Don’t Support the Troops

Joel Stein makes a rather bizarre argument in his L.A. Times column today entitled “Warriors And Wusses”: If you oppose the war, you shouldn’t support the troops fighting it.

I don’t support our troops. This is a particularly difficult opinion to have, especially if you are the kind of person who likes to put bumper stickers on his car. Supporting the troops is a position that even Calvin is unwilling to urinate on.

[…]

But I’m not for the war. And being against the war and saying you support the troops is one of the wussiest positions the pacifists have ever taken — and they’re wussy by definition. It’s as if the one lesson they took away from Vietnam wasn’t to avoid foreign conflicts with no pressing national interest but to remember to throw a parade afterward.

[…]

After we’ve decided that we made a mistake, we don’t want to blame the soldiers who were ordered to fight. Or even our representatives, who were deceived by false intelligence. And certainly not ourselves, who failed to object to a war we barely understood.

But blaming the president is a little too easy. The truth is that people who pull triggers are ultimately responsible, whether they’re following orders or not. An army of people making individual moral choices may be inefficient, but an army of people ignoring their morality is horrifying. An army of people ignoring their morality, by the way, is also Jack Abramoff’s pet name for the House of Representatives.

I do sympathize with people who joined up to protect our country, especially after 9/11, and were tricked into fighting in Iraq. I get mad when I’m tricked into clicking on a pop-up ad, so I can only imagine how they feel.

But when you volunteer for the U.S. military, you pretty much know you’re not going to be fending off invasions from Mexico and Canada. So you’re willingly signing up to be a fighting tool of American imperialism, for better or worse. Sometimes you get lucky and get to fight ethnic genocide in Kosovo, but other times it’s Vietnam.

Now, on the one hand, Stein has a point. One’s support of the troops certainly does not have to extend to support of what they are doing. And in a volunteer military, those who fight in our wars are making moral choices.

Still, to hold them blameworthy for following the legal orders of the president is rather bizarre. Our soldiers were sent to Iraq by the president pursuant to an overwhelming authorization of force by the Congress. At that point, they have a duty to go off to war regardless of whether they like it. It would be untenable to put the country in a position where it is paying for warriors that it relies on in times of crisis and then give those warriors the ability to opt out at the moment when they are needed.

Further, once soldiers are on the ground, they have an obligation to “pull the trigger” to defend themselves, their comrades-in-arms, and innocent civilians. Failing to exercise that duty would be absolutely unconscionable.

Update:

    Mark Moore wonders whether Stein “celebrates every time one of our young men and women is shot to death or blown to bits?”

    Michelle Malkin thinks Stein a candidate for the list of “most loathsome people in America.”

    McQ believes Stein takes “the only honest position” those who oppose the war on moral (as opposed to strategic) grounds can.

    Ace feels vindicated in his longstanding belief that “those who scream the loudest about how they just want to bring our troops home aren’t animated much by that at all.”

    Rusty Shackleford argues, “This is why the antiwar position is unpatriotic. This is America’s war, and to be against it is to be against America. There is a time to be against a war, and that time is before the war begins. Strategies for victory are legitimate debate, but as long as troops are on the ground then that is where debate should end.”

FILED UNDER: Iraq War, Military Affairs, , , , , ,
James Joyner
About James Joyner
James Joyner is a Security Studies professor at Marine Corps University's Command and Staff College and a nonresident senior fellow at the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security at the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm vet. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter @DrJJoyner.

Comments

  1. Anderson says:

    Okay, Joel, how much did Karl Rove pay you to write that stupid column?

    (I thought I was joking when I began that sentence, but hell, they secretly pay people to write *for* them … how big a step is it to pay ’em to write *against* them?)




    0



    0
  2. ICallMasICM says:

    What’s the big issue since we all know that’s the case anyway. As soon as you hear any Dem say ‘but we support the troops’ you know they don’t support the troops. It’s like when some pro jock says ‘It’s not about the money’ you know it’s about the money.




    0



    0
  3. James Joyner says:

    ICM: I disagree, at least in the main. There are certainly some prominent Democrats (and probably a few Republicans, even) who have contempt for our soldiers. Still, I believe that the vast majority of those who oppose the war do in fact want the best for our soldiers.

