How do you Support the Troops but Not the Mission?

It could apply to a lot of teams. Liverpool lucked out, that's for sure.

As for civilians giving the marching orders, yeah. And the people influence the government. Don't like what's going on? Vote 'em out or (for soccer fans) cancel your season ticket and complain on bigsoccer.

 

Thing is, the troops do not have a choice in supporting the mission. They signed up and part of the oath is to follow the orders of their Officers and Commander in Chief.

You also should look at the war in Iraq, no the war wasn't going to help in defeating AQ, and apparently folks in charge knew that WMD's were a red herring as well, however, that said, there still was a man in power who is a mass murderer and had used WMD's in the past. He did not abide by UN resolutions and frankly was a threat to the region. Removing him from power is in my minds eye no different then taking out Miloslavic in Kosovo and Bosnia where we sent in US troops and used air attacks etc...

You can seperate the troops from the mission. And while the mission itself may have been started under false information, it still does not take away from the fact that Iraq was in the grip of a killer. There was a chance to make things in Iraq much better, and there still is a chance that can happen, but the reason for that possible failure again isn't the fault of the troops, it is the fault of the people who sent them in there without thinking it all out first.

 

That's an awfully broad brush you are painting with. Soldiers are trained to do the job they are assigned and not to question the chain of command that normally ends at 1600 Pennsylvania avenue, but now likely ends at the handle bars of a mountain bike at an ultra exclusive resort in Northern Idaho.

I have talked to troops/family who are not crazy about the current mission and who are not big fans of being nation builders. Its not the kind of work that they signed up for after receiving their free Army of One DVD. Two that I am thinking of in particular, would be thrilled if they received orders telling them they were being redeployed with a massive force on the Afghanistan/Pakistan border for a major military action.

Besides, I think we all want the mission to end, no? It's just a matter of how, and how do we get there. But if it makes you feel better, "stay the course."

 

Once again, I agree with all of this with one little (actually big) modification. We -- the U.S. of A. -- have very clear priorities following 9/11 and those are very selfish priorities. Saddam was out there on the list of things to deal with, but he was way, way down that list. He was being effectively contained. He had no links to 9/11 as previously admitted by most of the Bush administration (with the exception of Cheney who is living in some parallel universe).

I've said this many times before. Saddam wished bad things on the US, but he was quite happy with his little world that he ruled. He wasn't an idiot, and he knew that any direct attack on the US that was linked to him would mean his immediate downfall. So on the desire side, I'm thinking he wasn't a likely candidate to attack us or help those that have.

On the ability side, I have seen nothing to suggest that he could attack us. At the height of his military power, the guy was lobbing scud missles into the mediterranian sea when he was trying to hit Israel. What in the hell was he going to do to us in his weakened, contained state?

In a world with nothing else on our plate, I would have listened to a reasonable plan that would have increased world pressure on Saddam with an ultimate goal of removing him by force if necessary. However, in the current state of affairs, the selfish me was saying "what the f are we doing, go get the bad guys you moron!"

Since analogies are in vogue on this thread, here is one I have used in the past. If you are sitting in a chair with one guy pointing a locked and loaded pistol at your temple saying "I hate you" and another guy standing a mile away with a couple of pebbles in his hand saying "i hate both of you guys" who do you focus your attention on?

 

The more I think about it, the analogy gets better, not worse. i did not say we never should have invaded Iraq.

Let's say there's a group of fans that wants the team to fight in the league - to put the majority of their efforts there. For the cup, well, these fans would be fine with letting the reserves get a game, so that the best players are fit and rested for the upcoming NY/DC game in the league.

That's just like people who think we should have focused on afghanistan and OBL and only kept enough troops near Iraq to keep the no-fly zones going.

Other people thought, well we got as far as we could in afghanistan (the league), so let's go allout for this longshot for glory in Iraq (Open Cup).

Other people thought the team would have no problems and not really risk any injuries through overwork by making the first team give 100% twice a week in both the league and cup. they even thought the team could win both cups.

All are value judgements that lead to bitter debates - but everyone still supports the team - they just have different desires and assessments

 

I agree with you on this completely. Going after Saddam when we did was a big mistake. I really firmly believe that we should have taken him out years ago.

But taking out AQ was the highest priority and that mission is not done yet and here we are stuck in a nation building job.

 

Even if you support the administration's policy and agree with why we're over there, nobody, ever, is a war supporter. War is the last possible alternative. Even if you agree with the "spreading democracy" thing, then still spreading it at the end of a gun is the last choice. War is a tremendous waste of everything on both sides, resources, lives, money. Being a "War" supporter is like saying your a cancer supporter.

