"When questioned, many I have encountered claim to "support the troops but not the war" which always strikes me as just a wishy-washy way of trying to stay on the right side of every issue."
You can support the selfless service of soldiers without being in support of each iteration of conflict which utilizes them. Governments, who employ soldiers to become the instruments with which wars are engaged, do not always choose to go to war wisely, nor does the nobility of their geo-political ambitions become unquestionable because of the loyalty, dedication and sacrifice of soldiers. One can address that reality without self contradiction. Governments can err in going to war even if soldiers do not in their dedication to their country, and if wars are fought in error it’s not the dedication of a soldier that bears the weight of culpability.
Even those most instrumental in waging wars have expressed grave misgivings about that decision after the fact. I'm thinking of McNamara in particular. Yet there was nothing in his regret about escalating our involvement in Vietnam which expressed a lack of support for the soldiers who fought there. In fact, the sacrifice of so many lives for reasons that he thought in retrospect to be unjustified was the source of his deep regret. History showed the domino theory to be erroneous and McNamara wrote about it in his memoir "In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam." One thing it taught him is that we should not go to war injudiciously. A lesson such as that should be a virulent contagion.
Besides a sincere "thank you", I don't know what you could say to someone willing to risk their lives in service to their country. Its one of the most selfless acts a human can commit, and I think I understand your questioning how someone can support the troops but not simultaneously support the job they're doing. Yet how well someone is doing their job, or how noble their sacrifice is in doing it, is not the same as how justified the job is as something to be done. |
