One of my coworkers on the trip, who seems to like to draw others into debate, said something about Rosie O’Donnell at dinner the other night. I think she sensed that topic wasn’t going to get any traction with the three conservatives sitting around the table, so she said, “Just because someone says we shouldn’t be in Iraq, doesn’t mean they don’t support the troops.”
I agree.
This particular coworker gives many of her weekends to ride with the Honor Gaurd, bikers who attend the funerals of fallen soldiers in order to protect the families from the wackos who try to insult the memory of the deceased with political hate speech.
I count my coworker as one who does indeed honor the troops without supporting the war.
The problem is (as it is in most issues) that the loudest voices against the war do not support the troops. Quothe Jake Murtha: U.S. troops are murdering Iraqis “in cold blood.” Sayeth John Kerry: Our soldiers are raiding civilians houses “in the dark of night, terrorizing the families.” Cold-blooded terrorists? That is not support.
I know there is a mile between calling the troops terrorists and wishing that they could come home.
I wish they could come home.
Forgive me for what may seem a rabbit trail here – I attended a work shop last weekend by a gent who has more letters after his name than a bowl of alphabet soup. He’s a PhD, ASA, PDQ, BBC, BBQ, etc., specializing in the human brain and relationships. He talked about the Triune brain, and how things are filtered through its parts. The base level controls our fight-or-flight instinct, and as it evaluates our environment 2000-something times per second, it has the ability to switch on or off the other parts of the brain if it perceives a threat. Level 2 is the limbic system, which is primarily where emotions and emotional responses are generated. Finally we get to the neocortex, the part of the brain where logic is king. One statement the speaker made that really stuck with me is that the mature brain is capable of evaluating things (Level 1) in terms of threat potential, formulating an emotional response (Level 2), but then kicking in with logic to determine if that response is appropriate or proportional to the situation at hand.
Consider this; the people you think of as less mature – don’t they tend to have an emotional response to things that most people either ignore or accept? I’m not saying every emotional response is a sign of immaturity – emotion is there for good reason. But there is a point where most people control their emotions, or employ filters to keep things in check.
I would argue that most of the “bring them home now” movement is based completely in emotion, with little regard for logic. “How many more are going to die?” ignores how many more would die if we just folded up our tents and came home. Emotionally, I do not wish death on any of the troops and want them home now. Logically, I see the nation of Iraq becoming the base for Islamic jihaadists and an open training camp for those who would reclaim the “high-watermark” lands of Europe and beyond for fundamentalist Islam, and that our presence there (while horribly costly) is probably the only thing that prevents that. USA Today, that beacon of great stats, said yesterday that sixty-something percent of us think the troops should come home now; meanwhile, almost as high a percentage believe our troops are the only thing keeping Iraq from turning into a giant terrorist training camp for the most radical elements.
Listen to the logical part of your brain, people. It is telling you what happens if we pull out without helping to establish a standing government.
“But we got Saddam; mission accomplished; let’s get out.”
How long did we stay in Japan to help them get back on their feet following WWII? How about Germany? I’m amazed we didn’t set up a base in England after the American Revolution to help the English recover.
Terrorists play on your emotions, betting that you will respond with fear rather than thinking through what happens if you give them their desires. Don’t reward them.
Think.
