An Honest Lefty: I DON'T SUPPORT our troops

[aways]

There are patriots on the left, but this guy isn't one of them.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-stein24jan24,0,4137172.column?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

I DON'T SUPPORT our troops. This is a particularly difficult opinion to have, especially if you are the kind of person who likes to put bumper stickers on his car. Supporting the troops is a position that even Calvin is unwilling to urinate on.

I'm sure I'd like the troops. They seem gutsy, young and up for anything. If you're wandering into a recruiter's office and signing up for eight years of unknown danger, I want to hang with you in Vegas.

And I've got no problem with other people � the ones who were for the Iraq war � supporting the troops. If you think invading Iraq was a good idea, then by all means, support away. Load up on those patriotic magnets and bracelets and other trinkets the Chinese are making money off of.

But I'm not for the war. And being against the war and saying you support the troops is one of the wussiest positions the pacifists have ever taken � and they're wussy by definition. It's as if the one lesson they took away from Vietnam wasn't to avoid foreign conflicts with no pressing national interest but to remember to throw a parade afterward.

Blindly lending support to our soldiers, I fear, will keep them overseas longer by giving soft acquiescence to the hawks who sent them there � and who might one day want to send them somewhere else. Trust me, a guy who thought 50.7% was a mandate isn't going to pick up on the subtleties of a parade for just service in an unjust war. He's going to be looking for funnel cake.

Besides, those little yellow ribbons aren't really for the troops. They need body armor, shorter stays and a USO show by the cast of "Laguna Beach."

The real purpose of those ribbons is to ease some of the guilt we feel for voting to send them to war and then making absolutely no sacrifices other than enduring two Wolf Blitzer shows a day. Though there should be a ribbon for that.

I understand the guilt. We know we're sending recruits to do our dirty work, and we want to seem grateful.

After we've decided that we made a mistake, we don't want to blame the soldiers who were ordered to fight. Or even our representatives, who were deceived by false intelligence. And certainly not ourselves, who failed to object to a war we barely understood.

But blaming the president is a little too easy. The truth is that people who pull triggers are ultimately responsible, whether they're following orders or not. An army of people making individual moral choices may be inefficient, but an army of people ignoring their morality is horrifying. An army of people ignoring their morality, by the way, is also Jack Abramoff's pet name for the House of Representatives.

I do sympathize with people who joined up to protect our country, especially after 9/11, and were tricked into fighting in Iraq. I get mad when I'm tricked into clicking on a pop-up ad, so I can only imagine how they feel.

But when you volunteer for the U.S. military, you pretty much know you're not going to be fending off invasions from Mexico and Canada. So you're willingly signing up to be a fighting tool of American imperialism, for better or worse. Sometimes you get lucky and get to fight ethnic genocide in Kosovo, but other times it's Vietnam.

And sometimes, for reasons I don't understand, you get to just hang out in Germany.

I know this is all easy to say for a guy who grew up with money, did well in school and hasn't so much as served on jury duty for his country. But it's really not that easy to say because anyone remotely affiliated with the military could easily beat me up, and I'm listed in the phone book.

I'm not advocating that we spit on returning veterans like they did after the Vietnam War, but we shouldn't be celebrating people for doing something we don't think was a good idea. All I'm asking is that we give our returning soldiers what they need: hospitals, pensions, mental health and a safe, immediate return. But, please, no parades.

Seriously, the traffic is insufferable.

I wonder how many other hard-core lefties/Democrats have similar feelings, but are afraid to express them publicly?

[stuartj]

He's pretty much nailed it, really. Him and George Orwell.

In their defence, they are mostly young and impressionable. And have been down through the eons.

[Leland Pate]

I don't see the big deal. After reading the article it would seem the author used the "I don't support the troops" banner to get attention to what his article. Which, I might ad, is no different than any other anti-war themed work. It catches your attention. I know I've changed my opinions of this campaign. Much of that can be attributed to becoming more educated on the challenges faced by the situation our administration has put us in as well as my unique insight to much of the behind the scenes stuff that you don't read about. Once I get out perhaps I can write a book.

Anyway, whether it was a good reason or a bad reason, well planned or planned piss poor, we are committed now and there is no going back. You can ***** at the moon until the cows come home and it won't change a thing.