    The logical consequence of Stein’s argument is that we should hope our troops fail and, indeed, that as many of them are killed as possible so that their crimes stop. I have to believe that’s not a position that many–if any–Democrats in Congress hold, even privately.




    0



    0
  4. ICallMasICM says:

    ‘I believe that the vast majority of those who oppose the war do in fact want the best for our soldiers.’

    No doubt – I guess based on the statements of Dem presidential nominee John ‘Our soldiers are terrorists’ Kerry who after all was only the Dem nominee for president and received almost 60 million votes and has condemned US servicemen his whole adult life, and Dick Durbin and Ted Kennedy and …… need I go on.

    The fact that you believe they want the best for our soldiers in based on your unfailing good nature. I’ll believe you the next time I see some Dem condemn the Cindy-sheehan-‘this country isn’t worth dying for’-‘America is a cancer’-‘George Bush murdered my son’-of-the-month.




    0



    0
  5. LJD says:

    I don’t want to register with LAT to read the article, for fear of ending up on some DHS Commie watch list or something…

    …but SURELY this is satire?




    0



    0
  6. Elmo says:

    Who reads liberals? Could there be a larger waste of time? The L.A. Times has slid so far down the pulp and ink totem pole, that even some dogs in the tonier neighborhoods, now refuse to alight upon it.

    I read the L.A. times for twenty plus years. Once upon a time, they actually expended effort in the pursuit of their jobs. Now there simply is no more worthless rag on the planet.

    Signed, bought an atomic NYT copy yesterday. What an enormous difference (putting aside any/all discussion of meat/potatoes politics).




    0



    0
  7. Allan says:

    Stein’s article makes a great point.

    If you can’t support the troops but oppose the war, you also can’t oppose the government but support the nation.

    Thus, Stein and the entire anti-war movement (including most Democrats), are anti-American.




    0



    0
  8. leelu says:

    LDJ,

    There’s a link to the whole screed on Drudge.

    I looked at this guy’s bio… seems to be a narcissistic little shit.




    0



    0
  9. Bill S. says:

    And the LA Times wonders why circulation is down?




    0



    0
  10. G A PHILLIPS says:

    Is it so unbelievable that a fool writes for one of our major news services.is it so unbelievable that a fool would take the lies created by other fools as the truth and spread them.The liberal part of of our media is no more then a panicky mindless raging mob of fools as are there leaders in both our state and federal governments.We must stop giving them credit where none is due,we must stop ignoring there stupidity and giving them equal treatment under the unwritten rules of intellectual debate.then again, the only thing i think that we can offer them is our prayers.because i know they will not listen and it seems that they can not learn.




    0



    0
  11. EagleMom says:

    “I know this is all easy to say for a guy who grew up with money, did well in school and hasn’t so much as served on jury duty for his country.”

    Hasn’t so much as served on jury duty?
    What kind of slug is this Joel Stein?




    0



    0
  12. onlyabill says:

    So we have someone that has never had to do without, never had to want for money, never had to extend one iota of effort in support of the country that he calls home, who with a clear mind, calls those who are willing to pay the ultimate sacrifice for this country, moral less murderers.

    What courage! To completely dismiss and hold in contempt the group of individuals that help preserve your right to say those things. You are indeed a man of great character and an inspiration to all!




    0



    0
  13. Kenneth Vasquez says:

    Consider the following recent statements by leaders in the Democratic party:

    Howard Dean (Chairman, Democratic National Committee): “I wish the President had paid more attention to the history of Iraq before we had gotten in there. The idea that we’re going to win this war is just plain wrong.” Dec. 5, 2005

    John Kerry (Democrat Senator, MA): “The President’s policy…is a policy of failure. And there is no reason…that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the …historical customs, religious customs.” Dec. 4, 2005

    John Murtha (Democrat Representative, PA): “Staying the course is not a policy….Our Army is broken, worn out, living hand to mouth.” Dec. 1, 2005
    “I said over a year ago…Iraq cannot be won ‘militarily.’ My plan calls to immediately redeploy U.S. troops..” Nov. 17, 2005
    Murtha said he would not join the military today. When the interviewer said, “And I think you’re saying the average guy out there who’s considering recruitment is justified in saying, ‘I don’t want to serve,’ Murtha replied, “Exactly right.” Jan. 3, 2006

    I could give many other examples by liberals like Senator Ted Kennedy, Senator Harry Reid, and Senator Hillary Clinton, but you get the drift.

