Can One Support the Troops & Not Support the War?
Submitted by Michael Nystrom on Sun, 08/26/2007 - 19:57[Editor's note: Margie Raborn & her husband Robert reside near Columbus, Texas and have been active in Texas politics for over 20 years. The following letter is republished from The Texas Insider with her permission. Her thoughts are well worth considering, and she welcomes your comments.]
by Margie Raborn
Cathie Adams stated in her July 1st Texas Eagle Forum e-mail, "It is my firm conviction that no presidential candidate in '08 can claim to support our troops, but NOT support their mission." Such a statement is not only an affront to presidential candidate Ron Paul, who claims this as his position, but to all of us who DO support the troops, but do NOT support this war.
Mrs. Adams has earned the respect of many Texas citizens and has considerable influence in Republican politics. However, such a pronouncement seemed to me to be a very deceitful and unjust slap against Congressman Paul, who warned against going into Iraq and continues to oppose the mission in Iraq. He promises to bring our troops home, as quickly as possible, and use them to protect our own borders and to defend our national sovereignty.
Congressman Paul has an impeccable record on national defense, which is one of the Constitutional duties of the Congress, as well as, an impeccable record of support for helping our returning veterans. While Mrs. Adams may unequivocally state that you can't support the troops without supporting the war, it appears that many of our military personnel do not agree with her. Congressman Paul has had more campaign contributions from the military than any other presidential candidate.
According to Mrs. Adams, support for the troops and support for the mission in Iraq are one and the same. If she believes that a presidential candidate cannot support one without supporting the other, then it appears she would be equally convinced that an individual cannot support the troops, unless they likewise support the war in Iraq. This seems to be a preposterous conclusion.
I am offended by such an accusation as this, on a very personal level.
I grew up in a very patriotic home. My father fought in the First World War and impressed upon me at a young age that war is horrible and is to be the very last resort in all disputes.
I joined the Air Force myself in the sixties as a physical therapist. There I met and married my husband, a career officer and fighter pilot, who served two tours in Viet Nam. I felt very noble as a military wife for the sacrifices I was making to defend my country.
I was aware everyday that this effort might mean the loss of life for my husband and my children's father. Thankfully that did not occur, but we lost many good friends. We believed the government's position of that day, "If we did not stop Communism over seas, then the domino theory would occur and the whole continent would become Communist. After that our continent would become Communist also." The domino theory proved to be false.
Communism did not engulf our continent. Indeed, today, Viet Nam is again a united country and has become a major trading partner for America.
It is personally very hurtful that someone could possibly think that I do not support our troops, even though I cannot support the mission in Iraq.
One of the main reasons I do not support the mission in Iraq, is from the writings of Bastiat in The Law. He shows clearly that the authority of an honest government is granted to it by its citizens and that citizens cannot grant to their government an authority that they themselves do not have.
Since it is unlawful and immoral for an individual to kill another (except in an act of self defense,) therefore, citizens cannot grant such an authority to their government to wage a war preemptively, or to go to war to enforce of UN Resolutions or for any other reasons given for our actions in Iraq.
Yes, I support our troops. I know very personally what they are being put through and what their families are being put through, for a war that never met the criteria for a just war!
Nor was this war ever authorized by our Congress. When the President and so many of our leaders have so little respect for our Constitution and the laws of our land, then I believe we are actually engaged in a war that promotes lawlessness in our own country.
I appreciate that there is one presidential candidate, Congressman Ron Paul, who does uphold his oath of office, to protect and defend our Constitution and will dare to point out when we as a nation have lost our way and become comfortable violating our Constitution and ignoring our own laws, even though such a position may not be popular.
I do not believe Mrs. Adams, or any one else, has the authority to tell presidential candidates or ordinary citizens that they cannot support the troops, if they do not support the war in Iraq. These are difficult decisions each individual must make for them self.
Now is your chance to decide:
Do you believe a citizen, and thus a presidential candidate, can honestly support the troops and yet, not support the mission in Iraq?
I do not believe Mrs. Adams, or any one else, has the authority to tell presidential candidates or ordinary citizens that they cannot support the troops, if they do not support the war in Iraq. These are difficult decisions each individual must make for them self.
Now is your chance to decide: Do you believe a citizen, and thus a presidential candidate, can honestly support the troops and yet, not support the mission in Iraq?
Support the troops
As someone who spent a year in Iraq I can tell you that we do not belong over there. The biggest injustice is trying to keep the spirits of the troops up by falsely trying to sell them on the idea that they're over there fighting for our freedom.
We went from being a neutral country that doesn't get into entangling alliances, to a country that gets into wars to support our allies, to now being a nation that supports pre-emptive war. There's nothing beyond that.
