Let's Discuss the War: Can One Support The Troops While Opposing the War?

Scott:

A soldier on the ground with a rifle is an instrument of national policy. Same as foreign aid, diplomacy, trade agreements and cruise missiles.

Can you say, "Oh, I oppose the war but I support the cruise missiles?" Or, "I support the war but I oppose Secretary Rice?" Don't be an idiot.

If you support a policy, then you support the instrumentality to implement it; if you oppose a policy, then you oppose the instrumentality involved.

All of this public display about supporting the troops--from BOTH sides--is childish, cloying, sentimental romantic hogwash which only serves--again, I condemn both sides here--to obscure the essential fact contained in the first sentence of this comment. To put it another way ....

If the benefits outweigh the costs, as when national survival is at stake, then not even a million dead soldiers is enough to discredit the policy. If, on the other hand, the costs outweigh the benefits, even one dead soldier is too many. That's kind of a big difference, isn't it? Between 1 on the one hand and 1,000,000 on the other? What accounts for that difference? I'll tell you: Our judgment of national policy.

You want it in even stronger terms? Okay. Rob Bellew is my friend and I don't want him to die. Yet, also, I am a citizen of a nation and he is an instrument of national policy. I must therefore recognize and accept that Rob might have to die. Tomorrow. As an instrument of policy. Of the nation of which I am a citizen. If I support the policy then in effect I must declare "Even if Rob dies, I'm okay with that." If I oppose the policy then in effect I must declare "Abandon your post, Rob, and return home with the deaths of your comrades having been in vain." Talk about brutal truth. Ouch. Rocks and hard places. Argh.

That's a cruel, terrible, ugly, bloody, ruthless thing I just said but War is a cruel, terrible, ugly, bloody ruthless business. You're never going to get "common ground" because the gap between "A million dead in the national interest" and "One dead not in the national interest" is too big to bridge.

If you think, after all, that what I said above is too hard to deal with on this thread, just delete this comment, I won't appeal it.

Rob 2.10 on the Public thread:

And at times it can be pretty demoralizing to both the troops over here and the families back home. Yes, I do feel most of the anti-war people do "support the troops" but sometimes they need to remember that by using mistakes or problems that other soldiers might do as a political attack point it also feels as if you are attacking us.

It sucks to be you then, doesn't it?

I don't care what you feel about what you see of the anti-war movement. Do you not get it that politicians who support the war are also using you to generate support for the war in the same that you feel politicians who attack the war policy are attacking you?

Between you, Rob Bellew, a person who is in the military doing his duty and serving my country in a dangerous place, and me, Jack Gillis, a person who is an adjunct professor in a cozy Boston suburb and close observer of the news, we can construct a personal relationship that includes my wishing you well, and safety and my listening carefully to what you say in your personal narratives of life in Iraq and responding respectfully and genially. We can even disagree on things and maintain that pertsonal connection.

But at the POLICY level, I am not Jack and you are not Rob. I am a "Citizen of the Republic" and you are a "Soldier of the Republic." When you talk about latrines and steaks and your roommate, you're Rob. But in terms of American foreign policy, you are not Rob--you are, as I said in the first comment in this thread, merely an instrument of national policy. You aren't Rob Bellew, you're "A Soldier under the command of George W. Bush, President of the United States."

When we talk about you as a person, you can be Rob. But when we talk about Iraq policy, you're simply "A soldier on the ground with a rifle." To quote Michael Corleone in that chilling scene where he disowns Fredo, "I don't even want to know your name."

As a Citizen of the Republic, it is both my right and my duty, repeat, my duty to oppose policies that in good faith I believe damage the national interest. And I happen to believe that Bush has implemented a foreign policy that weakens the United States. You are an instrument of that policy.

If you feel demoralized by the anti-war movement and anti-war politicians, well, that's too bad but it can't be helped. It's part of the price you pay for being a Soldier of the Republic. I can't worry about your feelings because I think something much more important is at stake: The Good of the Nation.

As a citizen it is your resonsiblity to voice your concern over policys that put our troops in harms way. You can support our troops without blindly following policy.