The normal enlistment is 4 years. Are you saying that with the Iraq war going on for over 5 years, there is anyone in the military that did not enlist or re-enlist knowing about the war? The war was on the news everywhere. No one is in the military not knowing about the War in Iraq. Now, what planet are you one where this does not make sense to you?
I was one of the troops. This is what supporting the troops means to me. Support the mission. Do not disrespect troops in public. Do not disrespect the particular armed service. You do not have to like them, but not give the enemy reason to believe that you are not united behind the Marines, Sailors, Soldiers, and Airman and the specifics of their mission. They are doing a dangerous job and they want to be victorious in their mission. Do not insult them by allowing them to return home less than victorious. They know how to do their job. Let them...
But, what is your definition of "supporting the troops"? Please, explain yourself.
I do not agree that supporting the troops necessarily means supporting the mission. If one does not believe the mission is a valid extension of U.S. security, then that is what they believe.
BUT, that being said, I would caution those against the war that HOW they object to the war is important. Morale is a VERY important factor in combat. And HOW objections to a war are voiced by the public and in the media can and do have a significant impact on troop morale.
A soldier with low morale is far more likely to be wounded or killed than a soldier with high morale. A trooper with low morale is worried, distracted, depressed. Their thoughts are not on the mission at hand. That leads to mistakes, missed clues, slow reactions. Seconds are jewels beyond price in a combat situation. The waste of half a second in combat because the soldier is distracted can get him killed, and all to often one or more of his squad mates.
A soldier of high morale is quite the opposite. They are awake, alert, confident. Their thoughts are on the mission at hand, not distracted by negative thought or worry. Sure, soldiers are scared in combat, but fear is not necessarily a negative thought. Since a soldier is far more alert by being less distracted, they are much more likely to react quickly and correctly in an emergency, saving their own lives and often the lives of their squad mates.
As such, engaging in rhetoric such as "The war is already lost" or "there is no way to win", or "They are dying for a lie" or "our soldiers are terrorizing people" (when the word terror has a special meaning in the context of the war at hand), is NOT supporting the troops. Such statements can and do have a significant negative effect of those who go into combat the next day after reading such.
Of much better content are statements such as "We need to end this war as quickly as possible and bring our people home."
Of course, I will now be attacked as wanting to censor what people say. But that is in no way my intent. I spent 40 years defending the people's right to say whatever the hell they want. But I am ADVISING people that if they TRULY desire to support the troops, they will be aware of the impact their rhetoric can have on combat soldiers, and being aware, speak accordingly.
