« Hotel Rwanda, Revisited | Main | Space Anniversaries »

January 25, 2006

On Supporting the Troops

Joel Stein, columnist for the LA Times, is currently under fire for his column in which he explains he why he does not support the troops. Not supporting the troops is viewed as such a universally bad thing that even those who have opposed war and militaries their entire lives are careful to caveat their beliefs with the addendum they support the troops. Hugh Hewitt had Mr. Stein on his radio show yesterday and delicately skewered him for his posiition, and much of the conservative blogosphere is doing the same with greater or lesser intensity (see this Instapundit post for a good roundup). As is common for modern political discourse, Mr. Stein's argument is rarely the thrust of these posts, which instead prefer to focus on the moral failing inherent in failing to support the troops. This is unfortunate, as Mr. Stein's argument is logically constructed and quite correct.

Mr. Stein does not support the war in Iraq, and believes that the United States should withdraw from Iraq as quickly as possible. As he points out, the United States fields an all-volunteer military, and the mlitary personnel currently fighting in Iraq volunteered to be warriors and, in many cases, enlisted or reenlisted with the knowledge they might well be selected to go to Iraq. While it is the duty of a Soldier to obey the orders he is given (with the exception of unlawful orders), if a Soldier felt that we were wrong to be in Iraq, he has had numerous opportunities to avoid at least further service in Iraq since the war began. This does not mean that all Soldiers over there have had a chance to avoid service; many NCOs now enlist for an indefinite period once they reach the ten-year mark and therefore have a more difficult time getting out until they are eligible for retirement. That does not significantly weaken Mr. Stein's point, however: military personnel as a group tend to support the U.S. objectives in Iraq, and many have enlisted or reenlisted with the intention of supporting those objectives. If you oppose the war, then, you logically oppose what the troops are attempting to accomplish. Logically, if you oppose what the troops are trying to do, you cannot support the troops. This is not the same as disliking the troops or rooting for their deaths. Many of those who oppose the war, like Mr. Stein, would like to see the troops come home as quickly as possible, removing them from the dangers they face in Iraq. It is possible to oppose the troops while not wishing them any harm. But Mr. Stein's position is quite rational, and holds together far better than those who oppose the war but continue to claim that they also support the troops.

It is regrettable that Mr. Stein now faces such acrimony for his position, as the dispute will only serve to obfuscate the debate. Whether or not an individual supports the troops or not, or even if an individual wishes them harm, does not render their argument irrelevant. Doves are attempting to make a case for withdrawing our troops from Iraq. That debate is currently muted beneath arguments regarding who supports the troops, an issue that has no bearing on whether or not the United States should continue to maintain troops in Iraq. Hawks have a responsibility to make a real case for that presence just as doves have a responsibility to lay out the case for withdrawal. By removing the acrimony and emotionalism from this discussion, both sides would improve the debate itself by allowing both sides to address the issues at stake rather than the feelings of the disputants.

The hawks should take the lead in this area, not because their position is necessarily any better or worse than the doves on the merits, but because the hawks have a political advantage in the contest: at least for the next two years President Bush is likely to side with them as he has in the past. The doves have an uphill contest in convincing the administration to reverse its current position, and dismissive sidebars regarding who supports the troops allow the administration to ignore their arguments. While this works out well for the hawks in terms of winning the argument, it fails to address the larger question: what is the proper policy. My assessment of the situation in Iraq is that leaving Iraq would be unwise at this point. I am willing to defend that position on the merits. But I do not want to prevent the other side from being able to present their arguments because it is possible that my analysis is incorrect. If so, better I learn that from rational arguments from the doves than by seeing many more American troops die needlessly. If one's position is that it is more important to win the political battle than to determine what the correct course of action is, than arguments regarding who supports the troops and one's relative level of patriotism will serve you well. If you are more interested in doing the right thing in Iraq, whether that is congruent with your current position or not, then such arguments serve only to harm the debate.