I rarely get to take the moral high ground on any topic. It feels good. I can see why people like it.
Conservatives tend to be highly supportive of the troops, at least in their minds. Good for them. I just happen to take my support a little bit further. I think the current level of troop support from taxpayers and their elected representatives is disgraceful.
It’s easy to know who supports the troops more. Anyone who supports policies that would save the most troop lives, and/or reduce injuries, is the most supportive. That’s me!
For example, I think we should be doing a lot more to guarantee the soldiers have the right kind of armor and veteran hospital services, even if it means raising taxes or cutting expenses for other social benefits at home.
I also think we shouldn’t be fighting a war that most informed, unbiased military experts think we can’t win. I’m willing to change that view if my assumption is wrong. Active generals in Iraq obviously say they support the surge. Otherwise they’d get fired. So you can’t trust their opinions. I want to know the opinions of recently retired officers whose last assignment was in Iraq. I don’t recall seeing any polls of that type, but I’m guessing that group thinks the surge won’t work.
If such a poll of recently retired officers exists, and the majority supports the surge, then there’s a good argument that all Americans should support it too. No one doubts that a stable democracy in Iraq would be good for our national security. People simply doubt it’s achievable. I can be swayed by the weight of expert opinions.
Without those unbiased, expert military opinions, I can’t justify putting additional soldiers in harm’s way. You have to form opinions with the information you have, not the information you wish you had. And the information I have does not support risking the lives of more soldiers in Iraq. I’m willing to change that opinion if my information changes.
That’s why I support the troops more than you do.
An argument can be made that the troops are preventing a wider civil war, and Iraqi lives are worth as much as any other lives, so keeping the troops in Iraq is morally right. My view is there’s no way to know if ripping the bandage off the wound now is better or worse than waiting. There’s just as much reason to believe the U.S. presence is making things worse. I don’t support putting troops in harm’s way when the benefit of doing so is completely unpredictable.
If the U.S. leaves Iraq, my best guess on what happens next is Iran gets further sucked into it, discovers that Arabs don’t want Persian overlords as much as you’d think, and the drain on Iran eventually topples the existing Iranian government. They’re already a fiscal basket case. It wouldn’t take much of a push. And there’s enough of a democratic culture that the next form of government could indeed be more of a democracy.
Your wild-ass guess for the future is no better than mine. The only thing we know for sure is that troops are dying for ambiguous reasons. If you support that, you support the troops less than I do. Deal with it.