2+2=7?

Over the past couple of years, I have heard many people state that not supporting the War in Iraq is the equivalent of not supporting the troops. I find that to be untrue. I support our troops in spirit. I support them because they have each chosen to defend my rights as an American citizen. I support them because they have chosen to lay their lives on the proverbial line so that I may publish this blog freely and without fear. I support them because they are doing the job that I cannot. There is no such thing as conscripted service in the United States, so their choice was deliberate.

Supporting an unjust war is not the same as supporting our troops. On the contrary, I feel that supporting an unjust war and the unjust deployment of our troops directly into harm’s way should be considered the opposite of supporting our troops. Does it help our troops that no real strategy was put into play regarding an exit? Does it help our troops that they are frequently ordered to extend their tours of duty because of this? I would say that it is the current administration that is not supporting the troops. They aren’t supporting them because they take them away from their families for a war that means nothing to America and contains no real benefit for the American people. They aren’t supporting them when they lose an arm or a leg and return home feeling useless because of it. They aren’t supporting them because they leave them with shoddy health care. The same people in this administration who claim that people who are opposed to the war in Iraq are also opposed to the troops aren’t showing the kind of support that they need to be showing. I think that it is high time that they followed their own words and started really supporting the troops in a more meaningful way than a parade (although they deserve that as well).

The current administration has effectively used our troops in order to fulfill its imperial goals. Members of this administration have long since stated their goals of invading Iraq. They have stated as much as early as January 26, 1998. They had even submitted ideas on how to attack Iraq as early November 16, 1998. They even went so far as to introduce legislation in the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate that passed and resulted in a four day bombing campaign on Iraqi targets during the Clinton administration.

One of the chief people calling for a war in Iraq was William Kristol. Mr. Kristol is what people call a pundit. He is also a behind-the-scenes politician, going all the way back to Dan Quayle. What is worse than this is the fact that he is a regular commentator on the Fox News Channel, giving him direct access to the American public as a “talking head”. I have formed the opinion that Americans are practically incapable of thinking for themselves. They look around at their individual environments and do not see that their environment is crumbling. This is simply because no one has told them that it was indeed crumbling. If People Magazine were to publish an article stating that it was socially acceptable to leap from a cliff, I think that they would probably do it. Anyway, back to Mr. Kristol. Mr. Kristol is one of the founders of, what I consider to be one of the most dangerous and corrosive foundations to the American ideal, the Project for a New American Century. Click on the link to the left and take a look at that page. Pay particular attention to the section titled “Statement of Principles”. Excuse my language, but that scares the living shit out of me! While you’re there, take a look at who the members of PNAC are (it’s at the end of their “Statement of Principles”). Is it just me, or does it seem as if an inordinate number of the people who called for President Clinton to invade Iraq somehow found their way into relatively strategic positions within the Bush Administration? If I add 2 onto the end of 2, I get 4. The way it appears to me is that PNAC had a goal in mind and that they were willing to do whatever it took to accomplish that goal.

So, I ask the following questions:

1) Is cronyism a new way of “supporting the troops”?

2) Is blatant imperialism at the sacrifice of the lives of the troops considered “supporting the troops”?

3) Is engaging in underhanded tactics (exaggerating threat levels, fabricating evidence) and lying in order bilk the American people (which our troops are as well) of billions of dollars in taxes to pay for a deliberate violation of international law some new kind of way of “supporting our troops”?

4) Is sending troops in to accomplish the goal of regional domination inadequately prepared (weak body armor, no armor for vehicles) a way of effectively “supporting the troops”?

5) Is pointing the finger at those who oppose the war in Iraq as “troop-haters” and “unpatriotic”, even if they are Iraq War veterans, a way of “supporting the troops”?

6) Is sending our troops into battle to protect our way of life and our freedoms while simultaneously eroding those freedoms at home an acceptable way to "support the troops"?

7) When are the American people going to wake up and see that their government, indeed their very way of life, has been stolen from them and hold the thieves accountable?