Delftsman

Thanks for the pointer. I've posted my longwinded response over at Swerve Left.

Hey, Do you have any more info on this guy? He is stationed at the same camp complex I am in. I am at the Al Faw Palace, and sorry to disappoint, but Saddam never stayed here, although Uday and Qusay did use the Perfume Palace for their "games" with women they kidnapped from the Baghdad streets, hence the name "Perfume Palace" I would like to know what unit he is in, if you know.
Thanks, Bryan

Karlo, You have every right to not support the troops, just remember that it is because of our military that you have that right. I personally think that you are a pretentious, pontificating POS, to paraphrase Jim Carrey. I have just as much right to my opinion as you do to yours. What makes you think that you are important enough or qualified enough to comment on military matters, or policy matters? I have an advaced degree in poly-sci with a concentration in international relations and I am currently serving my country in Iraq, in the Army. What have you done for your country besides piss and moan like a little bitch? I would venture to say, not much, if anything.

Cut the crap. I also spent time in the military--to include over two years on the DMZ. I'd like to think I'm wise enough to realize that that doesn't put me into some special class of Americans. Everyone does their part. As for bitching and moaning, those who question and challenge authority have done a helluva lot more to maintain our freedoms than most other people have. When you see protesters and people willing to speak out against what they see as wrong, YOU should thank THEM for maintaining CREATING and MAINTAINING our freedoms. Every country has had armies. Unfortunately, obedient soldiers have just as much potential to do harm than good. To all these people who constantly repeat the mantra "support our troops," I'd like to ask if they can even conceive of a war that they didn't approve of? Would they prefer to live in a country where everyone fell into neat lines like they do in North Korea? I doubt it. So don't get to smug about what you do.

Two years on the DMZ, not bad. Tell me was it during the Korean war? If not, then you are still outclassed by those serving over here. I have no problem with people saying they don't agree with me but at least try to offer some sort of alternative besides we have to get out now or Bush lied, people died. I would like to think you are wise, as well, but the crap you post only leaves me the impression that you are not. Being in the military does put you in a special class of people, those who are willing to sacrifice more than others for their country. If you have some good alternatives, by all means, I would love to discuss them with you.

Bryan

"When you see protesters and people willing to speak out against what they see as wrong, YOU should thank THEM for maintaining CREATING and MAINTAINING our freedoms."

Thats crap Karlo. Thos protestors have CREATED nothing, those freedoms were created by soldiers, and the right to continue are protected by the rule of law within the country, and our troops both here and abroad.

"Speaking truth to power" may be considered what you say it is IF it's done in a manner that provides an thoughful, reasonable, and WORKABLE alternative to whatever it is their protesting.
Hindsight quarterback carping, and parroting memes like "Bush=Hitler" "no blood for Oil" and "bush lied, People died" DON"T meet those criteria, and do nothing to solve any problems, indeed they only make the problems they're protesting more difficult to resolve.

PATRIOTIC dissent offers an WORKABLE alternative plan, just what plan has any of these protest groups you laud proposed? Mindless carping and impossible to meet demands are not a plan.

And as I mentioned in the comments on your blog Karlo, if people knew some of the organizers backing these protests, they may not be so willing to drink their Kool-Aid. Unless of course you believe that they would prefer communism/socialism over our current democratic republic/capitalist form of government.

"Tell me was it during the Korean war? If not, then you are still outclassed by those serving over here."

Good grief. I'm "outclassed"? Whatever. By this toughness criteria, your "sacrifice" is outclassed by opponents who have gone up against much greater odds instead of sitting behind the military hardware of the strongest military on the planet. You'd be "outclassed" by the Vietnamese peasant willing to face almost certain death while fighting to save his country from invaders, for example. Or by resistant fighters anywhere. I don't believe in this whole line of argument but that's where your reasoning leads.

Personally, I hope nobody ever sacrifices ANYTHING for "country." I'd rather see people sacrifice for people, family, the oppressed, or anything else. Praying to the idol of country leads to arrogance and blindness. I disagree with those who claim that peace is patriotic. Fascism is patriotic (as the ultimate extension of love of country.)

As for Delftsman's comments, it's certainly true that people who protest need to come up with better alternatives and need to put forth a workable vision of the future. Protesters come in all stripes of course with many protesting who are ignorant or selfish (just as with those who support the war). Yet there are people who have a better vision of the future.

Howdy,

I'm a veteran, with a poli-sci undergrad degree - with questions.

Bush's, "You're either with us or you're against us!" was inherently divisive - obviously. That was the point specifically. Bush was taking us to war and those words were only and all about creating divisivness.

The strategy shared in the posting "If you’re not behind the mission, you’re not behind the troops." ...seems to me like a divisive strategy in a similiar way.

It is interesting that such a strategy is being advanced. A clear majority of Americans are not behind "the mission" and the mission's decling popularity with the American public has followed a rather consistent two-year downward trend as reported by all polls.

My question is: what would be the underlying motivation or logic for advancing any strategy that inherently divides the American public from it's troops today?

Thanks
- Scott

I see this whole point of "standing behind the mission" as a red herring. It's a citizen's role in a democratic country to think for themselves.

I am not siiting behind the strongest military, I am part of that military. You are sitting behind it which gives you the liberty to spew your crap like a college boy spews vomit after a few too many libations at the bar. I agree that people should think for themsleves. I have thought about it, and decided to rejoin the military because I believe that what we are doing is important and right on many different levels. It will improve national security in the long term, it will make for a more stable area of the world that desparately needs some stability, and it shows that we are once more not a nation to be trifled with.

As for the diviseness, I have no problem with that. It makes it clear who are friends are and who are not our friends. President Bush never said "If you are not with us we will come and destroy you", so there is no threat in what he said. What he needs to do now is thank those who have been faithful allies, and tell those who are fair weather friends to get lost.

Bryan