    My question for the liberal Democrats is: whose morale does it help when you make these statements? The enemy’s or ours? Why do we never see a poll asking our brave men and women in the U.S. military what they think of these comments? How come our young soldiers are never asked if these comments build up their morale, or tear it down? That would be an interesting poll indeed.

    The major news media (CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, the Washington Post, the L.A. Times, the New York Times, etc.) portray these comments as harmless free speech. In reality, the comments are possibly grounds for treason. Aren’t you being a little bit harsh, you say?

    Our Constitution defines treason in Article 3, Section 3 as giving aid and comfort to the enemy. One can make a very strong argument that destroying the morale of our troops is giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Think of it this way: if you were Osama bin Laden, and you heard what John Kerry, John Murtha, and Howard Dean have said, wouldn’t you be happy? As a terrorist, wouldn’t it boost your morale? Wouldn’t the thought of the U.S. quitting give you comfort?

    Imagine the reaction during World War II if politicians had: said that we could not beat the Nazis and Japan militarily; encouraged young men not to join the military; said that our Army was broken, worn out; said that our President’s policy was a policy of failure; said that our soldiers were terrorizing women and children; and said that we needed to withdraw our troops immediately.

    Those politicians probably would’ve been arrested as traitors. But nowadays, while we’re in the middle of a war, liberal Democrats say the same things while prefacing their statements with, “We support the troops, BUT…” I say, with friends like them, who needs enemies? To paraphrase a famous song from the “Music Man”: Oh, we got treason! Right here in River City! With a capital ‘T’, and that rhymes with ‘D’, and that stands for Democrats!




    0



    0
  14. Nate says:

    Yeah, the whole “never even served on jury duty” says a lot about him. Basically he takes pride in being a leech on the rest of Americans. He wants all the freedoms, but doesn’t want to sacrifice anything. Not one day to ensure the legal system flows (but will probably whine about convicted killers not getting enough appeals in his next breath). This is one of the most selfish displays I’ve seen in print. Gimmee, gimmee, gimmee. With an outlook like that it’s a wonder he has a friend on this planet.




    0



    0
  15. LJD says:

    leelu: I found the link- thanks!

    This piece seems to be some misguided attempt at humor- poorly thought out and unsucessfully executed. I wonder how a professional journalist can use the phrase ‘I want to hang with you in Vegas’ in anything other than an MTV Spring Break review.

    Stein refers to war supporters as the ‘other people’, and as ‘the ones loading up on… trinkets’. So who the hell is he talking about when he says ‘we’? As in ‘the guilt we feel for voting to send them to war’ and ‘We know we’re sending recruits to do our dirty work, and we want to seem grateful’, and ‘we made a mistake, we don’t want to blame the soldiers who were ordered to fight’ Who is this WE? NOT ME!

    Now let’s examine the contradictions:
    First, Stein says ‘The truth is that people who pull triggers are ultimately responsible, whether they’re following orders or not.’ My question is, how can they be responsible if they ‘joined up to protect our country, …and were tricked into fighting in Iraq’? What is it? Are they responsible, or were they tricked?

    Second, his point about U.S. foreign policy: ‘So you’re willingly signing up to be a fighting tool of American imperialism’. Fairly straight forward in representing his views, but then he contradicts himself again: ‘Sometimes you get lucky and get to fight ethnic genocide in Kosovo… And sometimes, for reasons I don’t understand, you get to just hang out in Germany.’ How exactly is fighting genocide supportive of imperialism? How is it that our military came to be deployed in Germany? Imperialism? I think not.

