Would that apply to a friend of mine (one of the top students at my college), who disagrees with the Iraq war, and yet chose to leave school (no doubt making a considerable sacrifice) and join the Navy, believing that the country could use the service of both liberals and conservatives? I suspect she would disagree with you assertion that supporting the military requires ideological agreement with every action of theirs.
Imagine that your spouse/significant other came home one night, gave you a kiss, and said, "Honey, I love you and support you. I think that everything that you're doing right now is wrong and immoral, but I wanted you to know that I support you."
Notice I didn't call their actions immoral; I said I disagreed with the policy.
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?
Our military's purpose is not to serve the "international interest." Its purpose is to protect this nation from enemies, foreign and domestic. There is no such thing as a common international interest, because that interest would have to include the interest of our enemies. Therefore, your hypothetical situation is irrelevant, and a rather poor attempt to distract me from the fact that you have no firm argument on which to stand.
You attempted a nice appeal to pity with the story about your friend, but I frankly don't care if she went into the military because she felt the military needed the service of liberals. The military doesn't need conervatives or liberals. It needs soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines who put their country ahead of themselves. If she can put her job as a member of the military ahead of her inherently anti-American liberal prinicples, then I applaud her. If she entered with the belief that, in serving as a liberal, she could help transform the military into some liberal fantasy of what a military should be (i.e., traipsing around the world giving aid to the "downtrodden," et cetera), then she is just as poorly informed as you are.
I've little patience tonight for those who waste my time. Goodbye.
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.