I couldn't wait to get out of that hell hole. All of these arm chair quarterbacks that want to dictate the lives of our over-stressed military need to shut their yaps.
http://NoOneButPaul.com
I just think this is another
I just think this is another example of how American politics has been dumbed down to rally "the base". Surely even a child can see that supporting the well-being of your soldiers has no connection with supporting any given agenda set forth by a politican - even when that politician is your President. [Some would say *especially* when it's his agenda!]
To highlight the absurdity of this argument, imagine if Dubya announced that we had to fight the Martians on the planet Mars before they "fight us over here".
Then he announced a plan to put all the soldiers on space shuttles and send them to attack "The Martian Evil Do-ers". By the logic of Mrs. Adams, everyone on this forum would need to support a one way trip for all the soldiers to battle a non-existent enemy.
Either you support the Invasion of Mars - or you're not supporting the troops! The whole thing is just laughable...
What does this even mean "support our troops"?
When the men and women sign up for military duty, they are taking a job where they are to follow the orders of their commanders. They are giving up their personal freedoms and potentially lives in an oath to protect the rest of us. I understand the need on the battlefield for soldiers not to question every order. Of course, you can argue that they do have a certain degree of responsibility and could even refuse if they thought an order was wrong, like shooting civilians. Then there is the larger case of conscientious objection, which I think is a very tricky case when someone has already joined the military. But basically, I feel, when a person signs up, they are taking on the job of fighting where and when the government tells them.
I feel there is nothing more honorable than to take this position and be so brave as to say I risk my life and liberty to help protect that of my country. I hold these people in the highest esteem. This is what I think of when I hear "support our troops". I appreciate what they are giving up for me.
Now, for the rest of us, I feel our duty is to make sure our government is not using these men and women for purposes which do not protect our life and liberty. So the other part of "support our troops", to me, is to make sure we do not place these men and women in harms way for unjust or unnecessary reasons.
If you feel this conflict is wrong and does not protect our country, supporting our troops means telling the government this needs to end.
I think also that some think that if they admit that the conflict was wrong, then all those men and women that lost their lives would have died for no purpose and would somehow be considered less honorable. The honor is that they serve in the first place. There can be no dishonorable deaths for those men and women that are performing their duty.
It is dishonorable for the rest of us to allow this to continue.
Hear, hear.
What norbert says!
National Guard must not support troops
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/26/national/main32045...
Support For The Troops
Frankly, I am sick of the use of the slogan: "Support our troops." As one who comes from a long tradition of career military officers, I assure you these gentlemen swear to uphold the Constitution. In my personal interaction with active duty and veteran military, I have found, (along with other members of my meetup group), that the majority do not equate the prosecution of the Iraq "war" or the threat of perpetual Middle East war, with "patriotism" or "support for our troops." This seems to be corraborated by the military contributions to the campaign of Ron Paul. Margie is right: this was a cheap and unreasoned "shot" not supported by fact or by demonstration of this individual's efforts to "support our troops."
cee cee
No, one can not.
I have said "I support the troops" for too long until I realized that warmongers were making a joke out of us. I do understand the mentality that we care for troops and think they're better off home or fighting a war that was declared, BUT, one must ask , who are the troops?
Then the answer is simple, they are grown men, with guns. They CHOSE to stay with the mission. For fear of losing their job or life? Hardly! They have no job or life if they only care about their own in a situation like this!
I support the troops, only those who know what they are doing. Only those who have not fought the war against their will. Only those who are willing to stand up against the war administration. Our troops have chose not to speak, but they are the ones with guns, so DON'T FEEL FOR THEM, THEY HAVE A VOICE.
I hate the war, and I hate the troops who have gone with it. Soldiers are not being forced to do anything, they took the oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. If they have made poor judgment, they're fair game for the faults of the results too.
I agree with you on many issues but not this
The Federal Elections Commission quarterly report revealed 52% of GOP troops support RON PAUL. Twenty six percent of troops overall support RON PAUL, more than any candidate.
When you talk about troops, you are talking about my family. I was born into a tradtional military family, and many troops today are serving because this is what is demanded from them by their families. I am constantly reminded by my family that I am the only one who will not be buried in a military grave yard. My family has been fighting for freedom on this contenent since 1741.
I have always been anti-war for a very selfish reason. As a girl, my father was never home being a three war vet. I wanted my Daddy home. My Mom I'm sure also wanted my Dad home, but her duty is to be supportive, in a way that MSM suggests we are supportive of troops today, "To be strong and with them 100%". As a kid, I didn't have to play that. I could cry and say, "I miss my Daddy and want him home", so my antiwar stand has never changed except it is no longer for my own Dad, but for all the children of parents in the military who wants their parents home."
I LOVE the military as it is my own blood and I support them by supporting RON PAUL, as they do.
WE ARE GOING TO WIN!
fair enough
I am proud of your family who has fought since 1741, and most of them if not all of them were just and honorable wars.
There's nothing wrong to be against the war, or anything for simply selfish reasons, one must see that those who want the war are no less selfish.
