Support the Troops … But Bring Them Home
I was moseying through Kris’ blog earlier and came across a post entitled “Support?” where she mentions seeing a vehicle with two ribbons on it, one saying “Support the Troops” and the other, immediately underneath it, saying “Bring Them Home Now“.
Now I know there’s a good chance I may once again find myself on the “wrong side of the house” but… well, that’s never stopped me before! Here’s the thing, I don’t believe the two sentiments are necessarily incompatible.
First of all, let me say that this isn’t my personal opinion. I think the troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan need to stay where they are and keep doing what they are doing. And I am grateful that they are there doing it on our behalf.
But I do believe a person could honestly feel that they support the troops AND want them brought back home. Now, remember, not me talking, but I have given this some thought.
In my mind, not supporting the troops would look like some of the crap you often hear some on the Left say….”the American troops are babykillers, they are no better or are worse than Saddam. Every time I hear another one is killed, I say ‘Good’!”
Obviously, no one is going to confuse that sentiment with ”supporting the troops”.
But supporting the troops, yet not the mission might look something like this …
IÂ have real respect for our soldiers fighting over there. And I don’t want anything to bad to happen to them. I know the majority of them probably think that they are “doing the right thing”. But…..
and here it could go one of two ways…..the person could think either
” … because I don’t want any more of them killled, I want them to come home. I actually feel like its because I support the troops so much that I want them to be safe, I want them home”.
Or the other way it could go is like this
” … the politicians made the choice to send the troops there. And I disagree with the politicians. The soldiers are, pardon the pun, only the foot soldiers. I have no trouble with them, they are just following orders, doing as they are told, doing their jobs. But I disagree with their political masters. Politically I don’t think they should be there. So as much as I respect the soldiers and appreciate that they put their lives on the line for their country every day, in the bigger picture I am not okay with what my country is doing. And BTW because I appreciate and respect the soldiers, the more of them I see die, the more upsetting this whole mission, that I think is wrong in the first place, is for me.”
Now I know I’ve heard comments before to the effect that the soldiers feel that we have to support what they are actually doing over there in order to be supporting them … or something like that. So I will give you, it may not be supporting the troops exactly the way they would like to be supported, but I still think that it can be considered supporting the troops. Just not their political masters.
I guess that one has been perculating for awhile. Not quite sure why. But at any rate, just my thoughts. But perhaps I am simply niave?Â
Posted by Michelle
On August 28th, 2007 under GWOT.
Comments: 19
Comments
Comment from unkawil
Time: August 28, 2007, 10:03 pm
First off, I have a new post up at my site. Feel free to check it out.
Michelle, I would never call you niave, Misguided perhaps.
I would also not call anyone in the Armed forces niave either.
ALL persons in our Military are there by choice, they know what they signed up for, as do I.
There is a great evil set loose upon the world, and we Americans,with help from our gallant friends, have chosen to combat this evil where we find it.
Currently Iraq, Afghanistan, The Horn of Africa,Pakistan.The Phillipenes and some other out of the way places you might not be aware of. Make no mistake this is a global war and will continue for the rest of our lives. Not because we want it to, but because the other side is not willing to quit.
We have Iran and Syria up next at bat, and we must kick their butts too,all the while, fighting around the rest of the world.
Comment from unkawil
Time: August 28, 2007, 10:05 pm
Hey Cap’n since when did we go to moderation?
Comment from lex
Time: August 28, 2007, 10:14 pm
Some class of quirk, sorry will.
Comment from Jeopardy
Time: August 29, 2007, 6:25 am
I think that each of the two thoughts can be considered “supporting the troops”. I probably have more left-leaning non-military friends than conservative ones. Although they may not approve of the current administration and it’s policies, I know that they support me and everyone I serve with. Its possible to do both. Send care packages, fly a flag, greet a returning soldier at the airport. Doing these things doesn’t make you’re a “neo-con” or a “Bushie”. It makes you a patriotic American. Unfortunately, these Democrats don’t get the headlines or soundbites. Maybe it’s because they don’t use those enormous paper-mache puppets?
