Support the mission. You cannot have it both ways. To withhold support for their mission is to advocate their – and our – defeat.
Finally, a poll done in the US demonstrates that a significant percentage of Democrats understand this. Ace of Spades
A full 34% of our troop-supportin’ patriotic loyal opposition flatly wishes failure upon the US military.
I suppose some people may not fully listen to the question, so within that 34% are some respondants who just figure the more “No’s” they offer the more strongly they register their opposition, and some people who add the interpretation “I don’t want the surge to succeed, because I don’t want it to happen in the first place.”
But I don’t think you get to 49% based on misunderstanding the question alone, do you?
I shudder to think what the percentage would be if such a poll were taken here.
I’m beginning to question my view of “finish the job”.
Interestingly today in the Post, George Jonas, whom I have a great deal of respect for, says the job was finished in Iraq when Bush said “mission completed “on the aircraft carrier right after Saddam was taken out. I don’t agree.
I still believe that building democratic in institutions in the ME is the only viable solution and that it will happen eventually. I think we had a moral obligation to try and help the Afghans and Iraqis to do that and not leave them to be slaughtered in the vacuum of power that we created.
But at some point they have a responsibility to defend themselves and our mission is over. I’m not sure when that point is reached but Jonas is right that we don’t have an obligation forever.
Meanwhile I think we owe it to our troops to give them the best equipment and allow them to use even greater force to combat these tribal suicidal terrorists and reduce the risks of our solders. By Canada simply announcing that is our strategy …to ramp it up to defend ourselves over there … then perhaps we will save lives . .both theirs and ours. Just like Truman saved more lives then he buried with extreme force to get the Japanese kamikazes to surrender. No guarantee.
This is one reason why I will never fight for Canada. If some cheese gobbling fwenchman from Queerbec or limp wrist NDP retard thinks I am going to put on a friggin uniform, ship off to some fly blown chit hole like Afcrapistan…and put up with their “support” at home…you got another thing coming.
To invest blood and tears and heart break into Afghanistan…only to have you left wing turd burglars throw it all away? For nothing?
Screw you. Supporting the troops means supporting the mission.
Its a conundrum isnt it? On one hand, carping against our military actions gives aid and comfort to the enemy, and on the other hand we are free to criticize as we wish.
It’s only a conundrum if we’re preoccupied more with what the enemy thinks than with what our fellow citizens think. Why should the direction of military policies–nevermind our entitlement to fundamental democratic freedoms, like speech and protest–be driven by whether our criticisms strengthen the enemy’s resolve, or indeed whether our support weakens it. The effect of our support/criticism on the comfort level of the enemy is incidental; our concern, as citizens of Canada, should be whether or not we believe the military mission, fought by troops in our name, is a just, legitimate, and winnable one. So long as a majority believe it is, the fight continues. If a majority no longer believes it so, our troops are withdrawn, and the fight ends (for us). The enemy, of course, will rejoice and claim victory, but this is irrelevant, so long as the will of our people is obeyed. And how is this will discern? By allowing open dissent and criticism (of the mission, the political leaders, the troops, each other) at all times, not just before the mission starts and after the mission is over. Or so it should work, anyway, in a truly active democracy.
What is the purpose in the endless polls that show the enemy that the will isnt there to finish the job?
Depends on the poll. Those unscientific online ones in the margins of news websites? Useless. Those slightly more scientific ones put out monthly by survey companies? A general gauge of popular opinion, perhaps, but subject to major bias and reliability issues; use with extreme caution. A federal election (or in the US, the 2006 mid-term elections)? Fundamentally useful.
What about the blatant hypocrisy of some politicians who were for this military action before they were against it?
Calling a politician hypocritical for switching positions based on opinion polls is like calling a politician a politician.
When we elect a government, we give them much power, including the power to do as they see fit with the military.
No, even in a representative democracy, we do not give them the power to use the military “as they see fit.” This implies a dangerous concentration of power approaching fascism.
Time to get behind the program folks. If we show a resolve to finish this job, it will be over much sooner.
Irving Janis defines groupthink as “a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members’ strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action” [emphasis added]. You may find his work, though flawed in some respects, worthy of a read.
well put Jim…that is exactly what the leftard trough wallower’s did to my brother when he returned from Somalia
How ever can people support soldiers and not support what our government sends them to do? This mission has taken the lives of some of our men and a woman, they gave everything for us.
It is an important mission to first clean up the dens of cowards who train terrorists there to make our world a safer place. Then make life for Afghani women and children livable on the humanitarian front.
The mission and the soldiers both must be supported, otherwise we are telling them their sacrifices are all for naught.
Always knew the NDP and Leftists were not capable of rational thinking and this is one glaring example.
Sadly, our soldiers of past and present conflicts fought for those morons to reap the benefits as well.
LizJ: How ever can people support soldiers and not support what our government sends them to do?
Easy. “Supporting the troops” means supporting the actual men and women in the armed forces, respecting the general work they do and honouring the idea of military service. “Not supporting the mission” means not supporting the current and specific action (which, incidentally, is more about the disapproval of the government’s decision to send those troops to war). Since you can distinguish between the soldier in the uniform (A) and the politician in the suit (B), presumably you can imagine the possibility of support being given to one (A only, or B only), or both (A and B), or neither (not A nor B).
Or, to take a slightly different approach, can you support your local police department but not supporting the wrongful arrest of an innocent suspect? Can you support Kate but not support a post you happen to disagree with? Can you love a sinner but hate the sin?
