I support the troops, I do not support the war

I have seen numerous posts that it is impossible to support the troops, but not support the war.

And to that I say that unquestioned support of the military mission is not supporting the troops but instead treating them as a disposable tool.

First I want to make it clear that I supported the war in Iraq initially. My present opposition comes from the incredible incompetence of the Bush administration and the leadership of the military. Sending our troops to fight under these incompetents is sending them to die needlessly.

Second, I have incredible respect for the job our troops did in the initial run up to Baghdad. This part was one of the most amazing campaigns in the history of warfare. No other country could do this - ever. It was fast, it was effective, and it was accomplished with less collateral damage than probably any battle in a populated area in the last 200 years.

Third, I have a lot of respect for the job the troops on the ground are doing. In an impossible situation they are accomplishing miracles daily. And they are doing good things. Things would be a lot worse if not for the efforts of the troops on the ground.

The fight in Iraq is not an isolated war. It is (and was sold as) part of the Global War on Terror. So Iraq is not a self contained war we must win in order for our country to survive. Instead it is a single theater of operations or a campaign in the GWoT.

The GWoT must be won. But we should not fight every campaign. Doing that lets the enemy determine where we will apply resources. Fighting a pointless battle that merely kills our soldiers is akin to the battle of Fredericksburg. I postulate that you cannot both support the troops and support fighting these types of wasteful fights.

Our military and civilian leadership in Iraq is similar to that Gen. Burnside in the Civil War. Except that unlike Lincoln, Bush keeps the incompetents. Bush does not use the option of replacing the Burnside's with Sherman's. Bush is no Lincoln, he is no FDR. So in this case the only way to support the troops is to leave Iraq.

We also face the problem that things are not getting better in Iraq - they're getting worse. Yes you can find some statistic somewhere to show something is improving (there are lies, damn lies, and statistics). But by any realistic measure the trend has continued downward over our time there. As Einstein said, insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results.

Fighting in Iraq is not working. Yes our troops have made tremendous sacrifices there; dead, wounded, PTSD, etc. And yes if we leave some of those loses will have been in vain. But continuing to have more loses won't change that.

Finally, there is only so much we can do for the Iraqis. Eventually they have to decide what government they are willing to fight for among themselves. This may mean a civil war, this may mean a democracy, this may mean a dictatorship. But as long as we have troops there, the Iraqis do not need to stand up and make their decision.

So yes, I respect and support our troops. And yes, I think we need to leave Iraq.

Please click here for part II of this post.

postscripts: SGT Mike Stokely, Thank You

trackbacks: Mudville Gazette, DailyKOS, California Conservative, FullosseousFlap, Sweetness & Light, bandit.three.six, The Thunder Run, Iraq The Model

Comments

[Purple Avenger]

Sending our troops to fight under these incompetents is sending them to die needlessly.

Naturally you felt similarly about the FDR administration that "incompetently" failed to react to all the Japanese signals that something was coming when they hit Pearl. Of course you did ;->

[Muse Unamused]

Though intelligently written, your article is illogical. You were for the war before you were against it. I'll never forget the deep sinking sensation I felt when our invasion of Iraq was announced. Anyone with personal experience working with Arabs in an arab country knows how difficult it is to get an individual in that culture to take responsibility; the majority of individuals there fear responsibility. Of course there are many outstanding people in any country, including Iraq. We see the magnificent sacrifice by the brave Iraqi police. Nonetheless, in any country when push comes to shove, the majority step back, and you sir, have stepped back just as so many of Iraqi population play the wait and see game, unwilling to venture their lives on a dream, even if the dream is their own. You condemn those in authority as completely incompetent without providing specifics to substantiate your argument. Your glimpses of the Iraqi situation are certainly not first hand; and you are not included in the briefings by those authorities abreast of the situation. Your point that people are unwilling to take responsibility so long as someone else is babysitting does not excuse throwing the baby out with the bath water. As a father, you understand the longevity in parental responsibilities. Civil war or not, logistically speaking, the West needs a democratic Iraq in order for freedom to exist in the world. Islamofacism is much more horrific than the reality that Nazis presented and forced upon the world. Either you support our troops where ever they are, or you don't. This is not an imperialist thrust from the USA; Iraq is a life line for world freedom. Never give up; Islamofacism hurts worse than you can imagine.

[paul clark]

Rock solid statements of truth John Boyle. How can anyone logically rebut that? Emotionally would be my guess...without a trace of reason and draped all over with the pretense of the cloak of patriotism.

[judy curtis]

And what do you think about this war being really over oil? And since we've spent over 300 billion and lost close to 3000 troops, are you ready to now go to Iran as Pres. Bush wishes?

[Franklin Howe]

You explained your position well. It makes no sense.
You would have been appalled during WWII. Iwo Jima would have put you in contraction.
Where do you draw a line? When the going gets tough, many people are looong gone. You sir would be one.

[bandit.three.six]

David,

You say the following:

"We also face the problem that things are not getting better in Iraq - they're getting worse. Yes you can find some statistic somewhere to show something is improving (there are lies, damn lies, and statistics). But by any realistic measure the trend has continued downward over our time there. As Einstein said, insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results."

Ok, I can offer these "damn lies" as you call it showing how we're winning and things are getting better. What can you offer showing me that this downward trend is continuing over here?

You also say that fighting isn't working. I'd like to hear more about what it is you base these claims on? How do you get your information? I'm assuming it's not first hand.

Finally, you can disagree with the methods and/or reasons of the war all you want, but when you start broadcasting that our mission over here is wrong or a failure you are not supporting the troops.

Let me try to explain something. It may be difficult for someone who has never been in the military to understand, but for a troop the mission (winning the war) comes first. The mission is the reason we're here. The mission must be accomplished. When people tell us that our mission isn't worth supporting we hear them say, "You aren't worth supporting." The mission is something greater than all of us, it's legacy and our contribution to it will live on long after us. When people like you tell us that that legacy will be a shameful one, this is not supporting the troops.

If you support me, stop telling me that my mission isn't worth it.

[bandit.three.six]

John Boyle,

Very well said!

B36

[John Boyle]

The important thing is that the troops support the war, for the very obvious reason that one cannot maintain sanity in combat without believing in what one is doing.

Anyone who thinks he can attack what the troops are engaged in, and at the same time "support" them, has no concept of, or experience in, actual military operations, and no common sense about the emotional cost and psychological commitment needed to engage in such actions.

All this cognitive dissonance does is kick at one of Clausewitz's three necessary legs for the successful prosecution of a nation's military operations - the support of the people (the other two being the support of the military and the support of the government).

If your actual agenda is to bring the United States down a peg, or more, by promoting its military failure, you are on the right track - and an intellectually dishonest track at that; or at least a psychologically ignorant one.

If you oppose the war, say so, but acknowledge that this stand hurts the troops engaged in the conflict in the most fundamental way possible. You can't have your cake and eat it to; you cannot stand up against a war you do not believe in without subverting those executing that war, whether your intention is to harm them or not. There is operating here a typical self-serving delusional paradox that liberals seem incapable of seeing or admitting.

And, since your stated objection to this war is not it purposes but its execution (alleged incompetence), then why not suggest solutions, alternate strategies? Why do liberals think surrender is a solution to anything? How committed and informed was your so-called support in the first place?

Can you even imagine the consequences of doing what you suggest? Apparently not. So try to remember the actual consequences the last time those with your mind set had their way - in 1975.