liberals into a near-frenzied st
THERE'S one current idea that drives anti-war liberals into a near-frenzied state ?— the notion that you can't re ally call yourself a supporter of our armed forces in Iraq if you stand in opposition to their efforts there.
I received dozens of enraged e-mails over the past week after making a glancing reference to this ?— while citing a poll that indicated deep support for the mission in Iraq from those Americans currently in uniform.
I'm going to have to paraphrase what those angry e-mails said, because most of them featured profanities, SCREAMING CAPITAL LETTERS and totally! unnecessary! exclamation! points!
You're the one who doesn't support the troops, they all essentially said, because you think they should be sent into harm's way for an unjust, ill-conceived, ill-considered and pointless mission. We, who want the war ended, are the true supporters of the troops.
That line of argument sounds wonderfully humanitarian. Doubtless, most who use it believe they're expressing positive sentiments toward the U.S. military ?— and that they believe those who feel or think otherwise are indifferent to the difficulties facing armed Americans involved in a tough struggle in Iraq.
But there is something exquisitely condescending about the attitude that members of the military need Americans here at home to save them. Every person now serving in Iraq entered the service voluntarily and as an adult.
What we learned from the recent poll is that those who have served in Iraq are the most enthusiastic about our efforts there. They aren't seeking rescue by well-meaning stateside Americans.
No, it appears they are seeking to win this thing ?— and they are willing to risk a great deal to win.
For, difficult though it is for many people to understand, some ?— perhaps many ?— people enter military service because they see something noble, something elevating, something empowering, in putting it all on the line.
Achieving glory through martial means is an idea as old as civilization itself, from Achilles battling the Trojans to Shakespeare's Henry V telling his soldiers that all those in their beds back in England will think themselves accursed because they were not among the ''band of brothers'' attacking the French on St. Crispin's Day.
Americans in Iraq are in harm's way to make possible the transformation of that country from a totalitarian instability generator into a functioning free society. The nobility of that effort and the glory that will attach to all those who were involved in it seem self-evident to many of those who support the effort.
But those who have opposed the war from the outset seem to feel that the goal isn't noble, and that it would be best to figure out some kind of quick and cheap face-saving exit strategy at best or an appropriately humiliating defeat at worst.
They deny the nobility of the goal in Iraq, and therefore they also deny the attendant nobility and glory due those who are seeking to achieve the goal. If what our soldiers, sailors, Marines and Guardsmen are doing is pointless, or even injurious to American interests, how can glory redound from it?
That's why I say that those who say the war isn't worth fighting cannot justly say they also support the troops ?— because they are also saying their risk and sacrifice are pointless rather than glorious.