    To top it all off, he admits that he has no idea what he’s talking about: ‘I know this is all easy to say for a guy who… hasn’t so much as served on jury duty for his country’. At least he acknowledged that people might want to punch him in the nose. If this article was intended to be funny, it sorely missed the mark.




    0



    0
  16. New-con Kenn says:

    Unbelievable that people with attitudes like Stein’s are still allowed to live in America after the horrors of September 11th, 2001. Moreover, It’s pathetic and sad (in a Dr. Sanity sort of way) to see the old (and new) socialist liberal antagonizers trying like hell to relive theirs or their parents old glory days of the late ’60’s – early ’70’s.

    But even so, Mr. Stein is only preaching to the choir. He can’t possibly believe that he is going to win over some hearts, can he? I cannot fathom the mere notion of a non-liberal reading his tripe and thinking, “My goodness! What have I been thinking all this time; supporting Bush, the troops, the GWOT, and tight homeland security! Why, you can dash that off my list now! Boy Howdy! Thank you Mr. Joel Stein for clearing up all of my self-doubts!! Whew, close call”

    I was was once a liberal fool. I still have the peace-sign on my forearm to prove it. So in that respect, I would hasten to let G A Phillips know that some have listened and learned as we have wised up to the real post 9/11 world. I think you might also be pleased to know that there are quite a few of us out here in the hinterlands, and growing.

    Three-cheers for alternate media! This is truly a God-send to those who want to know the truth!

    And to think that my liberal dis-indoctrination literally began for me by finally getting a computer and putting Ann Coulter (along with Ted Rall) as one of my preferences in the My Yahoo columnists (I thought she looked sexy- and well, she does – and to which I can only thankfully say that it wasn’t a picture of Limbaugh – ha-ha, inside joke) and on it went. Now I am absolutely absorbed with conservatism and it’s All-American ways. (And about Rall, he’s another prime example of wishful-thinking glory-day-living-in-a-bubble nutter).

    I could go on and on and give all kinds of examples of liberal idiocy I have seen up-close and personal, but I’ve already taken up enough space.

    My Flag waves proudly and I am a New-American!




    0



    0
  17. Mark says:

    What we really need is a system of blacklisting traitorous writers and entertainers so they can’t get jobs here and are forced to move to France or Cuba or North Korea. The left always pissed and moaned about the blacklisting of the 1950s, but now we know those guys really were all commies supporting Stalin and hoping for our nation’s downfall.




    0



    0
  18. tblubird says:

    Vasquez,

    There is a way for the soldiers to give their opinion – it’s the milblogs. And they are doing a great job of it. It is what will change the face of the MSM – hopefully sooner than later.




    0



    0
  19. Anderson says:

    Vasquez, if a Dem pol really thinks the war is going terribly and will end in failure, exactly how is he supposed to express his opinion? E-mail the White House?

    My contempt for all you opponents of American liberty, in favor of militaristic grovelling, is growing every day. I’m so sorry that Soviet Russia went out of business. You would have liked it there.




    0



    0
  20. Jay Cline says:

    One point that everyone seems to be ignoring (probably because it is so ludicrous) is that,

    “people who joined up to protect our country, especially after 9/11, […] were tricked into fighting in Iraq … [and therefore are] an army of people ignoring their morality”

    Dudes. Most of those people “pulling those triggers” are fully aware of why they are there and fully support that decision.

    The only immorality going around here is Stein “shooting” off his mouth.

    Same logic, dude.




    0



    0
  21. McGehee says:

    There really isn’t a partisan point to be made about this guy’s blatherings (meaning Stein). He represents only himself.

    Kinda like Pat Robertson.




    0



    0
  22. Lurking Observer says:

    Anderson:

    One way would be to propose an alternative strategy. One that actually has a hope of success.

    Thus, “pull the troops out now,” while it might be a strategy, is not particularly cogent unless one has some means of linking said action with desired ends.

    Oh, and don’t talk down to the troops. Don’t sneer at them, don’t act like they’re a bunch of semi-morons who can’t do anything better and are simply there to be misled.




    0



    0
  23. Gerry N. says:

    People, people, poeple……

    For the love of God, can some of you learn a little bit of basic English grammar?