 

Put your logic in reverse for a second, Dammit. If you have to support the mission in order to support the troops, does that mean that you must support the military no matter what it might do?

If the U.S. Miltary were to roll tanks into a peaceful protest in Washington D.C., (see China) am I obligated by patriotism to support the killing of U.S. citizens?

If the U.S. military determined that its mission should be to overthrow the democratically elected governments of Europe and set up puppet governments to enrich itself (see, U.S.S.R.) am I obligated by my patriotism to support the mission?

If the Joint Chiefs of Staff took over the Office of the President by force (see Name-Your-Military-Coup), is it my patriotic duty to support that mission?

If the U.S. decided it needed to invade Mexico and put its citizens in concentration camps because hispanics were corrupting the pure white American race, do I have an obligation as patriot to support that decision?

Surely you understand that its possible to love America, support the people who defend America, and not feel compelled to agree with every foreign policy decision made by our political leaders.

 

Bull. You started this thread with the argument that anyone who is against the war ("the Mission") cannot "support the troops."

 

I am not a fan of quoting Nazis, but they were certainly the experts in quashing any political opposition to the military policies of the government:

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."**
-- Joseph Goebbels, German Minister of Propaganda, 1933-1945

More and more Americans are starting to see the consequences of the policies justified by Bush, although I won't go as far as to say lies.

I am amazed that some people don't believe that Bush was seeking justification to attack, and that he selectively applied intelligence -- faulty or not -- to the justification.

Or how about Teddy:

Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country."**


- President Theodore Roosevelt, 1908

Has Bush efficently served the country in the war on terror? What has the couple hundred billion done for us to make us safer?

Now from our fearless mountain biker:

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our Number one priority and we will not rest until we find him!"

- President Bush, September 13, 2001

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and I really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."

- President Bush, March 13, 2002

Is it your priority?

Finally, one that seems fitting when supporters of the administrations policies attack the opposition as ones who do not support the troops:

If the Republicans stop telling lies about us, we will stop telling the truth about them.

-- Adlai Stevenson, 1952

 

He may have leaned that way, but unlike other posters here, he almost sounds open to conversion. we should welcome the opportunity for reasoned discussion instead of overtly partisan trolling.

 

It seems to me that Dammit got a lot of good discussion going, with relatively little of the partisan bickering silliness that usually dominates this board. A lot of regular posters could learn from this.

 

Speedcake...

I actually read every word you wrote here. And I want you to know that I respect and understand (truly) your POV. Do me the favor to read all of mine, even if you may not agree.

Can you understand that there are those of us, who actually wear the uniform, and who have actually deployed and will deploy (again)...who truly believe in, support, and understand the mission and its importance? Do we not deserve your unqualified and unconditional support and backing? Do we not deserve, at a minimum, the knowledge that our country will not make our collective sacrifice a worthless exercise in futility?

Next Spring, I am about to leave me daughter, who will be less than a year old by that time! Think about that. Do you not think that for a minute that weighs very heavily on my mind? She will be nearly two years old when I come home...will she remember me? What will she think in the future? She is adopted....will my leaving be a second trauma in her life? Things come home pretty quickly when you spend time making sure your life insurance policies are in order...

Supporting the President, and the mission, and believing in God and Country doesn't make me (or others) a bad guy...nor are you for expressing what I believe is a very sincere point of view, share by most on this board (although a minority view IMHO).

The vast majority of soldiers I serve with support OIF. I could count on one hand the number of soldiers I have met that do not support this mission. Soldiers understand concepts such as selfless service, duty, honor, loyalty, respect, integrity and personal courage.

I think you can support the troops, and be against this conflict. However, IMHO, I simply think that while the fight is going on, that the "way" those opinions are expressed have to be made carefully. I sometimes think that people express their opinions in an irresponsible ways.

What seems senseless to me is the debate about a decision that was made over two years ago. Right or wrong, we are in Iraq. It make no sense now to leave the job half finished. To do so would dishonor those who made the ultimate sacrifice. To denigrate the mission is to cheapen what THEY gave. It is to disrespect the fallen. Those killed in this war are no less deserving of honor (for the war in which they died) then those who died in World War II or Korea or Desert Storm.

For me, it is difficult, because I can’t simply differentiate the mission from the job. The JOB is the mission.

I am not looking to debate. And in fact this is all I plan to say on this. But, it is often difficult to come here and read the remarkably stupid things that some people say. President Bush made a decision...and right or wrong, we are now there. The job has to get done, and must get done.

