[an amused spectator]

Further, take a hypothetical situation (it's not an analogy to the present situation; it's simply designed to illustrate my point) in which President Hillary Clinton sends the military on an ill-conceived and ill-fated intervention mission in Africa--one that is not particularly in the national interest, but maybe in the "international interest." Say this mission is highly costly in both military lives and money. Would it be possible to support the military and oppose the mission? Would it be possible to believe the mission was a mistake, or is even this unacceptable once we have engaged in it?

You are comparing apples (George W. Bush) and oranges (the Clintons), YS.

We at FR have ALWAYS supported the military, especially when they were in thrall to the socialist witch and her horndog husband, who viewed the military as dogs and treated them like dogs.

Don't equate commanders when there is no equating them.

[Young Scholar]

Don't equate commanders when there is no equating them.

I specifically stated I wasn't comparing my hypothetical sitution involving Clinton to Bush's situation in Iraq; I was just using that example to demonstrate a situation can exist in which conservatives could support the military but oppose a particular mission of the military. In my example, most conservatives would probably agree that supporting the military would almost necessitate opposing their clearly unwise mission.