"Supporting the troops"
 

There is a group of people who claim that they support the troops by demanding the troops' cessation from combat. I've never been a soldier so I really have no idea, but isn't fighting the enemy desirable to a soldier? Isn't that the reason they spend all that time training?

Supporting the troops by not letting them fight the enemy is like:

* supporting police by not letting them patrol the streets
* supporting the fire fighter by not letting him extinguish the fire
* supporting the football player by canceling the game on Sunday


Or do soldiers join the military with the hope of not facing combat? Enlighten me.

Re: "Supporting the troops"
 

I joined the reserves for the college money, but I signed the contract and would have gone proudly wherever they sent me.

When I was in Desert Strom, I received many letters of support from people I didn't even know. Many of these people did not agree with our reasons for being there, but still sent letters of support and prayed for our safety. As an active-duty military member, I respected their right to disagree and I also respected their ability to separate the actions of our administration from the individuals called to go and fight.

Art:

Well put.

Additionally, the argument reminds me of a old "question".

If crime fighters fight crime and firefighters fight fire, what do freedom fighters fight?

The soldier in the field is not the one who identifies who the enemy is. It is the leadership that tells the soldier who he (or she) is fighting. The role of the police, firefighter, and indeed the military is, in part prevention. The football player....well, that is another story.

Not a simple answer.

Can't speak for the ground guys, though I know a lot of them, but pilots generally don't want to have to go to combat (there are exceptions). It's far preferable to be sufficiently powerful and skilled that nobody wants to take you on; however, if the time comes, you want

1) a damn good reason for fighting;
2) a clear objective;
3) backing get the job done right;
4) intelligent, focused leadership;
5) to know your enemy (Sun-Tzu);
6) to be alive and well when it's over.

You'll still do it without number 6, but if any of the first five are missing something is seriously wrong.

Jim

Nope. Keeping civil peace is NOT a good job for the military. That is not what they are really trained to do. More and more, they are called upon to serve this purpose, but it SUCKS. They are sitting ducks. It's like asking them to defend the low ground, while not being able to shoot back or even have live amunition in their guns. Like in Beirut nearly 30 years ago when the enlisted mens' quarters was car-bombed killing 200 of our guys. Very similar.

If we were asking them to capture and secure chunks of real estate, then they'd be doing what they love and what they're trained for. That's not the situation in Iraq. Iraq is not a war, and it is not being managed by military people. It is a police action being managed by politicians.

Have to agree. It seems to me the best way to support our men & women in uniform would be to not send them on stupid, ill-conceived actions "justified" by criminally fabricated false "intelligence" to get slaughtered by the thousands for nothing more than making rich fat cats in Washington richer.

As time goes on, there appers to be less and less postings defending the status quo outright.

Yea, and do you notice the commentary from certain members of our community seems to have fallen off rather precipitously?

No one wants to be in the middle of a circle-jerk. ;)

Especially when the pivot spot is already spoken for!!

<G>

Do you really firmly 100% believe the crap you just spewed out?

CRIMINALLY FABRICATED intelligence
for the sole purpose of somehow making rich fat cats richer. :confused:

Man POP, it isn't worth wasting any time arguing with someone who so blindly hates anything Bush has ever said or done. You guys have been sucked into a big Bush bashing snowball fueled by the media and the democratic parties' political desires.

I can't help chuckling when I hear an average citizen (no offense, I am one myself), start spouting off about how STUPID someone is, who mastered flying fighter jet aircraft, went to an Ivy league school, ran various large businesses, was a state governor and was elected as the president of the United States twice.

As if you or I would be better suited to do the job :rolleyes:
Hell, I disliked Clinton and Carter, but I would never be bold enough to say they were not much more qualified than I would be.

Circle jerk indeed ;)