Debating that point with a nuanced “I support the troops but do not support the mission” is to say that the sacrifice we all are making is not worth while. If you truly support me...then support our success. Supporting that success is to do what we all can to bring about a unified and democratic Iraq. And then we can come home proud of what we accomplished as a nation.

 

Your belief and support is easy to understand (though sometimes perplexing) and respect. That does not mean you are right, nor that others should shut up.

Back to my soccer analogies - would a professional team be distracted by a pub-brawl that breaks out over a cup vs league debate?

Or in a game, where the team is winning 1-0, 5 minutes to go, and you're a left wingback - can we as fans not scream when you go traipsing up the wing and hoof in a speculative cross to a tired short forward - instead of a more controlled passback to another defender or keeper? As a player, you may be completely convinced in your abilites and that the chance of a 2-0 lead is far superior to sitting on a 1-0 lead - and that may be what your coach wants you to do - but that does not mean that all fans have to stand up and applaud you and urge you to do it again and again again in the remaining 5 minutes.

Or take Galt's hypotheticals for more real-world 'support the troops at all costs' scenarios

 

You're killing me. These are the most tortured analogies in the tortured history of tortuous analogies!!

 

face it - I'm the Lyddie England of soccer analogies...no geneva protections for these boards!

 

There have been a lot of thoughtful posts on this thread, and USA Soccer's was particularly poignant. Send lots of pictures to your family - your daughter will know who you are when you get back.

To the point, though - I have a better understanding of where folks on the other side are coming from. I can better understand the angst and anger that folks like George and USA feel when the anti-war people say the mission has been a failure, its worthless. Therefore, you might feel that I - or other anti war poeple - think that you are worthless.

 

Look, I didn't make myself perfectly clear in that post. I have stated in other threads and in other discussions that I do not think it is a very bright idea to just cut and run. Not now, not when doing so would leave Iraq at the mercy of an insurgency that would likely cut it down as soon as we're gone. I do not have high hopes for the long term survival of whatever it is we do end up leaving Iraq with, but I can agree we are committed to leaving them with the best whatever that is that we possibly can.

Does that mean I can't wish you didn't have to go? Does that mean I can't wish that we hadn't already lost almost 2,000 soldiers to a war that no matter how you feel never should have happened? Does that mean I have to agree our invasion was legal and necessary? Does that mean we have to end the debate on whether it was right or wrong to invade when doing so is a major step towards forgetting what got us into this position in the first place?

I say no.

 

Dwight D. Eisenhower well known American leftist.

 

---
at least you see the fact that it doesn't work. congrats!

i would have given you positive rep if you had deleted the post, but i wouldn't have known, would i?

 

Your whole post was very well done, but I want to concentrate on the two paragraphs above. The first represents the very sacrifice I mentioned earlier. On other threads, people have said to each other, "why don't you sign up and head over." This is precisely the reason why many of us wouldn't. I have trouble leaving my 1.5 year old daughter and 3.5 year old son for a three or four day business trip. I also have that nagging little thought many have when getting on a plane, "what if I never see them again."

I can't even imagine what you are about to do or the sacrifice. These are the types of stories that we all need to hear to remember that for everyone of the 100,000 + soldiers in Iraq, there are another 5, 10, 20 people here at home that are severely impacted by their sacrifice.

On the second point, you did a great job of stating what should be painfully obvious. There are two (probably many more) sides to the argument of whether or not it was good policy to start this as well as two sides as to the best course of action from here. Everyone should respect that without all of the animosity that seems to follow.

I am certainly glad that you believe in the Iraq mission even if some of us don't. It is far more important for you to believe. To address your other point, I should probably preface all of my arguments with the thought that I do hope that Iraq becomes a peaceful democracy and a stabilizing influence in the region despite the fact that I don't rationally believe that that can happen.

I would gladly eat all of the "I told you so's" that I can get. Particularly from you, George and anyone else that can come back and spoon feed them too me.

I am glad to read that you accpet that people can disagree with the policy and still supporty you in your work because that is truly the case.

 

I'm going to respond to your post because its very important. If you're done with this debate, that's perfectly fine, perhaps someone else will step into the debate on your behalf. First, i think we can all agree we thank you for your service and wish you a safe return. Regardless of political affliation, those that put themselves in danger in the military and in government deserve our appreciation.

I fully understand that a clear majority of those in uniform support the mission. Like every other American, members of the military have the right to their own personal opinion (even as they are prohibited in many ways from expressing that opinion). And like every other American, different members of the military have different motivations for supporting the mission. While your position gives you a special and very personal insight into this mission, it doesn't provide you or any other member of the military a monopoly on being correct.

