"Support The Troops"?

[capricorn]

I support the mission, hence I support the troops. If Parliament votes not to extend Canada's involvement in this UN/NATO mandated mission beyond our commitment to Feb. 09, then there will be no mission to support. It's really that simple.

You may support the mission, but that doesn't automatically mean you support the troops. For one thing, you're saying I'm guilty of treason for not supporting the war, yet many of the troops who are there don't suport the war in that they don't believe in the war being just. So obviously you don't support those troops. I support them in that I don't want any more needlessly put in harm's way. I didn't want them there losing their lives in the first place. I'm sure there's a good number of troops who appreciate that kind of support. I also support them in that I don't think it's right to make them keep going back after they've served their time. That's being 'forced' to serve every bit as much as being drafted is, IMO. I also support better benefits, better healthcare when they get back, better treatment while they serve, better equipment as they're sent off to war, etc.

Supporting the troops, not the mission-- the troops, is by no means as "simple" as you claim.

I never said you are guilty of treason. Please read my 10:45 pm post again, which by the way was not addressed to you neither did I quote you. In fact, I said the exact opposite in that post.

Opposition to war is not treason.

As for supporting the troops, I have every reason to do so. I have one son who is a reservist with 11 years full time service. My daughter in law recently spent time in Kandahar providing administrative services for the soldiers serving there. My father served the full term of WWII in Europe. As the child of a veteran and a mother whose family is active within the military, I have more reasons than many to fully support the troops wherever and whenever they represent our country. So in my case, support for our troops is total and unequivocal.

Deployment to Afghanistan is voluntary. No soldier is forced to serve a second deployment. In fact, many of the soldiers themselves request a second tour. As for hoping that none of our soldiers suffer casualties and injuries, well that is a sentiment we share.

[bush_cheney2004]

Supporting the troops, not the mission-- the troops, is by no means as "simple" as you claim.

"Supporting the troops" is just domestic ammunition in a national debate over policy itself, be it Canada or the US. At many different levels, each nation definitely "supports the troops" in tangible ways, from volunteers and their familes, to funding, rememberance days, etc.

Did we speak of "supporting the troops" (or not) during WW2? Such would have been a silly notion and anybody making such a "support" vs. "mission" distinction would have a long day. Instead we spoke of supporting war bonds.

Troops who are in theatre are largely definitely supporting the mission, regardless of any opinion otherwise.

[Guest American Woman]

Troops who are in theatre are largely definitely supporting the mission, regardless of any opinion otherwise.

I disagree. Being forced into doing something doesn't mean you support the action just because you're doing it. When you have no choice but to do it, and that's the only reason you're doing it, it's not the same as supporting it. A lot of the troops are speaking out against the war. Seems to me that's not supporting it.

[bush_cheney2004]

I disagree. Being forced into doing something doesn't mean you support the action just because you're doing it. When you have no choice but to do it, and that's the only reason you're doing it, it's not the same as supporting it. A lot of the troops are speaking out against the war. Seems to me that's not supporting it.

Such nuances are moot...not only have they volunteered as members of the armed forces, they still are materially supporting the mission. They do/did have choices. Many exercised other options and faced the consequences. Others may vote for a change in political leadership, but their actions speak much louder than words.

Grunts don't really want to hear about the luxurious nonsense of "mission support" during a firefight....they need to know that political persuasions will not prevent squad member from sending rounds into the enemy.

Speaking out for or against is one of the things they are fighting for.

[ft.niagara]

Such nuances are moot...not only have they volunteered as members of the armed forces, they still are materially supporting the mission. They do/did have choices. Many exercised other options and faced the consequences.

When you take the oath you pledge to support and defend the Constitution of the US. It is like a contract, for both parties, the government and the individual. Determining whether or not there were WMDs in Iraq was definately supporting and defending the US, and that mission was a valid one. However, an arguement can be made that nation building in Iraq falls outside that contract, and the mission is not valid. No one has approached the arguement in this way because they always fall back on the arguement that if not there, here. But that same arguement was used in VN, and it did not come to pass.

