Local View: Defining 'support the troops'

 27 comment(s)  
 E-mail Story
 Print Story
  Share

 digg it!
 Facebook
 del.icio.us
Seed Newsvine
Fark It
Reddit

Text Size: 

Tools Sponsor

By LARRY R. BRADLEY

“Support the troops.” Say those words, and people nod their heads as if to indicate complete and total understanding of its meaning. But what does the phrase truly mean? What are its origins? Doesn’t it go beyond sending much-appreciated care packages?

The phrase’s origin has much to do with our Vietnam War experience. After Vietnam, a prime lesson learned (given the hostility experienced by many returning veterans) was that American warriors do not choose the conflicts they fight in. Warriors fight in the conflicts their elected officials tell them to. Hostility toward warriors returning from a conflict is, therefore, misdirected. Citizens with misgivings about our nation being in a war or how that war is being fought should be directing their dissatisfaction towards their elected representatives, not the warriors. Why? Because our Constitution places the responsibility on our elected officials to authorize the conflict. Supporting the troops, consequently, means recognizing the troops are doing their duty and worthy of respect, even if you don’t support the conflict itself.

There are other aspects of supporting the troops to be considered. Within the military is a line of authority called the chain of command. The Chain starts with the lowliest enlisted people and goes upward until it reaches the president as commander in chief (CIC). In between are leadership positions filled by the most rigorous selection criteria possible. Leaders failing to meet the standards of that criteria are removed from their positions at the earliest opportunity. But who decides if the CIC is meeting the performance standards of that position? In between elections, our elected representatives have that responsibility. They make that determination as the agents of the people they represent and our military personnel who deserve competent leadership.

[+]Enlarge

Some groups say criticizing our leadership’s actions harms our troops because criticism is helpful to our enemies. But if we allow incompetent leadership continued pursuit of failed policies, aren’t we actually aiding our enemies? Our enemies know what our weaknesses are. They strive to exploit our weaknesses every day. If we enable exploitation by supporting an incompetent leader for partisan political reasons, then are we supporting our troops? Clearly, the answer is no. We should no more support an incompetent CIC than we would tolerate an incompetent coach for our favorite sports team or an incompetent teacher for our children.

Let’s also reject this false argument that Congress’ imposing checks and giving guidance on the strategic goals for a conflict to the president is micromanaging and getting between the CIC and the generals. Our Constitution makes Congress responsible for authorizing war and setting overall goals and strategy. The authors of the Constitution specifically gave this responsibility to Congress because it was closest to and would be reflective of the will of the people through a recent election (especially the House of Representatives). Just as in a corporation a board of directors can give guidance to a CEO to pursue a new line of business, so too can Congress tell the president to pursue a new strategy. The “how” of that strategy is done through the chain of command. The military advises the president on the best means of implementing the strategy. One hopes the president would take that advice, because clearly the evidence is (see Votevets.org) that this president does not.

Beyond getting us out of the current mess, congressional representatives might also want to investigate the following. There were post-Vietnam safeguards instituted to keep this nation from being involved in a long-term, large-scale conflict like Iraq without the total costs and alternatives being fully considered before engaging in that conflict. Why didn’t those safeguards work, and what safeguards are needed in the future?

This corporation we call the United States of America had a meeting of its stockholders (voters) last year. A new board of directors (Congress) was elected. The message the voters gave the board was this — actively oversee, and change if necessary, the direction this CEO (president) is taking us, because the results so far cause 70 percent of this country to question that direction. Supporting the troops demands nothing less. Elected officials unwilling to impose checks on an incompetent CIC betray those very troops they claim to support. Our job as voters is to make those officials accountable for their betrayal.

Elected officials have a simple (but not easy) task. Tell yourself, each other and the electorate the real truth. Quit saying there’s a Level 10 threat and then providing a Level 5 response. Step up. Do what’s right and necessary and best for the country as a whole, regardless of party affiliation. That’s why you were elected. If you and those who voted for you thought there was some other reason to elect you, then shame on them and shame on you.

The writer, a political scientist, historian, businessman and former career military professional, is the author of “Neither Liberal Nor Conservative Be: An Action Plan for People Disgusted by Polarized Politics” (www.KindredMindsEnt.com).