The one part I would strongly disagree with the above bit is the "no parades" thing. **** YOU *******. We don't have parades for your benefit. We have parades because hundreds of young wifes, husbands, mothers, and children are excited as hell to see their loved one get of that airplane. No one holds a welcome home parade with the intention of promoting foreign policy.

And we are imperialists. Get used to it and go buy a latte.

[rrpjr]

Originally posted by stuartj
He's pretty much nailed it, really. Him and George Orwell.

Yes, of course. This distinguished essay clearly recalls George Orwell.

But what is "it", exactly, and how did Orwell "nail" it? Your credulous reader wants to know.

Orwell wrote many things about war, and even fought in one, but I do not recall him writing a thing about indicting soldiers for their failure of moral independence. No, his beat was the betrayals of power by the powerful through the devices of power. And, incidentally, he was no fan of pacifists.

[Leland Pate]

Who cares... did I mention I'm going to Germany???!!!
I better hurry up before this fellow gets the word out that we aren't doing squat over there.

[ianc]

Troops, by definition, do as they are told. Unless they've done something seriously heinous, they should be praised and commended for risking life and limb to do what is their duty. Easy to say that's not the case if you're sitting on your ass watching TV and eating devildogs. This fellow has probably not seen sand, outside of his local beach, for his entire life. Give him six months in Iraq getting shot at, and see if he's whining the same tune.

ianc

[juanbenae]

i saw something on the news the other night that 11 to 13 vets returning from iraq are currently running for house or senate seats. all but one are dems running on a platform that this war has been run wrong and is not doing the country any service at this point. one they interviewed was a high ranking army guy. i forget the rank at this time.

one of them was a republican running on a pro-war, pro-administration platform, thing is the district he is running in contains Crawford Texas. don't know why that town rings a bell with me.

very telling

[Shaun @ Tru6]

This is more of a satire on the American public than it is a statement of not supporting our troops.

[Rick Lee]

The way our districts are drawn and campaign finance laws written to protect incumbents, one or two those guys might have a chance at winning.

[MichiganMat]

Military vets running for office in 2006:

http://www.bandofbrothers2006.org/candidates/

[Rodeo]

I liked it, or most of it. Interesting that the original poster thinks the author is unpatriotic, and he apparently missed most or all of the humor.

It's a tongue-in-cheek piece, witty, and makes some important observations. Bottom line though, despite the title, is that he does in fact support the troops, just not what they have been ordered to do. And he thinks they should have "hospitals, pensions, mental health and a safe, immediate return."

Same as me.

P.s the comment against parades was intended to be funny (too much traffic, duh)

[kach22i]

Originally posted by MichiganMat
Military vets running for office in 2006:

http://www.bandofbrothers2006.org/candidates/

Some interesting names: Tammy Duckworth, Andrew Duck, John Courage, and Al Weed. They all sound like names a high school student would make up.

[jkarolyi]

A well-written article, mostly done tongue in cheek. He has some good reasoning there, and as a Republican I agree with most of it (except the anti-war opinions).

Most troops sign up for love of country (including our "outreaches", or imperialism depending on your view) as well as the financial benefits...a way to improve their lot in life. But everybody in the military is a volunteer...Vietnam was different.

Today there are ways out of the military if you REALLY want out (dishonorable discharge, conscientious objector, etc). So I'd say that our troops fighting in Iraq are in support of the war, or at least aren't opposed to it enough to get discharged from the Army.

So yes, those opposing the war should not say they "support the troops". They are voluntarily fighting a war you oppose.

[aways]

Originally posted by Rodeo
I liked it, or most of it. Interesting that the original poster thinks the author is unpatriotic, and he apparently missed most or all of the humor.

It's a tongue-in-cheek piece, witty, and makes some important observations. Bottom line though, despite the title, is that he does in fact support the troops, just not what they have been ordered to do. And he thinks they should have "hospitals, pensions, mental health and a safe, immediate return."

Same as me.

P.s the comment against parades was intended to be funny (too much traffic, duh)

With all due respect, you don't have a clue what you're talking about. I listened to a half-hour radio interview with the author, Joel Stein, yesterday and he most certainly does NOT support the troops. He says what he means in the article. I know he was trying to be funny in how he expressed his lack of support, but it's not most people's kind of humor.

[HardDrive]

I don't like his suggestion that troops in the field are some how morally responsible for this war. Individual soldiers have an obligation to no commit war crimes, or act in a maner that is against our codes of conduct.

