Patriotism and Protest...Like Peas and Carrots...

I try to spread the love around a little and do a little blogging here and there around the Web, in addition to my work here.
One site I enjoy is Helium.com. It’s quite a collection of writers and essays and opinions, etc, check it out if you enjoy seeing a lot of opinions presented in a quality fashion on line.
A feature of their site is “pitting” as it were, bloggers against each other on selected topics. Think of it as a homegrown version of “point/counterpoint”.
One current ongoing debate is on the following question: Do you think that it is possible to support the troops in Iraq without supporting the war? Lots of interesting opining, as you might imagine. One guy actually voiced the opinion that the two couldn’t be separated because the troops “were” the war as they had no other reason to be there.

Okey-dokey.

Here’s the “counter point” I offered……

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, we have all been taught since we were old enough to, well, be taught. In that light, when considering the question of whether it is possible to support the troops but not the war in Iraq, I respect the writer who said that you could not support the troops without supporting the war because the troops ARE the war (and you are what you eat, but that's an opinion to be pondered at a different time) and that they had no other purpose for being there but carrying out the mission of war.

I say "respect the writer" because while the opinion he expressed is, I think, factually correct, it is philosophically flawed. The "war" is the implementation of a governmental policy, conceived by a political office holder and carried out through the use of taxpayer funded resources. The "troops" are one of those taxpayer funded resources. They are, to be perfectly candid and clinical, essentially no different than the tanks and guns, helmets and vests, ammunition and weapons, fatigues and boots. Equipment necessary to carry out the task that has been assigned by those in charge of the overall operation. In that sense, the earlier writer is correct. The sole purpose for the troops being there is to facilitate the operations of occupation.

The fact that they also happen to be our sons and daughters, husbands and wives, sisters and brothers is the emotional "x" factor that clouds the entire premise of the question. I would offer that confusion exists because the term "support the troops" is a misnomer. What we really are saying is that we love our sons and daughters, husbands and wives, sisters and brothers and we want them to come home to us safe and sound...regardless of whether we are in agreement with the governmental policy that put them in harm's way in the first place. Who among us, by that definition, doesn't "support the troops?" And that support obviously doesn't have anything to do with our endorsement or rejection of the policy.

My oldest son is a major, a two tour of Iraq soldier and I "support" his efforts, like those of his peers, with a full heart and without hesitation. I, and according to polling many other Americans, believe the war to be an badly conceived and poorly executed exercise in futility.

Bottom line...the answer to the question, as asked...

Is yes.