Edited July 29, 2007 by ft.niagara

[bush_cheney2004]

... However, an arguement can be made that nation building in Iraq falls outside that contract, and the mission is not valid. No one has approached the arguement in this way because they always fall back on the arguement that if not there, here. But that same arguement was used in VN, and it did not come to pass.

The history of US foreign policy and military interventions defy any such categorizations. US armed forces had continously engaged Iraq since the Gulf War (1991). "Nation building" per se was the expressed purpose and goal for post WW2 occupation and investment in Japan and Germany against the feared "Red Menace". Other occupation "missions" have lasted over 50 years (e.g. Korea).

Others were happy to invent "humanitarian" missions for US troops in far off lands (e.g. Balkans or Rwanda) with nothing to do with protecting the US Constitution.

Any talk of supporting the troops but not the mission is just grist for the domestic political mill, or cognitive dissonance for those who wouldn't dare being caught spitting on returning troops (again). That is why such parsing is necessary.

[ft.niagara]

The history of US foreign policy and military interventions defy any such categorizations. US armed forces had continously engaged Iraq since the Gulf War (1991). "Nation building" per se was the expressed purpose and goal for post WW2 occupation and investment in Japan and Germany against the feared "Red Menace". Other occupation "missions" have lasted over 50 years (e.g. Korea).

Others were happy to invent "humanitarian" missions for US troops in far off lands (e.g. Balkans or Rwanda) with nothing to do with protecting the US Constitution.

The history of US foreign policy and military interventions does not make this intervention (nation building) appropriate with regard to protecting and defending the Constitution. Those American soldiers are dieing for Iraq. Patton said he did not want to see any American soldier die for his country, and presumably he especially did not want to see American soldiers die for someone elses. Furthermore, it appears that few appreciate the sacrifice of these Americans, so why bother.

Japan, Germany, and Korea now have economies that now rival our own. How does that help the US. A safe Balkans and Rwanda is nice, but how does that help the US. Then there are those on this board who now cheer the downfall of the US. It is all kind of funny if it were not so serious.

I say adopt the Canadian model, make peace and good government a constitutional objective. Let someone else be the global policeman.

[Guest American Woman]

I never said you are guilty of treason. Please read my 10:45 pm post again, which by the way was not addressed to you neither did I quote you. In fact, I said the exact opposite in that post.

Opposition to war is not treason.

As for supporting the troops, I have every reason to do so. I have one son who is a reservist with 11 years full time service. My daughter in law recently spent time in Kandahar providing administrative services for the soldiers serving there. My father served the full term of WWII in Europe. As the child of a veteran and a mother whose family is active within the military, I have more reasons than many to fully support the troops wherever and whenever they represent our country. So in my case, support for our troops is total and unequivocal.

Deployment to Afghanistan is voluntary. No soldier is forced to serve a second deployment. In fact, many of the soldiers themselves request a second tour. As for hoping that none of our soldiers suffer casualties and injuries, well that is a sentiment we share.

Sorry. I had you mixed up with B. Max. I apologize for that.

As for deployment to Afghanistan being voluntary in Canada, it's not that way in the States, and a good number of the troops here have been forced to serve second deployments after having served their full time; so I'm not just talking a second tour, I'm talking about being forced to return to the military and being deployed. As I said, I see little difference between that and the draft.

[bush_cheney2004]

...I say adopt the Canadian model, make peace and good government a constitutional objective. Let someone else be the global policeman.

Somebody else is.....the Canadian model is for Canada.

[bush_cheney2004]

Sorry. I had you mixed up with B. Max. I apologize for that.

As for deployment to Afghanistan being voluntary in Canada, it's not that way in the States, and a good number of the troops here have been forced to serve second deployments after having served their full time; so I'm not just talking a second tour, I'm talking about being forced to return to the military and being deployed. As I said, I see little difference between that and the draft.

Too bad they weren't forced to read their enlistment contracts. It is very different from the draft. Extended tours, stop loss orders, reactivation, etc. are all part of "voluntary" service. Anyone who equates it with quitting a "job" simply hasn't served.

