Debbie Argel lost her son in Iraq. She posted this thread asking for support. And you come here telling her that all is lost? What is wrong with you?
Oh boy! You may not have realized it, but now you've opened this up to an answer on so many different levels, that now I'm going to answer some of those points on several different levels. So here goes...
First Point
I understood that to be the case before, when I read the thread, originally. And for her son's loss, that's not only extremely unfortunate, but it's an absolute shame when anyone loses a life over there. I mean, I know that lives are going to be lost (as we all do), but it doesn't make it any better for that person who suffers the loss. And in regards to that, I understand. And it's a loss for all of us, in the country.
Second Point
And because this is a loss, and that others could suffer a loss, as well, at any time, it is important to understand that an even greater loss than this -- is possible -- which is something for all to consider. This is something that pertains to us all, either in war or at home.
The even greater aspect of this is the loss of life that we all face when we come to our time being up, and where we will be after that. Without going into it very much, suffice it to say that without Jesus Christ as one's personal savior, that the "second loss" (of eternal life with Jesus, the Messiah of Israel) is greater than the "first loss" (of life here, as we have it now).
From the Bible, "Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." [John 14:6] And also, "... that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." [Romans 10:9-10]
Therefore, I would encourage all, regardless of being over in Iraq or not (but probably especially more for those over there) to take to heart the very important message of the Bible, in regards to their eternal destiny.
Third Point
This was brought up on a public forum, which is open to discussion and that discussion being in the framework in which it was brought up. Namely, the framework in which this discussion was brought up was not simply and only about a personal loss, but primarily about a political purpose -- which more specifically is stated by the very picture that her son is in.
Let's show those words here.
MoveAmericaForward.org
SURRENDER IS NOT AN OPTION
"We will win in Iraq... or fight the terrorists in America"
We Honor Capt. Derek Argel
Killed In Action
Memorial Day 2005I'm Melanie Morgan, Chairman of Move America Forward. We have no choice but to achieve victory in Iraq -- surrender is not an option. If we do not defeat the terrorists in Iraq, we will end up fighting them here in America. Join with us at Move America Forward to support our heroic troops and their mission in the war on terrorism. Log on to www.MoveAmericaForward.org.
When going to that site, it is immediately obvious that the primary purpose of that site is a political purpose the first line that one sees, in bold print is "Fight Back Against Pelosi & Reid!." One doesn't really have to go to that website to know that. It can be seen simply from the picture given here, on post #9. But, to make sure that it's understood in the context of which this thread was started, I refer to the website given.
Mind you, the point here is not the content of the website in terms of the political argument -- but rather -- that it is a political argument and statement. And as such, it's open for discussion on Free Republic.
So, we should be clear that we're having a political discussion here, by the reference to a political website, that encourages political action -- which means we will have that kind of "political talk" right here on this very thread, in which it was brought up.
That should clear it up for you.
Fourth Point
There is an idea that seems to be prevalent that if we have troops over there in Iraq (or wherever we may be talking about) that it would represent some sort of betrayal to the troops if we brought them home. And that argument is used more especially so with anyone who has died over there. Well, that is simply a false argument.
The troops are simply an extension of our policy (or policies). They are to carry them out where military force is needed, either for show or for action. And policies change all the time. It's no betrayal of any troops to have a changed policy. They simply have new orders and do something else, under the new policy. There are many reasons for changing policies, and of course, they are not all good or wise (in all cases where we look at policies of the past). But, nonetheless, there is not a betrayal of troops, if they've carried out policies at one time, then the policies of the government changes, and thus they carry out the new policies.
It seems that people here (on Free Republic) have somehow vested the troops into the very policy itself, instead of, simply carrying out whatever the policy may be.
Now, it may very well be true that there is an arugment for a better or different policy, on whatever the subject is, at hand. But, that's not something that is vested inside of a military person. They are simply carrying out the orders of the United States. When the U.S. changes the policy, they simply carry out the new orders. That's the nature of the military.
So, discuss the policies and what may be wrong or right with them. But, don't put those policies on the backs of the troops, as if they have something to do with them. They don't have anything to do with them, because they are simply carrying out what the entire population of the U.S. (as a corporate body) has asked to be done -- through the mechanisms of the political process and the three branches of government. And that is what is going on right now, even with the discussions and legislation being presented with regards to troop withdrawals. So, there is a policy change at work, right now as we speak. And that has nothing to do with how good (or bad) a job that the military is doing. People who link the two are out of touch with reality.
If one is to talk of a betrayal, it would have to be spoken of in the context of the prior policy. Is the policy being betrayed, according to the original idea of what was supposed to be accomplished? You can argue up one side and down the other in regards to the good and bad parts of the policy and it has nothing to do with the troops that are over there, except for the fact that they are either going to be there -- or not be there, as the policy dictates.
A corollary that would go along with this or fit in here would be -- "Don't invoke dead people to justify or deny policy matters." They have nothing to do with policy. They are the result of policy.
Fifth Point
In talking about support for the troops, that should be simply that they are respected for doing their duty in carrying out policy matters of the United States. Respect is not vested in one political viewpoint or the other. That's a big mistake that a lot of people make. In other words, it's like we're saying that we can't support the troops in the fact that they are doing their duty, if we change the policy, later.
It's definitely not like some people want to frame the issue of "support for the troops" in that if we send them in there (to Iraq) we're supporting them. If we remove them from Iraq, we are no longer supporting them. That's a totally false argument.
