Is there no good news in the world? There's precious little in this thread.

[lizziebith]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Ya know, by and large, I do not support our troops. I don't want any of them killed, but - though many did so as the only way to dig out of poverty - they volunteered for their duties. If they have the illusion that America is a beneficent military force, which it has rarely been since WWII, then I fault their judgment. If they recognize the U.S. military for what it is, then I fault their motives.

I wish them safety and a speedy return home to their families. I wish them free from trauma and guilt. I wish them free from committing barbaric horrors and from having such inflicted upon them.

But they went into this willingly, and I do not support their chosen avocation of war.

I agree. Except for the willingly part. Most of those folks are kids who signed on, as you pointed out, for economic reasons. Others joined up in a kind of "we won't actually go to war" hopeful mindset...(I know a couple of those). I think that the military doesn't provide full EMPHATIC disclosure to these kids it signs on as, um, militia-fodder these days. So I support the poor mis-guided folks hoping to get a college eddication who got Iraq instead. (or who thought it was going to be like a video game: have you SEEN the latest recruitment spots???) But I don't support what they got sent to. I think that's how most of us libs feel.

The current administration is playing fast-and-loose with the idea of "hero" to get more young folk to sign up. I don't like it.

ETA: but then again, I don't like much. Except you. You, I like.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by lizziebith

I agree. Except for the willingly part.

So, do you know longer support them when they reenlist? (The military is having trouble with recruitment but continues to have stronger than predicted reenlistment from soldiers who have actually been to Iraq.)

While I support the war (though not for the reasons that the Administration has flailed about trying to win the PR battle with) I do not think it is possible to be opposed to the war and support our troops. Opposition to the war means thinking we are wrong to be engaged in it. The appropriate result for a nation wrongfully engaged in war is defeat. The method of defeat in most wars is to have an awful lot of your soldiers killed.

It is fine to say that you don't want any soldier to die, but by opposing the war you are saying, in my opinion, that our soldier's death is preferable to their victory (which is a reasonable point of view, just not one I share in this case).

[€uroMeinke]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

It is fine to say that you don't want any soldier to die, but by opposing the war you are saying, in my opinion, that our soldier's death is preferable to their victory (which is a reasonable point of view, just not one I share in this case).

I think you can always hope for non-violent solutions to a conflict - not everything need be reduced to a dicotomy of win-lose or Life- Death. It's that kind of thinking that causes violence to persist.

[Alex]

Yes, you can hope for a non-violent solution, but if in the absence of one you would prefer that we win, then how opposed to the war are you? Pretty much everybody would prefer that wars end without death.

By preferring that our soldiers successfully kill instead of being killed you are essentially saying "I'd prefer that there be no war at all, but if there is one then I support its success."

[Scrooge McSam]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

...but if in the absence of one...

Right THERE! That's where we split. You have accepted a position that war was unavoidable. It is not possible for me to disagree more strongly with you than I do on that one point.

It's also what makes it possible for me to reject your argument that to oppose this war is to wish for the death of our troops.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Scrooge McSam

Right THERE! That's where we split. You have accepted a position that war was unavoidable. It is not possible for me to disagree more strongly with you than I do on that one point.

Wrong. War is unavoidable because the president is persuing a war. You oppose his decision to do this but now that it is happening, do you support the war and its aims or oppose it (and therefore think it should fail)?

You can hope for a peaceful solution and advocate such but since the president has chosen a different course and is fighting a war you consider unjust can you support the successful persuit of that war? If so, then you are not opposing the war, you just haven't placed it at the top of your list of preferred options. You consider it better to not do something unjust but if something unjust is to be done then you prefer that we are successful in doing it.

You can not simultaneously consider this war immoral and hope our soldiers are victorious. That is like saying "I would prefer my brother not rape people but since he is doing it anyway I hope he gets away with it."

If I considered this war to be immoral I too would advocate for its end by withdrawal but while it was happening I would hope that our soldiers failed in every effort to kill those on the other side and that the other side was as successful as necessary to cause that failure.

By saying "I oppose the war but support the troops" you are failing to take a moral stand on the war itself. You are trying to have your cake and eat it too. Rather than deal with the reality of the situation you are retreating to wishful thinking about what you wish had happened.

[Prudence]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

You can not simultaneously consider this war immoral and hope our soldiers are victorious. That is like saying "I would prefer my brother not rape people but since he is doing it anyway I hope he gets away with it."

Is it not more like saying "I consider this war immoral, but unlike Vietnam I will not hold our soldiers personally responsible"? My impression is that the majority of those who remain opposed to the war want to distance themselves from protestors of prior wars (or police actions, as the case may be) who took out their displeasure on the soliders themselves. Of course, "we hate the war but we won't spit on you!" doesn't have the same catchy ring to it.

[lizziebith]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

So, do you know longer support them when they reenlist? (The military is having trouble with recruitment but continues to have stronger than predicted reenlistment from soldiers who have actually been to Iraq.)

While I support the war (though not for the reasons that the Administration has flailed about trying to win the PR battle with) I do not think it is possible to be opposed to the war and support our troops. Opposition to the war means thinking we are wrong to be engaged in it. The appropriate result for a nation wrongfully engaged in war is defeat. The method of defeat in most wars is to have an awful lot of your soldiers killed.

It is fine to say that you don't want any soldier to die, but by opposing the war you are saying, in my opinion, that our soldier's death is preferable to their victory (which is a reasonable point of view, just not one I share in this case).

When I said "except for the willingly" part, to which you are responding above, I was referring to the reasons for the initial enlistment of the soldier -- that is that many are in the service due to a lack of other career options. Well, maybe you did get that and are just extrapolating to the re-enlistment issue, which I still feel would be governed by the same conditions, plus familiarity. Can I hold that against the soldiers? Of course not.

I disagree that the appropriate result of opposition to the war is defeat (how about simple withdrawal?) and I don't at all get the leap from opposing the war to wanting the soldiers to die rather than be victorious. Those aren't the only options here. Withdrawal would prevent those deaths, wouldn't they? Are you equating withdrawal with defeat? And how is pursuing "victory" going to prevent more soldiers from dying?

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by lizziebith

Are you equating withdrawal with defeat?

While I realize you are directing this question at Alex, I most certainly would regard withdrawal as defeat.

Osama bin Laden cited our lack of ability to stomach the ugliness of casualities in Somalia as part of his strategy in his campaign of terrorism. Taking our troops out now would only continue to let terrorists know that we do not have the resolve to finish what has been started.

Debate why it was started all you want, though I would also say continuing to back down to Saddam and his violations of the cease fire agreements prior to the war gave the same message. Leaving now would most certainly be defeat because of the strengthed resolve it would give to those who want to inflict damage on the US.

[Scrooge McSam]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Osama bin Laden cited our lack of ability to stomach the ugliness of casualities in Somalia as part of his strategy in his campaign of terrorism. Taking our troops out now would only continue to let terrorists know that we do not have the resolve to finish what has been started.

Does it not bother you that bin Laden now sets our foreign policy for us? Bin Laden wants us to attack Iraq and we oblige. He taunts us not to leave and we don't. Lovely! We are puppets on a string, while 36% of the population continue to insist that the chief puppet is a strong leader.

What's particularly ironic is that we wouldn't be chatting so amiably about these issues if the President had taken out bin Laden like he promised instead of leading us into this disastrous adventure in Iraq.