Replies

If they are Just & Necessary, then true support for a soldier MUST include support for his mission. Otherwise, we tell him that his sweat, toil, sacrifice, and blood are in vain and cheap.

I think we are obligated to support the troops no matter what. We were right to support them in Xlinton's anti-Christian pro-narcoterrorist rampage in the Balkans. We are right to support them in their mission to Afghanistan/Waziristan. We are right to support them now in Iraq (even if some of us don't agree with the mission). And we will be right to support them if a President Hitlery orders them to invade Israel to impose a peace process on them for the sake of the Palis despite our undoubted opposition to such an evil plan.

I know, I know, consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds but it is one of my weaknesses.

Somalia is a great example. Exactly what solace do those families of dead soldiers cling to?

The deaths of soldiers is regrettable and inevitable. Merely by fielding an army of hundreds of thousands in various aircraft and vehicles, some will die if we are only training them. Or if deployed on a totally innocent and warmly welcome base on foreign soil, like in Eastern Europe.

One might say that those deaths from mere accidents (generally involving vehicles) had no solace either. I would object. Military service to the country is always honorable if you don't disgrace your uniform (as many of us would say of John Kerry). Still, even Kerry wore that uniform and faced a certain amount of danger, whatever his motives and later disgraceful and opportunistic conduct.

Our soldiers and their service are always to be honored, whether a Republican or a Dim is in the White House, whether we agree with their military deployments or not.

No one can deny that the Reprisal Against Terror (commonly called War on Terror) is just and necessary. The Iraqi campaign of that reprisal has its detractors for various reasons.

Because al-Qaeda was not in Iraq? Because there was no WMD program in Iraq? Because the only terrorism being sponsored was in subsidizing the families of Pali suicide bombers (much as they are subsidized by high-ranking Saudis, our great allies in that same War On Terror)?

No one is crying over Saddam. But the war in Afghanistan and bringing Osama to justice is still relevant to 9/11 and the entire War On Terror. Iraq is a peripheral issue to the War On Terror. Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Powell, Rice, none of them cited Saddam as a terrorist or as being behind the 9/11 attacks. To hold a Just War theory, you have to focus on the justifications for war given at the time to determine motives and the effect of actions taken.

even if some of us don't agree with the mission

But, surely you see that general support for troops in an unjust or unnecessary mission is no solace for families of the level that KNOWING their sacrifice was essential would be. It can be a small solace that someone was doing their duty; it can be a great solace that their duty was critical to your nation and world.

It's the difference between "patriotic talk" and "really, truly a necessity."

GW, it is short-sighted to ignore that the potentates of the Middle East have used terrorism and assassination for centuries. Saddam was just another mid-east ruler in a long line. He used terrorism for his purposes, and terrorists don't need large quantities of WMDs to create terror.

A small lab in a basement with the right recipe and the right chemicals, and you've got what's necessary. A weapon and a delivery system.

Personally, I would have taken out Iran first. They are more culpable than Iraq.