WGM fails to think this one through:
Don’t fool yourself into thinking you can support the troops while at the same time bash their commander and their mission. The obvious lack of unity in this country has contributed greatly to the emboldening of our enemies and more dead Americans.
Um, okay. Well, in that case, screw the troops. May they die like pigs in Hell….
Seriously, this is one of the lamest, most illogical attempts to convince everyone to turn off their brains and simply go along with the Maximum Leader that I’ve ever heard. It’s a shameless attempt at emotion-based bullying.
First, the success or failure of specific military campaigns does not depend upon the amount of cheerleading at home. I hate to break it to WGM, but the fate of his favorite sports team does not depend upon what underwear he is wearing either….
Second, the very small number of American fatalities in the twin invasions and occupations indicates that this theoretical “emboldening” of the enemy almost surely has not increased the number of dead Americans. In fact, it is inarguably true that it was unity, specifically the post-911 unity that got Congress to go along with George Bush’s invasion of Iraq, that has killed more Americans than did the 9/11 attacks in the first place.
Third, if the choice is between supporting pointless evil and supporting the troops, then the moral man will always choose to disown the troops. Otherwise, one is no better than those who sang the Horst Wessel song as the stormtroopers marched past.
Finally, if the national unity is not there, then don’t go to war! This has been known since Sun Tzu was writing about the Moral Law and the importance of harmony between the ruler and the ruled. If the ruler does not have the confidence of the ruled, he will likely lose his war. And blame for it will lie with the ruler, not the ruled.
My goodness, I thought liberals were supposed to be the ones who substitute emotion for reason. It’s not exactly heartening to see that conservatives are every bit as capable of mindlessly repeating talking points from the commentariat.