I've been visiting the blog "Kickin' the Darkness" for the commentary, and I was freshly struck by a little blurb hosts Dan and Marc have stuck up in the right hand corner.
Self-evidently, the blurb recommends supporting the troops by bringing them back from the theater of conflict. If any number of the troops believe in the mission that they are there to accomplish, however, then in what sense are they supported by bringing them home?
Let's grant that those who wish to return home regardless of the mission would be supported by the requirement that they be brought home. What of the rest, however?
It seems that this type of support is somewhat comparable to the support of a cheerleading squad at a football game where their team is getting trounced. With the good of the players in mind, they just want to get the game over with to avoid possible injury.
Take a knee! Take a knee!
When time runs out then we can flee!
Now, this type of observation has been made by many conservatives, so I wouldn't even bother posting about it except for the particular wording used at KtD. The war dead are "heroes."
What makes them heroes to those who want to abruptly terminate the war effort regardless of the outcome? Perhaps some in opposition to the Iraq war could give a coherent answer, but I suspect that for many (most?) of them, the troops are better termed dupes, pawns or suckers.
Again, this is not particularly original--it just struck a bit closer to home because the setting at KtD feels a bit more like community than national debate.
The impression I get from the blurb is that it patronizes our military. Our soldiers don't know what they're doing. They're irresponsible and in over their heads, so we have to save them from themselves for their own good. And that is "support."
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please remain on topic and keep coarse language to an absolute minimum. Comments in a language other than English will be assumed off topic.