But to place some kind of blame on some 19 year old kid risking his life is sickening.

YOU WILL NOT find a person more against the war than myself, but to cast guilt on the shoulders of the folks in uniform is pathetic.

[Nathans_Dad]

Guys, I'm pretty sure he means it. He is apparently a "humor writer" for the Times, but it looks like he is standing behind the piece. Quote and link below:

NEW YORK Los Angeles Times columnist Joel Stein says he stands by his Tuesday column, after being "bombarded" with email, as he put it. Stein, the former Time magazine staff writer, had written a column that began, "I don't support our troops."

Stein tells Reuters he does not regret writing it and stands by the premise.

The Times online site has put up a poll on the subject, in its opinion section, asking readers if someone can oppose the war but support the troops--yes or no. It also offers a third choice: "Why did you hire Joel Stein again?"

The column, which ran on the Times opinion page on Tuesday, was quickly linked at conservative sites and others, and hundreds of letters poured in to Stein and the Times. Among those who have written to E&P, Bruce Pyle of Las Vegas, Nev., wrote that "it is going to be hard to distinguish between Stein and Bin Laden when it comes to their views on America." Others praised him for his honesty.

One man posted at the NewsBusters site, "Stein should be bowing his head in shame. Doubtful though." Conservative columnist Michelle Malkin quickly nominated Stein as "one of the most loathsome people in America."

Stein, whose columns are often humorous in nature, commented to Reuters that whenever a politician opposes the war but supports the troops "I just always think they are covering their ass." He appeared on the talk radio show of conservative Hugh Hewitt on Tuesday and said, "I don't want empty sentiments prolonging the war."

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001918137

The real question to me is not whether or not this guy meant what he wrote or being surprised that there are people out there who think this way. The real question is:

Why in the hell would the LA Times run this piece? It's obviously inflammatory...I guess all publicity is good publicity?

[MichiganMat]

To say this jerk-off Stien speaks for the Left is about as acurate as saying Pat Robertson speaks for the Right. Inflamatory is right, this is a stunt, not a "honest" appraisal of the Lefty attitude. Go check out http://www.dailykos.com if you really want to get the "dirt" on the Lefts thinking, you find anything about not supporting the troops.

We all support the troops, to say otherwise is irresponsible. Its the leadership we question as we have from the start.

[aways]

Originally posted by MichiganMat
To say this jerk-off Stien speaks for the Left is about as acurate as saying Pat Robertson speaks for the Right. Inflamatory is right, this is a stunt, not a "honest" appraisal of the Lefty attitude. Go check out http://www.dailykos.com if you really want to get the "dirt" on the Lefts thinking, you find anything about not supporting the troops.

We all support the troops, to say otherwise is irresponsible. Its the leadership we question as we have from the start.

Dude, take a deep breath and re-read the original post. Nobody says that this guy "speaks for the left". But, I'm sure that he speaks for more on the left than will admit it (as the author himself implies). The only question is how many more. He apparently speaks for Rodeo...

[Nathans_Dad]

Interesting that you mentioned the site DailyKOs. I have visited that site many times and read it every once in a while. Some of the opinions offered are interesting, the comments usually seem to generate into Bush bashing or everyone telling each other how right they all are.

I didn't find anything about this Stein piece though. I would think if the liberals were upset about this guy and felt he wasn't speaking for them they might at least discuss the issue. I did a search on Joel Stein and didn't find anything. Do you have a link? I'd actually like to read the discussion.

[Rodeo]

Originally posted by aways
***I'm sure that he speaks for more on the left than will admit it (as the author himself implies). The only question is how many more. He apparently speaks for Rodeo...

Your turn to breathe. I said I liked most of the piece, and even quoted the part I agreed with the most: Our troops should have "hospitals, pensions, mental health and a safe, immediate return."

I disagree, because I know what it's like in the military, with the writer’s claim that somehow the troops are morally responsible if they carry out a lawful order to do something we might find morally wrong. If you receive a lawful order, you follow that order. Period.

Now, you want to have an interesting discussion that will really get your panties in a knot?

How about the kid that is going down to the recruiting station today to volunteer for Iraq? Assume that he or she knows that more than 80% of Iraqis don't want us in their country to "spread democracy," but wants to go there anyway.

How do you feel about that kid, joining today and knowing what we know?