Support our troops?

I'm getting a bit tired of the “support our troops” litany that Republicans and Democrats keep repeating like a mindless mantra. My personal opinion may be (surprise surprise) a bit more distant from mainstream than even most critics of the war would find comfortable. I actually don't support either the war or the troops. You see, unlike Vietnam, the current US army is made of “volunteers,” i.e. it is actually a mercenary army. Some of these people, no doubt, are there because of patriotism, as misguided as it may be. Others because they like playing with big weapons and feel the adrenalin rush of being a Rambo. Still more, probably, join the army simply because of the bribes the government dangles in front of their eyes, ranging from paid college education to a cool sports watch (yup, you read correctly). Which means that “the troops,” by and large, have actually chosen to be in Iraq – hence, from my perspective – do not in fact deserve my “support” because they are partially responsible for what is going on there. Of course, their level of responsibility doesn't even come close to that of the “brains” behind the war, especially Bush, Cheney, and Rummy; still, remember the famous question of the '60s: what would happen if they declared a war and nobody showed up?

But even someone with more moderate opinions than mine may want to make some not so subtle distinctions when it comes to the facile accusation of “not supporting the troops” which is now, predictably, being hurled at those Democrats (and few Republicans) who are belatedly attempting to curtail Bush's madness by cutting funds to the war effort. These people are, in fact, supporting the troops by attempting to put fewer in arm's way and finally force the White House to really come up with a “new strategy,” as opposed to simply escalating (or “augmenting,” as the ever more Machiavellian Condy Rice insists in calling it) the current, utterly failed, strategy. There is indeed a distinction (with a difference) between not supporting the troops and not supporting the war.

Moreover, what really irks me is the balls that Republican hawks display in accusing the Dems of not supporting the troops, when it was Rumsfeld who sent many fewer troops than necessary into Iraq, because of his delusions of a “leaner, meaner” army whose successes would be based on a sci-fi like “shock and awe” approach. And let's not forget that this was supposed to be a cakewalk where the Iraqis would welcome coalition forces with flower petals in the streets. Even more callously, it was the Rumsfeld-led Pentagon that did not provide sufficient supplies to the soldiers, beginning with armored vehicles that were not armored enough to withstand roadside bombs, and continuing with the lack of personal protection vests that forced some families to raise money to properly equip their sons, just like the medieval crusaders who had to provide for their own weapons to help their kings and popes “liberate” the holy land. Talk about not supporting the troops.