Suport the Troops

Support the Troops

Quentin Smeltzer, SmeltzerNation 7/5/10

Not too long ago I was invited to join a Facebook group called “Support the Troops.”  At the same time there is a homeowner not far from my house who proclaims this same message from his front yard with an enormous, hand-painted sign.   Recently I heard a Fox News "repeater" wonder if Obama will support the troops by increasing the funding for the Afghan war.  And I began to ask myself, do these people realize it is no longer 1973? 

Who, exactly, in this country, does not support the troops?  I’m not aware of any Screw the Troops or Call the Troops Mean Names or Arrest the Troops movements, are you?   Not in this century.

So what exactly are you saying to me when you urge me to support the troops?  First, of course, you are implying that I don’t the support the troops, which is deeply offensive.  Second, you imply that, not just I, but some significant portion of the country, holds this We Don’t Support the Troops position.  Who do you suppose those people could be?  Let me take a wild guess here: progressives, liberals, Democrats? 

But that’s bunk, of course, because the overwhelming majorities of these three, overlapping groups completely, vocally and without reservation, support the troops. 

The group that would not support the troops, not on foreign soil anyway, would be the Tea Party folks.  Their stark, libertarian philosophy calls for a rapid withdrawal of all US troops from around the world, regardless of the situation or cost in loss of security or human misery.  If only the Tea Party folks were well-informed enough to know their own positions… but let’s not go crazy here.  The Tea Party is about freedom and American rights, and first among those is that most deeply cherished American right:  the right to be stupid. 

A tea drinker himself, Michael Steele, chairman of the Republican Party, recently called Afghanistan Obama’s "war of choice" and said anyone who knows anything about history would not fight a ground war in Afghanistan.  Evidently Mr. Steele believes it is clever to reread old criticisms of President Bush, replace "Bush" with "Obama," and then repeat them as new positions.  

Steele's view of Afghanistan was news to Republican Senator Lindsey Graham who called Mr. Steele’s comments “unwise, uninformed and untimely.” 

This is not the first time Mr. Steele has repudiated his own party’s position in public, only to quickly perform a one-hundred-and-eighty degree spin and then ask, mystified, what all the fuss is about. 

As for the Fox News repeater who stared zombie-like into the teleprompter and questioned whether Obama’s support for the troops can be gauged by his willingness to give them additional funding, well, where does one begin? 

First, I am completely in favor of cute blondes on television.  But even I am disturbed by the glossy stare in their overly-made-up eyes as they read statements that contradict what they said the day or week or hour before with such regularity Michael Steele must be writing the news for them.   I am beginning to believe that Stepford wives really do exist, manufactured in Roger Ailes's basement.

Second, this might come as quite a surprise to the Fox news repeater, if indeed any contradiction, news, or fact could upset or even penetrate the consciousness of one of these automatons, but Secretary of Defense Robert Gates—the guy asking for more funding—is of the Obama Administration.  So Obama is asking for more money for the troops, not deciding whether to approve it.

And finally, must it still be pointed out that being against more funding for the troops is not a lack of support for the troops if it comes with a call to reduce their role?  If you really want to support the troops, join the Tea Party, make Michael Steele happy, and bring them all home immediately.