the Danube because their conflicts in northern Europe became too costly. The Christians eventually left Jerusalem because it cost to much to hold the city. The French pulled out of their colonies in Southeast Asia, and more notably Algeria. Even today the British are ending things in both Iraq and Northern Ireland. It's not defeat, things just change over time, and a government must change with it. I know it's an issue of pride with these people and it's good to have pride, I'm not getting down on them for that. What gets me is that they are putting pride over the lives of my brothers in Iraq. Since the surge went into effect, twice as many Soldiers have died in Baghdad each month. Having pride is okay, but how many people have to die before you suck it up.

I'm kind of just rambling now so I'll get back to the point. I really don't think the terrorist have a reliable global reach. Sure they have hit us a few times, but for the most of those fighting in Iraq don't have international capabilities. Hannity-tyes will compare "Islamic Fascism" to Nazism and Communism, but it's absurd. Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia could have launched extended attacks/invasions on American soil. Hell, we've all seen Red Dawn. The argument for "bring the war to the terrorists" or fighting them in Iraq so we don't have to fight them in anytown USA is f'ing retarded. We should pull out, use smaller numbers of special forces personnel (including FBI, CIA, NSA) to gather intelligence on the ground, and them bomb them from Airplanes, naval vessels, and weapons systems like mine. The troops we bring home should be re-stationed to provide security at air ports, borders, and other places of entry into the country.

I'll try to find time to comment on the other three points later. How was the triathlon? I hope you wore a wet suit that accentuated you bulge.

I get promoted to 1st Lieutenant in two weeks, my bar turns from gold to black. It really isn't much of a move up, 2nd and 1st LTs really don't differentiate between each other.
shannon