    Their……..Belonging to them.
    There……..In that place.
    They’re……They are.

    Sheesh! !




    0



    0
  24. Andre Lenoig says:

    I support the LA Times, but I would never buy it! BWAAHAAAHAAAAHAAAA!




    0



    0
  25. mingus says:

    How to we get Stein’s column discussed on DailyKos? Seems to me this is an absolutely perfect “rope with which to . . . “




    0



    0
  26. Brian says:

    I felt compelled to write Mr. Stein the follwing note today:

    Joel –

    Reading your article today made me think of my cousin, John T. Corley Jr., who I never met because he died in Vietnam six months into his first tour as a first lieutenant, and just one week before my first birthday. I have been trying to associate his memory with your sentiments towards those who fight in the US Military.

    Then it occurred to me. Rather than use your words as some sort of indictment upon my cousin’s short life, perhaps more is to be learned by analyzing why you feel the way you do towards those Americans who fight to defend other’s freedoms and liberties. My theory on why mostly American liberals disdain the US Military is based on the proposition that the men and women of the Armed Forces possess qualities that liberals seek in their own existence, but rarely ever find. Taking my cousin John’s 22 years as an example, he never got to experience some of the personal life achievements that you proudly list on your website (friends puking in your car, meeting Mookie Wilson, touching a porn star’s breast) but he did die doing something which, while you might dismiss as ignorant and unworthy of praise, was probably greater than anything you will ever do in all the years that you will live. He aided in defending half a country (millions of South Vietnamese) from the suffocating reality of imperialistic communism. A deplorable form of government which was spreading southward, not to bestow God given liberties on the residents of South Vietnam, but to take those they already had away “for the greater good.” If you think I am too naïve and simplistic in describing John’s mission, please study the aftermath of our Nation’s foolishly aborted mission in 1975; well over one million South Vietnamese murdered by the communist North, well over two million Cambodians murdered by the communist regime of Pol Pot, and the mass exodus of even millions more who were able to flee communist imperialism in rafts and boats. Please note that the majority of those who were able to escape alive fought to reach the shores of America. Oops, did I say America? This must be a confusing page in history for those like you who feel that America is the aggressor. Either my point is legitimate, or the mass escalation of Vietnamese immigration to America, post 1975, is the greatest evidence of Stockholm Syndrome known to mankind.

    In any case, I conclude my theory on American liberal revulsion towards the US Military as a symptom of envy and regret, and not one that is based on any form of principle; regret that similar convictions aren’t held in their own lives that would allow them the will to travel to the far corners of the Earth to defend other’s freedoms and liberties. Envy that the others who do exhibit such purpose and conviction only eclipse their own noble goals in life (containing the evils of capitalism, abolishing hunger, protecting Mother Earth, or whatever the cause.) So when American liberals show disdain for the US Military by insulting them as ignorant dupes, or spitting on them when they return from their mission or wishing them to rise up and kill their own leadership, I believe they are reflexively striking out at those who most threaten their own internal inadequacies. This most basic of human psychological deformities is illustrated by the hungry fox in Aesop’s Fables who, after a full day of failing to reach a succulent bunch of grapes on high, struts away and convinces himself that “those grapes were probably sour anyway.”

    One final note, my cousin John’s father (John Corley Sr.) was also a West Point graduate who spent his youth pummeling the Nazi Party from Algeria to Italy to France to Belgium and to their eventual demise in Berlin. History has proven that his US Army’s swift and selfless ability to reach Berlin and put the Nazi war machine out of business ended up saving the lives of many Joel Steins in that neck of the woods. I mention this fact, not to inflict hurt or guilt, but to strongly urge you to think about your careless use words like “an army of people ignoring their morality” or people who were “tricked into fighting in Iraq” or “a fighting tool of American imperialism” to describe the men and women of the US Military, whether you choose to support them or not. From 1942 to 1945, they defended the oppressed masses of Europe who had no recourse against the dictatorial will of one man. From 1951 to 1953, they defended the masses of South Korea from a communist regime; a glaring legacy evidenced by a demarcation that divides one of the most economically robust and democratic Asian nations from that of a economically deprived, human rights horror show that has no recourse against the dictatorial will of one insane man. From 1965 to 1975, they were once again defending the southern portion of a fledgling democracy from communist imperialism, until US political will eroded and pullout resulted in millions of murdered Vietnamese and Cambodians at the hands of the communist regimes that swept in (numbers exponentially greater than those American liberals claimed the US Military were responsible for.) I contend that peoples oppressed by dictators with no recourse, whether they are European, Asian or Middle Eastern deserve the compassion and the attention of the United States of America. I also contend that the US Military has proven itself the only formidable weapon against dictatorial aggression worldwide. If you choose to define this reality as American “imperialism,” I suggest you recheck your dictionary.




