I was watching C-Span and heard a Democrat telling a friendly audience that Democrats should define "supporting the troops" in terms critical of President Bush.And all I could think was that he was not a soldier and as such it was not his place - or mine - to define what "supporting the troops" means. The only reason there can be controversy over what the troops need in the way of support is that the troops themselves rightly are traditionally studiously apolitical. That is democratically correct because we do not want the president to order the troops to be political activists. Just as the Civil Service is supposed to protect federal employees from political pressure to support incumbents.
But it is not true that that leaves us utterly in the dark as to the desires of the troops. Democrats claim to support the troops by saving them from being in harm's way abroad. But do the troops want to be "saved"? The Democratic model is that of troops with shattered morale mutinying in the trenches in WWI. The reality is of troops voluntarily reenlisting to go back to Iraq for a second, third, even a fourth tour.
I have argued with liberals about the impossibility of this position. To any member of the military worth their meager pay, the mission is the reason for their existance.
The mission is their end-all-be-all! They can't do the mission sitting in bases on U.S. soil.
Therefore, 1] you can't support the troops by wanting them home without victory; and 2] you can't support the troops without supporting the mission.
It's all or nothing....either your with us,.... or against us.
Somebody famous said that....