[Higgly]

Undermining their mission is not supporting the troops, in a time of war it is considered treason.

Thank you Bill O'Reilly. Or is it Reilly? Or is it even important?

[Higgly]

Japan, Germany, and Korea now have economies that now rival our own. How does that help the US. A safe Balkans and Rwanda is nice, but how does that help the US. Then there are those on this board who now cheer the downfall of the US. It is all kind of funny if it were not so serious.

I say adopt the Canadian model, make peace and good government a constitutional objective. Let someone else be the global policeman.

Unlike Japan, Iraq was not threat to the US and never attacked the US directly.

The entire George W Bush invasion of Iraq was meant to reduce pressure on Israel. The idea for the US to invade Iraq came first from the Likud Party under Netenyahu. The guys who dreamed the idea up were Richard Perle (former board member for convicted felon Conrad Black) and Paul Wolfowitz when they were working for Netenyahu during the election that took place after the assasination of Itzhak Rabin.

This is all Likud's doing and if the US was not run by complete idiots, it never would have happened. It is time to recognize the ongoing role that Israel plays in the state of perpetual war that exists in the middle east.

[ft.niagara]

Unlike Japan, Iraq was not threat to the US and never attacked the US directly.

The entire George W Bush invasion of Iraq was meant to reduce pressure on Israel. The idea for the US to invade Iraq came first from the Likud Party under Netenyahu. The guys who dreamed the idea up were Richard Perle (former board member for convicted felon Conrad Black) and Paul Wolfowitz when they were working for Netenyahu during the election that took place after the assasination of Itzhak Rabin.

This is all Likud's doing and if the US was not run by complete idiots, it never would have happened. It is time to recognize the ongoing role that Israel plays in the state of perpetual war that exists in the middle east.

Nice thoery, but only that. The WMD thoery makes more sense, especially after 911, anthrax, and Iraq's history of being a rogue nation.

With regard to Israel, the US did not create Israel, it inherited it after Europe flushed itself of Jews. IMO, Isreal is Europe's responsability to guarantee survivability, but they have not done so. And so what is Higgly's solution for Israel?

[FascistLibertarian]

I support the mission but not the troops.

(kidden)

[Higgly]

Nice thoery, but only that. The WMD thoery makes more sense, especially after 911, anthrax, and Iraq's history of being a rogue nation.

With regard to Israel, the US did not create Israel, it inherited it after Europe flushed itself of Jews. IMO, Isreal is Europe's responsability to guarantee survivability, but they have not done so. And so what is Higgly's solution for Israel?

The WMD theory? Too bad the weapons inspectors were not allowed to complete their mission, since they were proving the theory wrong.

Most of the foundation for the state of Israel was laid before Krystalnacht.

My solution for Israel is that it pull back to the 1967 borders - including moving the Sharon Wall back to those borders, give up all of the settlements, compensate Palestinians for the land they lost inside the 1967 borders, as well as for the years they have lost in refugee camps, sign and ratify the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and sign and ratify the Geneva Conventions.

[ft.niagara]

The WMD theory? Too bad the weapons inspectors were not allowed to complete their mission, since they were proving the theory wrong.

Most of the foundation for the state of Israel was laid before Krystalnacht.

My solution for Israel is that it pull back to the 1967 borders - including moving the Sharon Wall back to those borders, give up all of the settlements, compensate Palestinians for the land they lost inside the 1967 borders, as well as for the years they have lost in refugee camps, sign and ratify the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and sign and ratify the Geneva Conventions.

In the aftermath of 911, no one really trusted Saddam, nor should they have. The weapons inspectors appeared to all to have agendas.

Although the foundation of the state of Israel was laid before WWII, it sure got a shot in the arm by it.