    0



    0
  27. jpe says:

    Still, to hold them blameworthy for following the legal orders of the president is rather bizarre.

    I think he makes a pretty good point, actually: we’re never going to have to fend off an invasion into our nation. The upshot is that any military action we do engage in will be far more morally ambiguous than that cut-and-dried situation.




    0



    0
  28. Herb says:

    The thing to do is to NOT buy the LA Times, but then again, anyone who would pay a half million dollars for an ordinary 3 bedroom house would buy anything, including the LA Times. When PT Barnum made his famous statement, he had to be talking about Californians




    0



    0
  29. pst314 says:

    The LA Times is owned by the Tribune Company, and the Chicago Tribune has its share of morons too. I will never forgive them for “balancing” an article about Muslim dissident Irshad Manji with comments from an office of an organization that makes excuses for Muslim terrorists and attacks democracy advocates…and without revealing the background of that person. But then, is that surprising? What’s surprising is to find a journalist who is not a worm.




    0



    0
  30. h says:

    thejoelstein@yahoo.com

    drop him a line – i’m sure he’d love to hear from the other side.

    further read Hugh Hewitt’s interview with this twit – flays and butterflys him, he does.




    0



    0
  31. ICallMasICM says:

    ‘Unbelievable that people with attitudes like Stein’s are still allowed to live in America after the horrors of September 11th, 2001.’

    Are you suggesting the death penalty or exile? I’m against both.

    ‘if a Dem pol really thinks the war is going terribly and will end in failure, exactly how is he supposed to express his opinion? ‘

    IMHO they can express it anyway they want but why do they feel compelled to lie about supporting the troops?




    0



    0
  32. Scott Harris says:

    I read Joel Stein’s piece yesterday, and after giving it some thought, and after reading the transcript of his conversation with Hugh Hewitt, I don’t really think he was trying to bash the troops. His throw away line about being moderately well-off, and being college educated surely could be construed as an insult, and his attitude toward the military belies a complete lack of understanding of it.

    But I think his underlying point was a good one. In fact, it is the same point that has been made so often by those who truly do support the troops and their efforts in this war. That point being that you cannot be simultaneously anti-war and pro-soldier. They are mutually exclusive positions. And I think Stein’s goal was to chide his fellow travelers for their dishonesty. The bashing of the troops was just collateral damage, not the target.

    At least he is being honest. At least he understands the logical and moral contradictions involved in the dubious slogan of “Support the Troops, Bring them Home Now.” So kudos to Stein for admitting to and exposing what thinking people have always known. The anti-War factions are not supporters of the troops. They never have been. Their claims were always a political ploy to try to overcome their weak position in the American polity.

    The biggest problem in debating leftists is their inherent dishonesty, not only to others, but also to themselves. Maybe Stein’s article will encourage others to also become more forthright in their positions. Then, at least, we could have an honest debate.




    0



    0
  33. Scott Harris says:

    One other point about Stein’s commentary. I actually agree with him when he says that the individual troops are responsible for the decisions they make. Yes, they are following orders. But that does not absolve them of their moral responsibility.

    Where I differ from Stein is in believing what they are doing is immoral. I do NOT believe that. I believe that what they are doing is a supremely moral endeavor. And so, unlike Stein, I honor them for their service, not because they are dupes, not because they are impoverished lackeys of an imperial government, but because they are independent moral entities, fully capable of making moral choices. And they have made the moral choice to fight against evil. For that, they deserve honor.

