Treat servicemembers like people, not pawns.

Politicians used to kiss babies, but in these days of terrorism and war, babies have gone out of style. Today's most coveted political accessory? An active-duty member of the U.S. military. "Our troops" are the new babies.

True, it wouldn't do for politicians to actually kiss the troops. But on both sides of the political aisle, candidates, officeholders, and pundts are eager to do the next best thing;constantly insist on their complete, utter and total dedication to "our troops."

With the senate tied up in knots over various Iraq resolutions, we've seen far too much of this sort of posturing lately. [Last week}, for instance, Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., called on his colleagues to vote for his resolution in support of the administration's planned troop increase because "ours is a statement of support to our troops."

John Warner, R-Va., responded by calling on senators to vote for his resolution opposing the administration plan: "I forcefully argue that ours is in support of the troops." Take it outside, boys! What a waste of everyone's time.

In this diverse environment, I'm not sure it's possible to get past the empty rhetoric and have a serious, nonpoliticized discussion about just what it means to "support" the troops. But why not try? Let's start by stipulating that all serious people on all sides of the political spectrum "support" the troops in at least the most minimalist sense: The troops are human beings, and we all care about their welfare.

This is, of course, only an excerpt...there is much more to the article. She goes on to slam both sides of the aisle quite heavily and takes the entire body politic to task for their squabbling.

I am all for bipartisanship when it comes to crafting a solution to the war and support for little old me...but c'mon lady. Get down off your high horse for crying out loud.

Let me let everyone in on a little known secret: The troops expect Congress and the President to squabble. It is part of this wonderful construct that we like to call "Democracy." If there were no opposing viewpoint, we wouldn't have a democracy, we would have something resembling a totalitarian state. Now don't get me wrong, I sit firmly right of center on most issues, and there are times when I feel extremeley flabbergasted by the bozos on the left side of the aisle. But having said that, I fully recognize their importance to this construct of democracy, and most of my fellow soldiers do as well. It is the job of Congress to debate issues, just like it is my job to take the fight to the enemy.

In her article, Rosa Brooks makes some very good points, and at other times she strikes me as another elitist mainstream media jackal(I refuse to use the Acronym because an MSM to me is a Meritorious Service Medal). I would LOVE to hear what my fellow Freepers think about this article.

Moose, thank you for your service to our country. I honor and appreciate all those who serve at this perilous time. I support you, your Commander-in-Chief and the mission. More importantly, I think I have a pretty good understanding of what the mission is and what it means to the security of our nation and the world.

The links are not working for me so I can not read the rest of the article. It is difficult for me to take anyone serious on this issue that begins the debate with this...

Let's start by stipulating that all serious people on all sides of the political spectrum "support" the troops in at least the most minimalist sense: The troops are human beings, and we all care about their welfare.

That is a factually incorrect premise with which to begin.
Unless of course she means to say that the demonRATS, several pubbies and the commies marching in the streets calling you killers and spitting on your comrades-in-arms are not "serious people" then I can agree.

The USA is NOT a democracy. It is a representative Republic, albeit not so representative these days.

It is the job of Congress to debate issues,

Agreed, however...it is NOT THE JOB of CONgre$$ to usurp the Constitutional authority of the President as Commander-in-Chief! When it comes to the war, they have one authority and one authority only, that is to fund the war or defund it. That is the extent of their authority.

CONgre$$critter$ talking out their arse all over the world and in front of every microphone and TV camera they can find is not "debating" the issues nor is it crafting a solution to anything, least of all the war! They are aiding and abetting the enemy, if not choreographing their attacks on you all.

Had they STHU and supported you and the mission, we would be wrapping things up by now. Study the casualties before and after they started their nonsense. Pay particular attention to what was going on in the USA and what the critter$ were saying during the months of high casualty counts. CONgre$$ has the blood of 40,000 Vietnam vets on their hands and over 1/3 of the OIF casualties by my count. BTW, there are a number of critter$ that were critter$ during VN. I LOATHE them.

Please read Citizens Report on Iraq: Attainable Victory vs The Propaganda of Defeat

A couple of quotes you may want to examine:
"Democracy is indispensable to socialism."
"The goal of socialism is communism."
-Vladimir Lenin

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.