Support the Troops, Oppose the

Support the Troops, Oppose the War? - Is it possible to oppose the war and yet support the troops?

Of course it is. It's even possible to oppose war in general, yet support the liberation of Iraq and also support the troops.

But there is a dividing line. And plenty on the left cross it. The most egregious example, of course, is Professor Nicholas De Genova, who famously called for "a Million Mogadishus" at an anti-Bush rally over the weekend.

But that example is just too easy. Let's look at an article whose author is obviously This slobbering at the thought of a US defeat.. The defeat, of course, would help the author's desired political outcome, a Bush defeat in 2004.

Military defeat is inevitably accompanied by death and misery on the part of the loser. If you wish for a political victory couched in a military defeat, the deaths to ones servicepeople inevitably follow; logically, these people wish for the worst for our troops.

You can't have it both ways.

So yes - a person can oppose the war and support the troops simultaneously. But it's not an automatic thing; when people claim they can do that, there's a burden of proof they need to meet.

By the way, Mr. Parry unleashes this hooter:

The botched “Black Hawk Down” raid in Mogadishu cost the lives of 18 U.S. soldiers, but President Bill Clinton then cut U.S. losses by recognizing the hopelessness of the leadership-decapitation strategy and withdrawing American troops from Somalia.

Hm. Doesn't really square with Mark Bowden's non-partisan take on the situation; Clinton cut and ran like a scared girlscout after Mogadishu, even though Mogadishu was a tactical victory on the ground. Clinton caved in on every count. To spin that as a clever loss-cutting strategy is incredibly disingenuous, and more or less shows the author's agenda.

Posted by Mitch at April 1, 2003 11:10 PM