If we send them in or we remove them, we support them in that fact that they do their duty as the policy of the U.S. dictates for that moment. And that policy changes all the time, as we can very well see, over the history of our country.
Just so someone doesn't misunderstand, this is not to say that a different policy would not be a worse policy (or better, whichever it may be) -- but rather that the troops themselves are not vested in one policy or another, because that's not their duty to do that. Their duty is simply to carry it out -- whatever it may be at the time they are given the orders.
If someone has a problem with the withdrawal of the troops, they've got an argument with a policy matter and not with the troops -- and the troops can be supported upon withdrawal as much as they can be supported upon their insertion into a region for carrying out that policy originally.
What we have way too much of, on Free Republic, is the argument framed in terms of supporting the troops means staying in Iraq and not supporting the troops means withdrawing from Iraq. That's an absolutely false framing of the argument and will get you nowhere -- or at the very least, it will get you out of touch with reality -- that is the reality of the political situaiton as it's shaping up now.
So, support the troops in respect to this point and this point alone. It's that they do their jobs, according to the policy that is given to them, at that time, and we support them in carrying out that policy. We don't hold them to any particular policy matter, as that's not their job to do that. We're supporting them by keeping them as well supplied and equipped as possible and not putting them in harm's way unnecessarily. So, we praise them and honor them in a job well done and respect their committment to that duty that they've taken on.
Sixth Point
If a policy is flawed and/or was changed later, how does that affect the people who died carrying out their duty (in the military)?
Well, it's a very unfortunate fact that people die in the military all the time because of mistakes. There are accidents, machinery fails, a particular military action (a smaller battle perhaps) wasn't as well thought out as possible and it leads to unnecessary loss of life, people on our own side inadvertently kill their own people and so on.
Is any of that supposed to lessen the relevance of that loss of life? No, it's just as relevant. It's extremely unfortunate and a tragedy, definitely, for those who experience it most directly and intimately. But, it's still a loss for us all, as we lose as a people and as a country, with that loss of life. It's unfortunate that life is lost through mistakes (of all kinds). It happens and what you can say is that they did carry out their duty and were committed to the action that their country asked them to take. That's the best that one can say.
The policy of the matter, as to whether they should have been there or not, or whether an accident was preventable or not, or whether someone should be in command that caused something to happen or not -- are all matters to be taken up apart from that death and loss of life. It's a matter to be examined on its own, and does not affect the honor that is bestowed upon that person for their extreme sacrifice, no matter whether for good or for unforseen and mistaken circumstances.
People (here especially) had better learn to separate the two and support and honor the troops in their own right -- and apart from policy matters and apart from whether they are inserted into battle or withdrawn from a region. And that even more particularly pertains to those who have died in some of these actions.
And mind you, this "separating out" of the issues has nothing to do with the evaluation of a policy or an action that is being carried out. That is evaluated in its own right, and separate from supporting the troops.
Seventh Point
Now, here is where we get down to where supporting the troops may be carried out by anticipating where a policy change is coming.
If it appears that a policy change is coming (and it surely does appear that way), then one should ask how to best support our current troops in their fight, in anticipation of that coming policy changes.
As I see it, I would say that we're definitely not going to stay in Iraq and do what we're doing now for a long period of time, not the period of a decade, like I think is required to really stabilize things and make sure that the religio-fanatical-governmental oppressive idealogy of Islam does not take over and turn the entire country into a totall Islamic governement, thereby totally wasting all our prior efforts against this evil fascist idealogy.
And if we're not going to stay the long term, then the question is legitimately raised as to why we should stay in there any longer than is necessary to withdraw everyone, safely and get our stuff out of there? I mean, when it becomes obvious that we're not going to stick it out, then why continue to lose life for something that the policy of the U.S. government is going turn around on?
Bush is going out the next election. Congress changed in the last Congessional election. There are significant smaller numbers of the American public who are changing their idea to now getting out of Iraq, enough so that they will shift the balance of power to the Democrats side for withdrawal.
Thus, if the Republicans are going to lose that battle anyway (and it definitely appears they are going to), then why not get out in front of that policy change and do some of it before it comes down to a Presidential election disaster.
I don't think the World War against the religio-fanatical-governmental oppressive idealogy of Islam is going to be over by withdrawing from Iraq. No, not at all. But, if the support is no longer there with the institutions of our government plus enough of a voter change to support the Democrats (like we see), then one might as well pull back and regather forces and get ready for the next big fight coming from these religio-fanatical-governmental oppressive idealogues of Islam.
If we pull back then, for sure, the next one may be the big one over here. But, at least then people will have a better idea of what they're fighting, as it seems that they don't (in the majority, they don't) now.
So, in that scenario -- the best way to support the troops, now (if this political sea change continues its swing the way it's going) -- is to get them out as quick as possible, and by means of a Republican government, instead of a Democrat one. Then we start preparing for the next battle in the World War against the religio-fanatical-governmental oppressive idealogy of Islam. Hopefully we'll do better in that next round. I figure we've got about 100 years to get up to speed, because the World War will be going on at least that long.
It’s time for people to stand up for what’s right. Take your predictions elsewhere.
Well, I've put forth a number of points on the matter. And as I've so very well pointed out, since this thread is a political thread, and since it's pointing to a policital group, and since this is a political discussion, and since Free Republic is for discussing these kinds of political issues -- I don't see any reason why I should have to go anywhere...
As far as standing up for what is right, that's commendable. And it's still commendable even as you're losing. And in this matter, you'll be losing, unfortunately.
Regards,
Star Traveler