Troop Support

I began a recent examination of the "support our troops" jingo after reading an article from Townhall, The Left doesn't support the troops and should admit it, by Dennis Prager, advising Democrats to be honest and confess they do not support our troops. Prager has a point. He states the Left's message is "We believe this war is being fought for oil and for Halliburton and other corporations; we believe you are waging a war that is both illegal and immoral; we believe you have invaded a country for no good reason and have killed a hundred thousand Iraqis (the Left's generally mentioned number) for no good reason; but, hey, we sure do support you ... A German citizen during World War II could not have argued: "The Nazi regime's army is engaged in an evil war of aggression and is slaughtering millions of innocent people, and I therefore completely oppose this war, but I sure do support the Nazi troops." I guess Prager doesn't understand rhetoric from the opposition.

The Democrats, the Left, whatever label they go by these days, use suspicious logic: The war was poorly planned. Meaning if we had won quickly the venture would be moral. No WMD were found. Meaning if WMD had been found the dead Iraqi would be dead for a good reason. The war did not have UN support. Meaning had more thugs from the UN joined us then the war would be legal. The Left also uses the phrase "we're there now, we can't just leave" … which reeks of racism and scorn; code words for the Iraqi are incompetent to determine their destiny without Uncle White Sam guidance. The Democrats want their piracy neatly packaged as opposed to the Republicans messy thefts.

Prager claims the Left doesn't want our troops to succeed. Succeed? At what? Taking down an unarmed tyrant who controlled a carcass of a country, so US interests could strategically control the region for the benefit of a few?

Prager is correct when he states that the Left is dishonest. Kerry, Dean, Wilson, Sean Penn, Streisand, and numerous other Democratic heroes, and millions of their followers, are very much like the pro-war Right: Many poorly informed, who in their political ignorance actually believe that the past 5 years are the result of this administration's policies, when it's always been a bipartisan crime. It's the same racism, same greed, and the same masse hubris in both camps. The anti-Bushers love their bandwagon, conveniently forgetting (likely never aware of) Clinton's reign included welfare reform for the poor (wealthyfare intact), passed NAFTA, backed the prison growth industry, backed Iraq sanctions, increased funding for Israel, and waged the US/NATO Yugoslavia war. The Democrats commit atrocities at a slower pace, so slow most folks never notice.

Merriam, and other dictionaries define "support" as to endure bravely, quietly. The Cambridge defines as "agree with, given encouragement..." I've spent the last couple of years agreeing with my sons decision to honor their military oath. I've encouraged my sons to keep their heads down, come home safe. That's my support. I know which son had the better odds because he would do whatever necessary to come home alive. I know which son might hesitate, and lose his life. I know the naïve son, who came home nothing like the boy who went "over there." What does Prager know.

The Democrat party politicians have not, and will not, come forward to call this war what it is: Yet another illegal racist imperialist adventure, using the US military as corporate mercenaries, for the benefit of those who profit most. Both parties are guilty of backing a criminal pre-emptive doctrine. I endure my sons being involved in War, and if it pleases Mr. Prager, I admit I do not support our troops mission of empire at the direction of a government who's "grand experiment" has consistently delivered horror and havoc on the world. As my coffee mug says, Buck Fush, and all the Republicans and Democrats he rode in with.