Also, I agree with unkawill. This ain’t going to be over anytime soon. Iraq is only one long battle in a much longer war.
Comment from KrisinNewEngland
Time: August 29, 2007, 7:30 am
Michelle, I guess I’m flattered that you used my post on Supporting the Troops to do a very gentle “fisking”. And I agree with Unkawill – you are not naive.
One of the thoughts you provided above – excerpted below – is to me the perfect illustration of why someone can’t have it both ways – support them but bring them home:
“…I know the majority of them probably think that they are “doing the right thingâ€. But…”
I have a fundamental problem with that statement. It implies that what they are doing isn’t the right thing, and therefore indicates that the person making that kind of statement truly doesn’t support them, because they believe the military is wrong.
The statement about wanting to bring them home to keep them safe because a person supports them – is just silly (sorry). A soldier is a soldier for a reason – and for the vast majority it’s serving actively “in theater”, using their training to take down the bad guys and help those who can’t help themselves.
Comment from KrisinNewEngland
Time: August 29, 2007, 7:31 am
Oh and Michelle – stopping by a person’s blog and not commenting is like coming to their house and not sitting down.
By all means comment – good, bad, indifferent – you know how we all are, our egos love the traffic… 
Comment from Nose
Time: August 29, 2007, 12:54 pm
Michelle,
There is an old leadership story that goes like this:
Your people and their well being should always be your first priority as a leader, but in the Military, they cannot always be.
If a mission involves danger, then putting your people and their well being as your first priority would by definition result in a failed mission. In the military, if the mission is critical, then the well being of those participating in the mission are secondary.
I don’t know if Lex ever explained the term, but I know I have seen him use it around here. “Government Time” is the part of the mission where your well-being, and/or the well being of your troops takes a back seat to getting the mission done. Being on Government Time means that you cannot get a good solution to the risk/reward problem and your risk management says “don’t” but the mission says “do.”
For reasons that we discuss often, most of us believe that Iraq/Afgan and GWOT are critical missions.
So you CAN support the troops and want them home, but you CANNOT support the mission and want the troops home.
(And since most troops support the mission – I’m not sure that demanding they come home is supporting them at all.)
Best
Nose
Comment from unkawil
Time: August 29, 2007, 2:18 pm
“By all means comment – good, bad, indifferent – you know how we all are, our egos love the traffic”
So true Kris, I think the feedback is what is most gratifying, with this whole blogging thingie!
Good analogy Nose
Comment from Max Damage
Time: August 29, 2007, 11:08 pm
Isn’t this kind of like saying, “Well, my brother’s an alkie and my mother’s a klepto, but gosh darn it I love them anyway?” Sort of a back-handed showing of support in a gee, love the sinner but hate the sin sort of way.
Military and politics never go together. Since the military are an instrument of political policy, their job is to enforce that policy and support on that mission is what they deserve. If one dislikes the policy, there are ways of making that known that do not involve the military, call into question the validity of their mission, nor require the author to list his or her patriotic resume prior to adding “, but” to the end of the sentence.
– Max
Comment from doorkeeper
Time: September 2, 2007, 12:33 pm
Gee, M, it’s too bad I missed this one.
d
Comment from Michelle
Time: September 2, 2007, 2:09 pm
G’day, fellow Flight Deckers.
Posted this on Tuesday and then left to go camping Wednesday morning… no, I was NOT hiding! LOL
Thanks for the comments. I guess this is bandied around so much as a “given” (that you can’t support the troops and think they shouldn’t be “there” at the same time) that I wanted to take it on; that, perhaps, some people could be sincere in their own minds in thinking both thoughts simultaneously.
Makes perfect sense to me, Nose.
So why can’t some support the troops without supporting the mission? I think that was actually what I was trying (in my own awkward way) to say. And I think (hope) it was clear in my writing, I was trying to say that I could see how some might actually think that way, not that these were my own personal thoughts on the issue.