    So I guess that fundamentally, I agree with Stein’s argument. What we disagree on is his premises. If you grant him his premises, then his argument is sound. But it is his premises which are evil masquerading as good.




    0



    0
  34. Lurking Observer says:

    jpe:

    You suggest that there will be greater moral ambiguity, because we are not defending our own soil.

    How would you characterize what happened on 9-11? Or December 7th? Would either constitute an attack on US soil?

    If so, would retaliation that goes beyond our own borders represent still a morally ambiguous situation?

    Presuming that it was alright to strike back, having been attacked, it is interesting that, in the interview with Hewitt, Stein says that he was opposed to the invasion of Afghanistan as well.

    One suspects, based on this “logic” of his, that Stein probably opposed Guadalcanal, Tarawa, and Iwo Jima, as part of the effort to retaliate against Japan.

    One can argue about moral ambiguity regarding Iraq. But when striking back against Osama in Afghanistan is of uncertain morality, I can’t help but conclude that Stein is really saying that any counter-attack is questionable.

    Yet, at the same time, in his column Stein considers those who got to go to Kosovo “lucky,” because then you’re fighting genocide, as opposed to supporting imperialism, although in the interview, he admits to not actually knowing enough about the situation in Kosovo to know whether they should come home or not. Not exactly principled opposition to US imperialism or the use of force.




    0



    0
  35. rougy says:

    I can’t help but think this is a cointelpro job.

    Stein can’t be stupid enough to say something like that without knowing all the idiot republicons will use it to justify their “dissent equals treason” rhetoric.

    You cons have become very scary people.

    You have made it common place to associate legitimate, domestic, political dissent with treasonous acts.

    Talk about cowardly.




    0



    0
  36. Eric Byrd says:

    I am a veteran of OIF 3 and was injured while serving in Iraq with the Tennessee national guard. I had over 160 combat patrols before being med-evacuated back to the states. The majority of soldiers with whom I served with are proud of the job we done while we were “over there”. We helped many of the poor and oppressed people in the area we served. The elections of January 2004 was a real eye opener for me. I witnessed thousands of Iraqi men and woman vote for the first time in their lives. We witnessed many people walk miles to go cast their vote. It saddened me to think that these people risked their lives to vote,one of the polling places was attacked with RPG’s and mortars and no one was injured, but none of them left either. Each one stayed regardless of the danger to exercise their new found liberty that many Americans, Christians included, take for granted here. To say you do not support the war is to say that you do not support freedom. If you do not support freedom then you are saying that you do not support our constitution and our way of government, which was founded on Godly Christian principles. This reveals your true character and morals Mr. Stein . Your greed to keep your freedoms to yourself and oppose the men and woman who are proud of what we have accomplished in Iraq and Afghanistan by liberating the poor and oppressed is not only anti-American, but also self defeating. You have the freedom to oppose whatever you choose, be thankful you do not have to sacrifice anything for that. So next time you sit down and have and nice meal in a comfortable place, remember the sacrifice of those who payed the price for your freedom to oppose the very ones who payed it for you.The majority of the Iraqi people I met were so thankful for us being there. Many of them said they just want to be like America. They voiced the desire to have the freedom to choose their own destiny and were extremely thankful for us helping them take the first step in that direction. Oppose what you want Mr. Stein, but remember you have sacrificed nothing for that freedom, it was your gift at birth, bought and payed for by our forefathers who gave everything they had for it. This sacrifice continues to be made by those desiring to pass the torch of freedom on to others. The men and woman who are serving on the front lines where freedom is most fragile.




    0



    0
  37. Fess says:

    “Imagine the reaction during World War II if politicians had: said that we could not beat the Nazis and Japan militarily; encouraged young men not to join the military; said that our Army was broken, worn out; said that our President’s policy was a policy of failure; said that our soldiers were terrorizing women and children; and said that we needed to withdraw our troops immediately”

    It’s too bad the German & Japanese people didn’t do that. Oh right, when they disagreed with govermental policy, they were jailed and murdered. Thank God our country is about freedom of expression, no matter how unpopular.




    0



    0