I wrote: Mack, this misses the point that at least some of those standing in opposition now are not against all wars, but against *this* one in particular. And part of the reasons we're against this one is that the stated rationale of the U.S. government seems inconsistent with its prior action, or inaction, in other nations under similar circumstances. If one of our supposed reasons for the invasion is to separate the Iraqi people from the clutches of Saddam Hussein, then why haven't we taken similar action in the countries Colin mentioned, not to mention scores of others?
It doesn't make sense--unless, of course, the "liberation" of the Iraqi people is not the real reason for the war, but one that our elected officials know will be infinitely more palatable to the American public than the true motivation. And that is exactly what many of us strongly suspect. And Mack responded: "Actually Mary, I am well aware of those points as I have used them many times myself while in political chat. Seriously, I am distressed that we are at war but can do nothing but support our troops at this time. As always, enjoy your take." Me again: what I was really responding to, I suppose, was the assumption I thought I saw in your earlier post that those who opposed this war would oppose war against any of those other countries, too. Fact is, some are against all war, and would; others, like myself, might, or might not. One of the factors I use in deciding whether to lend my wholehearted support to a military action, among many others, is consistency. Is this action the same as has been taken in other, similar situations? A "no" answer is not necessarily fatal, but that would usually be because there are other over-arching and unambiguous reasons to intervene. I might well support military action in those other countries, but on different grounds (I imagine that, depending on the circumstances, consistency might be a problem with them as well). As for supporting the troops: I am so very divided on this one. I've heard many on the left say, "But I do support the troops. I want them to come home safe." However, my partner and I have ties to many in the military community. To make this statement, and to end the matter there, ignores the fact that the troops are there to perform a very real mission which not a few of them believe in completely. From their point of view, "supporting" them, without supporting that mission, is absolutely meaningless. So I think that this position of those on the left is a bit disingenuous. However, I think it's equally disingenuous for those who support the war to attempt to "guilt" those who oppose it into "supporting the troops." This latter group, I think, is very *much* concentrating on the mission* of those troops, and, I believe, is actually asking for support of the *war,* when it comes right down to it. Where I am now: I feel deeply for every soldier, sailor, airman and officer who is over there right now, and for their families. I hope with all my heart that they come home. I appreciate the very real sacrifice they are making, even though I can't approve of its purpose. To say I support their mission, though, just because they are there now, as a result of a decision that ignored the will of a significant portion of the American public and the international community, is simply a statement I can't make, because I don't. I know you didn't say any of this, Mack! It's just my 2 cents. I always enjoy your take, as well. Have a good day, all, Mary P.
