Support the Mission

I oft hear or read the line “Supporting the Troops means Supporting the Mission”, but I am left to wonder why, if that is true, don’t War supporters merely say Support the Mission?

Well, one reason may be no one knows what the mission is:

Is the Mission to find WMDs?
Is the Mission to remove Saddam Hussein from power?
Is the Mission to elect an Iraqi Representative Government?
Is the Mission to train Iraqi Security Forces?
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/nation/17104704.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp

Of course, the more sinister reason in saying I Support the Troops is it gives cover to those whose actions are quite the opposite. Inadequate personal body armor, no rush to up-armor HMMWVs or to even bring in M113s, extending troops rotations in country and reducing time back stateside and Walter Reed should be enough evidence to prove the admin does not “support the troops”.

So why is Support the Mission not broadcast loudly by Brit Hume or Bill Kristol or Hannity or Limbaugh or Ingraham or the Administration? I think it is because those peddlers of death and Mayberry Machiavellis know the American populace is not in favor of the so-called mission. Hiding behind the Troops and casting dispersions on the Anti-war position gives them the advantage. And it is an advantage they will never relinquish.


So it goes.

The "mission" changes again.

Maybe we don't believe the mission is necessary and don't support it, and they are trying to make that a synonym for "support the troops," they are trying to force your agreement on a political issue by guilting you about the existence of people who have to carry out the mission underlying that political issue.

They want the war. Someone has to fight the war they want. They use those people as a hammer to try to get you to feel guilty for not supporting the political decision to have that war.

Proving that they would not "support the troops" either if it were a Democratic President at the helm (and indeed they did not "support the troops," according to their definition, when Clinton had troops out there).

It's merely a shield for their power plays. It's why the Masters of War won't have their children serve or snidely comment about political opponents children who are in harm's way.

http://tbogg.blogspot.com/2007/04/five-not-for-fighting-willard-mitt.html

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/11/various-items.html