Do you deserve our full support and backing? Of course. Through my job, I've raised tens of thousands of dollars for phone cards for troops in Iraq. Further, I want you to have every piece of equipment necessary to fulfill your assignments in Iraq and to protect you to the fullest extent possible. However, I don't think that the reasons why you and hundreds of thousands of others are over there are not in the countries best interests. Despite my initial opposition to the war and against my conclusions of what would happen, I hoped for a successful campaign to remove Saddam and that the occupation of Iraq would be short and successful. It wasn't and now we have to deal with that.

I'm glad you posted this. People on both sides of this war forget the personal sacrificies of our military families. Even when individuals return safely, their families have been put through great stress and our government doesn't compensate them enough for it (though, honestly, no amount of compensation can ever make up for the sacrificies).

Sure there are extremes that are hugely excessive. However, history indicates that public dissent strengthens our military missions. There are reasons democracies rarely lose wars--public pressure forces political leaders to correct their mistakes.

You're right, we're in Iraq and there is little reason to debate the decision in terms of what we do next. What is past is past and, in making policy, we must look to the future. However, it is completely valid to hold political leaders accountable for decisions they made in the past.

I disagree that it makes no sense to leave the job (as currently defined) half finished. Before I'm flamed for that, people need to listen to my argument. Our current 'job' is to build democracy in Iraq. However the public is growing weary of the continuing death toll and the apparent lack of real progress in Iraq. Should our 'job' of building democracy require another 2 or 3 years of things being relatively as they are now, it is very likely that public support will continue to dissapate. As a democracy, that will lead to withdrawl. If in 2 years we decide to withdraw and leave Iraq undemocratic and unresolved, than every soldier and Marine that died between today and that point died unnecessarily. If we stay in Iraq simply because we are trying to keep from 'dishonoring' those that had died already, then we trap ourselves in a cyclical loop and our political leaders truly dishonor those that die after we realize that our objectives are unlikely to be achieved and we are simply trying to not admit a mistake was made.

That said, any member of the military that has sacrificed their life in following their orders and trying to achieve their mission deserve our total honor and respect. Regardless of the circumstances surrounding their death.

I think you would agree with me that civilian control of our military was a brilliant concept for this very reason.

I respect that you do not want to debate this issue and I do not seek to shake your support of your mission. Your post was extremely valuable and important and I hope to use it as a springboard to a serious discussion (a VERY difficult thing to achieve in this forum anymore). Again, I thank you for your service and hope only the best for you with your deployment. Now, to moving to the springboard.

I think that while we maintain the current mission of building democracy in Iraq, we are very likely to fail. The American public nor the Congress supported this war to buid democracy in Iraq. While it is a noble goal, it is not an absolute neccesity and was not the reason we were told we were sending troops in harms way. Americans will support building a democracy in Iraq as long as it as easy and not expensive (in terms of soldiers lost). It clearly is not easy and it is expensive.

As someone that believes we made a strategic mistake in going into Iraq, we have to figure out what to do now. A full withdrawl at this moment would be a mistake--it would leave a vacuum that would serve as a terrorist base. Either Al Qaeda affliated groups that have been moving in would take over, or Iran would create a puppet state. US national security interests would be damaged in either case.

However, maintaining the same path is likely to lead to a withdraw later and the same result. An even worse result.

Thus, we must create a new path. Creating a sovereign Iraqi government should remain our objective. Our current ranking of priorities for this government seems to be 1) democratic 2) stable. I would reverse these priorities 1)stable 2)friendly to the US 3) democratic. We must also change how we achieve these objectives. I would call for a massive troup withdrawl, leaving behind a couple batallions for regime protection and massive numbers of advisors and special operations forces. Along with massive air support. Iraqi forces can be trained outside country by the US. Advisors in country can help these forces learn to operate and our air support can help when Iraqi forces come under heavy pressure.

The benefits of this plan are these: 1) it puts an Iraqi face in the lead of protecting Iraq. If the Iraqi government knew that they were largely reliant on Iraqi forces for protection, they would be much more interested in creating a professional and capable force. 2) it would minimize US casualities, relaxing public pressure to withdraw and allowing us to influence the situation in Iraq longer than it currently appears we can.

The shortcomings of this plan: 1) It basically allows that a civil war is going to occur in Iraq and that we will choose a side. 2) We do not create democracy in Iraq. 3) We lose influence in the decisions made by Iraqis.


This is a far from ideal plan. However, we're in a far from ideal situation. I hope people are willing to discuss this in a rational manner and to provide alternatives and improvements. I know some will disagree with the underlying assumptions of my model. I'll debate that as I can, I've spent enough time at work formulating this post.