Kris, I would hate to be a bad guest. Tell you what, put the kettle on or have me a cold one ready (depending on the time of day). I promise to be back soon. The camper is unpacked but it does appear that a tornado has landed in the kitchen.
PS Hate to admit my ignorance, but “fisking”?
Comment from Huck Finn
Time: September 3, 2007, 9:00 am
Nose said, “(And since most troops support the mission – I’m not sure that demanding they come home is supporting them at all.)”
Nose, it’s not about the troops supporting the mission. Support is emotional. It’s absolutely (and only) about executing the mission.
If you’re told to eat a sandwich, that’s the mission. It doesn’t matter whether it’s a Tri-tip sandwich or a $hit sandwich, yer gonna eat it. You’ll enjoy one and gag down the other, but either way you’ll execute.
Comment from KrisinNewEngland
Time: September 4, 2007, 6:49 am
Michelle: here is a definition of Fisking:
“describing detailed point-by-point criticism that highlights errors, disputes the analysis of presented facts, or highlights other problems in a statement, article, or essay”
Comment from Michelle
Time: September 4, 2007, 7:57 am
Oh.
Oops.
Sorry, it wasn’t intended quite that way. Your post just presented an opportunity and helped solidify something that had been floating around in my head for a while.
Comment from Nose
Time: September 4, 2007, 10:09 am
Huck,
Professionally, you are correct. But if you think that those in the military (and even the Air Force) don’t have a personal, emotional stake in things, then you read too much Clancy.
Personally, each person gets to chose wheter they support them mission “emotionally” as you say, or they don’t. That doesn’t change how the mission is executed, it just changes things like morale, retention, order and discipline, etc.
It has been my observation that most people involved in OEF/OIF support the mission. Retention numbers remain high and despite what MSM says, morale is good.
You can force people to eat a crap sandwich, but you can’t force them to do it again when their MSR is complete. The fact that a pretty good number of people do return leads me to believe that p’haps the sammich ain’t so crappy after all.
Best
Nose
Comment from doorkeeper
Time: September 4, 2007, 1:02 pm
What I find the most telling personally, from my little corner of the world, is that our “weekend warriors”, who train one weekend a month, two weeks in the summer, and are universally looked-down-upon by all and sundry as “play soldiers” and for most of whom, drill is badly needed extra pay with no real expectation of being deployed……..
Suddenly these boys are thrust into the forefront of this mission, retrained for where they’re needed regardless of what they’ve spent all those weekends doing, and carrying the brunt of the job….(is that not true? that there are more National Guard troops in Iraq than regular Army? It’s a claim I keep hearing but can find no information on.)
Wives who’ve bitched all along at having him gone for a weekend, and etc……have to face LONGER DEPLOYMENTS THAN ANY OTHER SERVICE, and MORE FREQUENT REPEATED DEPLOYMENTS THAN ANYONE ELSE (especially in PA)
Still, our boys are signing the papers for yet another hitch…..
and when we hear of another upcoming deployment, to yet another hellhole, details fuzzy and constantly changing……
they don’t bail before stop-loss goes into effect, they don’t quit, they don’t retire, they dont’ find some reason not to go……..even our wounded try to get back there with “our boys.”
So those who are seeing it firsthand…….aren’t giving up, when they so easily could.
Tells me a lot.
Fisk away, I’m a big girl!
doorkeeper
Comment from Michelle
Time: September 4, 2007, 1:50 pm
doorkeeper, who’s going to fisk you?
And about what? 
Comment from doorkeeper
Time: September 7, 2007, 7:24 am
It’s just such a cool word…..and sounds like frisk…..which has its own excitement…..
You’ll remember how I threatened to raise Cain in the airport, so I could get frisked? Get a cheap thrill while the MSG was gone?
d
Comment from KrisinNewEngland
Time: September 7, 2007, 11:21 am
Michelle – that’s why I said it was a “very gentle fisking”…but I should amend my original comment since, in the end, you found that you agreed with the overall sentiments expressed in my original post. So – I’ve had my first fisking and I survived. I’d rather it happened from a fellow Lex Babe than some troll…
Write a comment