A said:
“Or, to take a slightly different approach, can you support your local police department but not supporting the wrongful arrest of an innocent suspect?”
Hmm, intriguing. What if you based your support for the wrongfully arrested, based on his concocted story, or a misrepresented view in the media.
What if, in fact, you were wrong, this person was not wrontfully arrested. Do you wonder how the police would feel about this? How would they view your support of them now?
A policeman can resign and walk away from his job at any moment he desires.
A soldier cannot.
Support the troops = support the mission.
Realize that nobody is demanding you support the mission. Just stop hiding behind the troops.
“A”
NO.
This is “if you don’t agree with me you’re a traitor ” logic. It’s warped at best and hypocritical. Somehow right wingers only seem to use it when it’s their candidates in charge. I don’t recall any cries of support the troops when Clinton acted against Serbia.
Kate: Realize that nobody is demanding you support the mission. Just stop hiding behind the troops.
But the baby is not the same as the bathwater.
There are useful distinctions to be made between (1) the institutional entity (the police department, the armed forces), (2) the people who comprise that entity (the police officers, the soldiers); (3) the general (and idealized) function(s) of that entity and/or its members (e.g., the preservation of social order; the neutralization of aggressive combatants); and (4) the specific (and time-based) activities of that entity and/or its members (e.g., a particular investigation/arrest, a particular military campaign).
Is it not possible to support the local police department (e.g., as an institution that protects the social order); support local police officers (e.g., as human beings who dedicate their careers to protecting the social order); support what they do in general (e.g., protect the social order); but not support a specific act that one disapproves of (e.g., racial profiling)? Or must you then reject the entire police force (as an idea, as an institution, as individual officers)?
Likewise, is it not possible support the armed forces (e.g., as an institution that preserves Canadian sovereignty); support the troops (e.g., as human beings who willingly put their lives at risk to preserve Canadian sovereignty); support what they do in general (e.g., preserve Canadian sovereignty); but not support a specific act (e.g., their participation in the Afghanistan campaign)? Or must you then reject the entire armed force (as an idea, as an institution, as individual troops)?
A – Your position is entirely abstract. It’s NOT reality, it’s a political ideology. My position is not political nor is it an abstract idea, it’s reality. You are confusing respect & support, they are NOT the same.
Shamrock: Hmm, intriguing. What if you based your support for the wrongfully arrested, based on his concocted story, or a misrepresented view in the media. What if, in fact, you were wrong, this person was not wrontfully arrested. Do you wonder how the police would feel about this? How would they view your support of them now?
I would say that if the relationship–between the police officer and the local public he serves, between the soldier and the Canadian public she fights in the name of–is based on mutual respect, then the officer/soldier would recognize that this respect is not the same thing as blind and unwavering support regardless of circumstance. If public opposition to the arrest was based on flawed media reporting, then the mature officer/soldier would understand that the fault lies with the reporter and not the public at large (who cannot entirely be faulted for relying more on the “facts” as presented in the news–flawed though these may be–when the alternative is unquestioning allegiance based on faith alone).
Now, what if the person arrested was your own son or daughter? S/he says s/he’s innocent; the police say s/he’s guilty. If you believe your child, can you now distinguish between supporting the police in a general way but not in this specific instance? If you believe the police (e.g., your child “borrowed” your car, is underaged, and is legally drunk when arrested), can you now distinguish supporting your child in a general way but not in this specific instance?
Ultimately, it comes down to distinguishing between the person/institutional entity and the act. You and I disagree on this issue. I can still respect you, Shamrock, as a person, while not supporting your argument. Presumably you can do the same?
the bear: Your position is entirely abstract. It’s NOT reality, it’s a political ideology. My position is not political nor is it an abstract idea, it’s reality.
Indeed my position is an abstraction, and indeed it’s political. How could it be otherwise? The entire popular discourse around “support the troops/support the mission” is a politicized abstraction! Taking any position on the matter is necessarily political, and (for the vast majority of us) entirely symbolic.
Your stepson’s trade is in “combat arms,” which I take to mean he’s a soldier. That makes your position a relative unique one, and I respect that. I would suggest, however, that the vast majority of those with an opinion on the “support the troops/support the mission” matter–including most of those on this blog–do not have such a close and personal connection to the troops on the ground, and that their views are necessarily abstract ones.
So you may choose to dismiss my opinion as a consequence. Fair enough. But what do you think of those soldiers quoted above by Les (at January 19, 2007 10:57 AM)?
A, I guess I was being too subtle. BTW, I do respect your right to an opinion? I cannot say with certainty how you came to your views (that was my point), but it is clear to me that the media hasn’t represented the mission in an accurate manner, so maybe that sways people.
Whether you like it or not, criticizing the mission, and thus the troops (sorry, this point is inescapable and they surely see it that way), does give aid and comfort to the enemy.
My quarrel is not with you per se; it is with the media, who refuse to properly analyze what we are doing and why. Time after time, they display abject ignorance of what a military does (Layton gets a free ride from MSM when he says we should negotiate with Taliban and we are too “focussed” on military action rather than reconstruction). I have heard that line from many “experts” who only prove, IMHO, they do not know what they are talking about.
A – read my last post, it’s important to know the difference between respect & support. The words are not synonymous. Don’t say you support the troops when you don’t, you can respect them – but if you don’t like what they’re doing you sure as heck don’t support them.
To explain it further, you respect the policeman but you don’t support the speeding ticket he’s writing you.