Wednesday, April 04, 2007

A question posed

In the Rose Garden
Originally uploaded by kaa23.
In light of yesterday's Rose Garden session in the morning, Dr. Kathleen Reardon asks,
How is it that the passage of bills providing funding for troops undermines them? Why isn't the President's unwillingness to sign the real delay? There's a mismatch there. The President doesn't want a delay, but he is delaying.
I've wondered something similar. It is possible to support the military but not support the policy/action which they have been tasked to carry out. And, I would suggest that anyone who cannot handle that ambivalence needs to grapple a little longer with the relationship between the military and the president, the construction/organization of our federal government, and the notion that the world is full of contradictions and truth.

I support the military and the men and women who serve.

I do not support the current policy.

And, yet, were I called to active duty, I would fully complete my job and my mission as tasked. With no regrets. I knew what I was getting into when I raised my hand 27 years, three days ago. But I still don't have to agree.

Remember what Clausewitz said -- and, yes, I'm paraphrasing -- the use of military force is nothing more than politics by other means.

So, is it possible to "support the troops" and not support Iraq II. Most assuredly.

No comments:

Post a Comment