Greg Cox sends the following in reply to my post about "supporting the troops." I'm going to interrupt a few times here to respond to what he has to say. Note the difference in margins to distinguish him from me.
If that reporter was coaching troops, as it seems he was, that is an integrity issue, and I think most people would find his actions very inappropriate.
The reports I've read sound like minor coaching. But even if it's inappropriate, the gentleman still posed a valid question. I think what's happening right now is that pro-Bush folks who are embarrassed by Rumsfeld's answer are trying to shift the focus from that answer to a Red Herring: Let's not talk about Rumsfeld's competence or insensitivity. Let's talk about the slanted press and how all bad news is because of their bias. It's a slight variation on the old Nixon trick: If you don't like being asked the question, attack the questioner. I think it's worth noting that all the press reports, even the ones in the Conservative press, said that a lot of the soldiers present cheered the question.
Also, Secretary Rumsfeld, in my opinion, nailed it on the head – you do go to war with the army you have. You get things rolling to get the equipment in place, of course. But you'd mentioned you haven't seen anyone denying that the troops haven't had what they need – well, put me on that list — the troops have what they have. They can always use more. And, yes, there still may have been errors made, and there may be obvious shortcomings. And of course those issues should be brought to light, and corrected. But they should be corrected — so that the troops can do their job.
My problem with Rumsfeld's reply was that it was a glib non-answer. I mean, if you were a soldier and I sent you into battle with defective weaponry and compasses that point East and spoiled rations and inaccurate maps, I could say, "Well, you go to war with what you have." There is such a thing as a soldier who has been insufficiently equipped. It doesn't save that soldier's life to say, "Well, they have what they have." We are fighting a War of Choice here. There was plenty of time to prep for this war, there could have been more…and it's fair to ask if we've done everything feasible to provide troops with armor and equipment since it began. Clearly, a lot of those on the ground in Iraq don't thnk so. (Here's a piece from The Army Times)
Speaking of doing the job – the thing I'd most like to run by you is this: To me, supporting our troops is tied to supporting their success. (Lots of people, of course, agree or disagree on whether we should have gone into/invaded Iraq; and I think that's related to all this, but very separate from "supporting our troops.")
Personally, I support what we're doing in Iraq, and in the larger war on terror. And I have no problems with someone who doesn't share my opinions. But — to vocally advocate our not finishing the job – that for certain isn't beneficial. The troops have a mission, you know?
When it comes to whether people support or don't support that mission – I think the the same distinction I mentioned before applies – if someone doesn't support the job we're committed to – hey, fine. But supporting the troops? How could that NOT include wanting to see them succeed? How does it add up? Do people with that point of view want the troops to be safe, but not successful? How confusing that must be.
It's still less confusing than the people who say they "support the troops" but don't seem to be bothered if the equipment is sub-standard, if military pay is cut and if we skimp on veteran's benefits.
Actually, a lot of this comes down to costs, primarily human costs. It's one thing for people to support a mission in the abstract; quite another for them to support it when it becomes clear that it will cost X American lives…to say nothing of the number wounded and the dollar cost. Supposing those costs tripled? Or were multiplied times ten? Your support for the troops themselves would not change. You'd still want them to be safe. But your belief in the mission could sure diminish.
I think you always have to look at the principle you're applying and ask yourself if it works if and when our leaders are incompetent or misguided. You may think Bush, Rumsfeld, et al know what they're doing but what if someone in their position was just plain wrong? Military leaders of the past have made errors, sometimes horrible errors, and it removes any sense of accountability or "checks and balances" to restrict criticism of them. I am not wholly convinced but I've read some semi-convincing arguments that the current U.S. efforts in Iraq are making things worse, not better, and putting the U.S. in a much worse position vis-a-vis the "War on Terror." If that's so, one could well decide the mission should be aborted or altered. That would not indicate any lack of affection or respect for the troops.
What I think is disrespectful is when someone uses soldiers as Human Shields in the debate over policy; when a criticism of the leaders is deflected by scolding the critic, "You don't support our brave men and women fighting overseas." It's like a crooked politician wrapping himself in the flag. The folks who have been deficient in getting soldiers the needed armor and the ones who oppose better pay and post-war care for veterans…they're the ones who literally are not supporting our troops.