Your solution to Israel is probably sound, but too bad also that the Palestinians rejected Clinton's preace plan since all the compensations you suggest would come from the US. Too bad the rest of the world will either not pony up or turns a blind eye, and the Palestinians have had such uncompromising leadership.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20121787/site/newsweek/

Edited August 8, 2007 by ft.niagara

[kp186]

While the political and moral issues of our troops being in Afghanistan are indeed the stuff of barroom fights and endless debate there is one aspect that I have not seen or heard mentioned - experience. If we're going to maintain a professional military let's realize what that means. These are the people we pay to do our fighting and dying for us. The more experience they have then the fewer of them will come home in boxes. A military needs to get into a fight once in a while just to maintain combat know-how. All the training and simulation in the world can't prepare you for the real thing. The troops in basic training now will benefit from the experiences of those who are over there now and that kind of information is invaluable and irreplaceable. The last big to-do we were in was Korea and it's a much different world now. We owe it to our troops to let them do what a military is supposed to do and that means getting experience in actual combat so that we keep our "edge". If we aren't willing to send troops into harm's way then why bother having a military?

[Army Guy]

kp186:

As a soldier whom has completed 2 tours in Afgan, i have some reservations about experiance and how you described it.

A military needs to get into a fight once in a while just to maintain combat know-how. All the training and simulation in the world can't prepare you for the real thing.

Not true, if our army does not have that experiance or know how it will seek it out from other nations. Leasons learned are continously being added to our training from all sources around the globe , only thing is missing is actual rounds going over your head.

The only thing missing is how each soldier is going to react to incoming rounds fired in his direction in anger. and nothing can prepare a soldier for that, every fire fight is different a vet may freeze, or hesitiate at any time...

The last big to-do we were in was Korea and it's a much different world now. We owe it to our troops to let them do what a military is supposed to do and that means getting experience in actual combat so that we keep our "edge". If we aren't willing to send troops into harm's way then why bother having a military

Regardless of how much combat time Canadian soldiers have had, we have proven ourselfs around the globe on many occasions after Korea, such as Cyprus when the Airbourne made a combat jump between the greeks and turks and pushed both sides back....Medak pocket in bosina....and many many more. and we have maintained our status of being some of the worlds finest soldiers.

As for keeping our edge we as Canadian soldiers have never lost it. nor will we. As a soldier that has seen combat up close i have no wish to see it again, i would not shirk it , but i'm not going looking for it . We don't need to be in constant combat to be ready when you call.

[Melanie_]

While the political and moral issues of our troops being in Afghanistan are indeed the stuff of barroom fights and endless debate there is one aspect that I have not seen or heard mentioned - experience. If we're going to maintain a professional military let's realize what that means. These are the people we pay to do our fighting and dying for us. The more experience they have then the fewer of them will come home in boxes. A military needs to get into a fight once in a while just to maintain combat know-how. All the training and simulation in the world can't prepare you for the real thing. The troops in basic training now will benefit from the experiences of those who are over there now and that kind of information is invaluable and irreplaceable. The last big to-do we were in was Korea and it's a much different world now. We owe it to our troops to let them do what a military is supposed to do and that means getting experience in actual combat so that we keep our "edge". If we aren't willing to send troops into harm's way then why bother having a military?

Are you saying that we have to go to war once in a while just for the practice?

[Guest coot]

Any talk of supporting the troops but not the mission is just grist for the domestic political mill, or cognitive dissonance for those who wouldn't dare being caught spitting on returning troops (again). That is why such parsing is necessary.

Speaking of cognitive dissonance and selective parsing to make one's position more palatable, any talk of supporting the troops and the mission is simply an oxymoron. No one who has any respect for them whatsoever would support them suffering and dying while the Bush administration kills time until they can pass on the messy, inevitable retreat to another president.

[Higgly]

In the aftermath of 911, no one really trusted Saddam, nor should they have. The weapons inspectors appeared to all to have agendas.

Trusted him for what? He was hogtied by no-fly zones and embargoes. Saddam was just a straw man. Agendas for what? To look for weapons? Appeared where? On CNN? I had to laugh out loud when I saw those CNN guys in helmets and flak jackets reporting from 700 light years behind enemy lines and being handed briefing papers by the US military. Reminded me of an article I once saw in the National Enquirer while waiting in line to pay for my groceries: US Fakes Moon Landing.