Backing the troops

Phil Carter asks an important question and one that is not as easy to answer as we might like.

Does support for the troops mandate support for their mission? And if not, how do you reconcile the inherent dissonance between supporting the soldier and opposing his mission?

I suggest you read the entire post, it's excellent and a few copy and pastes won't do it justice. I will repeat the closing which pretty well sums up the dilemma.

Viktor Frankl wrote so many years ago that man will bear almost any hardship in the name of a purpose. If we oppose the purpose of this administration in Iraq, do we make it tougher for our soldiers to bear the hardship? On the other hand, if we remain mute, do we risk prolonging the hardship unnecessarily?

I'm still unsure about my answer. But increasingly, I have come to the conclusion that we owe it to our soldiers, as the citizens who exercise ultimate control over the politicians who send them into harm's way, to question the purposes and means of our wars. True loyalty to the soldier requires we bear witness to their sacrifice, and that we honor their sacrifice by ensuring that their efforts are not wasted, let alone their lives. Our democracy depends on the willingness of each generation of young Americans to put themselves in harm's way. But those young Americans depend on us, as citizens, to ensure they go into combat with the right stuff, and for the right cause.

Note
I would also highly recommend the Victor Frankl book, Man's Search For Meaning, that he references.