Troop Support

Joel Stein recently published a provocative article in the LA Times with the first line "I DON'T SUPPORT our troops":

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. I'm sure I'd like the troops. They seem gutsy, young and up for anything. If you're wandering into a recruiter's office and signing up for eight years of unknown danger, I want to hang with you in Vegas. And I've got no problem with other people - the ones who were for the Iraq war - supporting the troops. If you think invading Iraq was a good idea, then by all means, support away. Load up on those patriotic magnets and bracelets and other trinkets the Chinese are making money off of. 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. Blindly lending support to our soldiers, I fear, will keep them overseas longer by giving soft acquiescence to the hawks who sent them there - and who might one day want to send them somewhere else. Trust me, a guy who thought 50.7% was a mandate isn't going to pick up on the subtleties of a parade for just service in an unjust war. He's going to be looking for funnel cake. Besides, those little yellow ribbons aren't really for the troops. They need body armor, shorter stays and a USO show by the cast of "Laguna Beach." The real purpose of those ribbons is to ease some of the guilt we feel for voting to send them to war and then making absolutely no sacrifices other than enduring two Wolf Blitzer shows a day. Though there should be a ribbon for that.

He goes on to make what may be the most controversial assertion of the article...that the soldiers on the ground bear some of the blame for the mistakes that have been made:

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.

Hewitt and Malkin ripped him a new one over it. Admittedly, I don't really get why soldiers bear any more responsibility than the politicians who give them marching orders or the public that elected the politicians. But I think there is a point to be made about supporting the troops. Ribbons and decals and bumper stickers probably do have some meaning to a soldier that sees them, but in the grand scheme of things, trinkets and slogans aren't that useful. There are a bunch of more meaningful suggestions at the americasupportsyou.mil web site such as donating a computer, donating frequent flyer miles, supporting scholarship funds, sending a care package, etc. It reminds me of how annoying it is when in a time of trajedy some says "keep them in your thoughts and prayers" but often prayers are left out for the more PC version "keep them in your thoughts." Thoughts won't make much of a difference. It's the actions that can make a difference. From 1 John 3:

16 This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers. 17 If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him? 18 Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth.

Let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth.