In one small University, in one small department, is one small woman, who happens to be dating a Soldier. Though she's in the minority in many ways, she's not a minority based on skin color or other accepted "minority" standards, other than her sex, which isn't a minority in the Nation (roughly half of the population) and certainly not the environment.
As an anomoly to the culture, her colleagues take swipes at her beliefs in politics. At times, it's merely an attempt to convert her to the party of their indoctrination. At others, it's expressed as a hostility to the criteria by which she votes.
But she is the only connection her co-workers have to the military, so she is awed and shocked, that they find that to be a reason why her Soldier would not support their party. Somehow, the majority at her workplace, having no connection to the military, have come to the conclusion that the Troops support retreat from Afghanistan. For some reason, they have swallowed the line that the Military would prefer "ending the war" over winning it. For some reason, this crowd forgets why we went to Afghanistan, and thinks that 'ten years is enough.'
While there do exist leaders of the party that have no delusions that their policies are very unpopular with those that are fighting Our Wars, there also exist a great number of party adherents that truly believe the marketing that Troops want to retreat, that they are supporting the Troops, while supporting politicians that are cutting equipment, budgets of the Military, and the number of Troops available to fight these wars.
This is the problem with loyalty to political party, over belief in political positions. When my grandfather voted for the party he did, he would never have dreamed that the same party would be so diametrically opposed to what positions they supported all those years ago. When one starts from the position that one party is right, and the other wrong, it can be difficult to then objectively weigh the individual positions of the platform, or readily admit that a particular politician of that party has crossed the line.
Of particular curiosity to me is that some politicians and many adherents of party truly believe that all members of a race or group should support one party or the other, and fail to understand that the forcefulness of that belief is racist. A person's skin tone, sex, or sexual preference does not infer what their beliefs on the size of government should be, nor whether or not the Military needs to be appropriately funded. The Kurdish or Persian community might be more likely to support the overthrow of dictators (Saddam, Khameni, Assad) that have oppressed their relatives, but that doesn't mean they think that Turtle Tunnels should be built in Florida or Multi-Million dollar Chinese monkey houses in California.
One can believe in the importance of affording arts and music programs to kids, without believing that History, English, and Math should be cut from the curriculum of schools. One can support the instruction of foreign languages in elementary schools, without believing that Spanish should be the language of instruction for Math. One can support pride in the cultural heritage of Italians, Irish, Indians, and Peruvians, without believing that those cultures should supercede the American culture in the United States.
One can support education, without believing that members of the Union should be allowed to teach or be paid, regardless of their abilities, or antics. One can believe in the importance of education, without supporting 6 figure incomes and multi-million dollar facilities for its medium.
But it's difficult to justify claiming Support for Our Troops, while supporting increasing the costs of Veterans Health Care for their war wounds, while supporting cuts to the equipment they need to do the mission the politicians send them on, and telling them that they will be ordered home before they finish the mission they were sent on. It's difficult to justify a claim of Support while telling them that they will have fewer fellow Troops to do more missions.
It's not a matter of what politicians claim they support, or do. It is a matter of what they actually do. It's not a matter of what smoke the political parties blow up our collective butts, but what they vote to do. The politicians in Washington may attempt to obscure what they enact as law by combining a pork project with a Defense budget, with a construction project, but if the voters will look a little more closely, they may decide to elect Representatives rather than career party politicians.
But as we approach the 10th Anniversary of 9/11, as politicians tell us it's time to "end it," and others question why we ever went to Afghanistan in the first place, we should remember 9/11 occurred before we went to Afghanistan. We should remember that 10 years ago, the Taliban was the government in Afghanistan, that they routinely executed women in the soccer stadium there, for the crimes of walking alone, or showing too much ankle. We should remember that 10 years ago, OBL was putting the final touches to his 9/11 plan in Afghanistan. We should remember that a little less than 10 years ago, Mullah Omar, the Taliban leader of Afghanistan decided not to break his oath to OBL, not to extradite OBL to the United States for a trial.
We should remember that a little less than 10 years ago, Hamid Karzai fought side by side with US Troops to take back his country from the Taliban. We should remember that he nearly died in those battles, to rid his Nation of the perpetuators of 9/11, and the atrocious tyrants that banned girls from learning to read. And we should ask, if it were important enough to send our men to root out the Taliban in the first place, is it important enough to allow them to hold the ground we have paid for in blood and in sweat?
And before we slash the US Military by 49,000 Troops and pull 33,000 Troops out of Afghanistan, we should ask if the Troops on the ground are barely enough to improve conditions in Helmand & Kandahar, how they will hold that territory while trying to change things in Paktia and Paktika, with far fewer. We should ask how any reasonable person would perceive a reduction in forces while the same "leader" sends people in desperate search for someone in the enemy camp to negotiate an "end" to hostilities. Is that a position of strength, or a signal that one would prefer to quit at all costs. And if that enemy thinks negotiations are even necessary, when the same politician has set 2014 as the date certain for a complete end to the "contingency operation."
As a member of no political party, I hold sway with neither, but if members of those parties believe that Afghan girls should be allowed to read, that Afghan Elders should be allowed to live, even if they oppose the Taliban, that Afghans should be able to drive down a road without being blown up, that Americans should be able to go to work without fear of a plane flying into their building, or a car bomb exploding outside it, then they should tell their party to Support the Troops, by paying for the equipment and the Soldiers needed to ensure the safety of Our Citizenry.
Stumble It!