But if you don't support the war, you should remember that the troops are men that have chosen to stay and do it, otherwise they have the option to rebel. Certainly I can see the problem that that's not a good option for people who want to return home to their family. I don't know what's best for the troops, but I won't ask them to do anything either.
I think you are mistaken
If you talk to Iraq war vets, they fight for very different reasons than you suggest. They Volunteer usually as a way to provide a better future for themselves, and to serve the country. Once they join, they have to go where their officers send them. Once they are their, it is loyalty to their comrades, and their sense of personal honor that keeps them fighting, not any political cause.
We are all responsible for the war in Iraq, you can walk away and say it is not your fault, you were against it, but in the end, the wars opponent's failed miserably, we succumbed to fear, and allowed this to happen. It is as much your fault as anyone's since you have failed to do enough to prevent it.
Since the soldiers represent you, and are their because of your limitations, I believe it is still important to offer them thanks for their willingness to serve,
At least, We are obligated to see that the troops are treated with respect and dignity, because they pay the price of our failure. They are willing to have faith in the government, in us, so we owe them our support.
yes, but
It may not be a political cause, loyalty is certainly important, but life is not something to be forgotten if this cause is not worthy. When it is your own life on the line, it shouldn't matter the who, what, where, when why, just whether you're willing to do it, if not, the option of killing your commander is always there.
Yes I do blame myself for not preventing this war, even though I thought I did enough, but I am realizing my mistake, as I am now, that all we did was peacefully express our opinion. Had we taken up arms and sent the message our Congressmen and President (even assassination if it was necessary), we could've prevented this war.
There are two issues here
.
The first is the misguided statement of Cathie Adams, the second is the claimed insult to Ron Paul.
Soldiers and their missions are separate entities. There are good missions, wisely planned and well carried-out. D-Day was one; it helped to turn the tide of WWII. There are bad missions; and, as one other writer pointed out, Pickett's Charge at Gettysburg was a disaster. Thousands of Confederate soldiers, marching across 2 miles of open field, were decimated by the Federal fire. It was Lee's most costly mistake, one that turned the tide of the war.
A soldier's job is to follow orders. A bad, or misguided mission means that the orders coming down from the top will be bad also. Pity the poor soldier who is ordered to take the hill, even though he is vastly outnumbered. Cathie would have us support the soldier in following a bad order within a bad mission. It is senseless; but it is the stuff of war.
Ron Paul's position, with respect to Iraq, is the only correct one. Our soldiers deserve better, or at least a declared war and a winnable mission. At the moment they have neither.
For Margie to take offense at Cathie's remarks is to miss the point: Cathie hasn't thought the soldier/mission connection through correctly. Many people cherish false beliefs; and an argument can never be won with an ignorant person. Time for cooler heads I think.
Support who?
Indeed, let's try this equality thing the other way around. Can one support the war but not the troops? I would say so, for that's how they are being treated by those who "hired" them. Using men as fodder is just one example of "support the war(s) but not the troops".
Would honoring the contract for 12 months onduty, 12 months offduty be supportive of the troops? How about honoring bonus contracts - supportive or demoralizing to troops? There are so many ways that the troops are being dishonored and demoralized already by the current ways of the centralized Fed Govt, that rescuing our troops from their clutches would be the most supportive thing we could do.
Cathie Adams
I am very disappointed in Cathie Adams, being an Eagle Forum member she should know better.
She is insulting all Americans who love this country and love and respect those in uniform.
Here is her email, I encourage you to write a respectful letter and why you disagree. cathieadams@texaseagle.org
Please DO NOT mention Ron Paul in your letters. That will only cause trouble.
A Historical Argument - The Civil War.
One of the defining moments of the American civil war was Pickett's Charge, during the Battle of Gettysburg. The men that made that charge are universally considered brave, and their courage and honor is recognized by all Americans. At the same time, most do not support the cause of their government or the strategy of their General.
Indeed, the men asked General Lee to reform, and Charge again. To Lee's Credit, he took responsibility for the failure, and reevaluated his strategy. Would it have been "supporting the Troops" to let them continue a failed strategy? Would it have been supporting the troops to follow Burnside, who keep ordering failed charge, after failed Charge at Mayres Heights in Fredricksburg ?
No, its clear from history that you can Honor and support the Warrior, without supporting the policy or strategy that sends him (or her) to war.
I agree
Yes, it would be wise and supporting the troops to change strategy, especially if it means saving lives.
And in today's case for Iraq, there's no strategy other than to GET OUT NOW. There's no safe way to fight this war, and there's no incentive to fight it, so why smoke a cigarette if it's not going to make you healthier?
Thanks for the History Lesson!
M. Raborn I wish I had known this to have shared with Mrs. Adams, but you can rest assured I will use it the next time I engage one of the "we must support the war" advocates!
M. Raborn