Joel Stein writes in today’s LATimes that he does not support the troops, and urges those who are against this war to follow his lead. Oftentimes you wonder how hardcore anti-war leftists (like Code Pink types) can say they “support the troops” yet at the same time say they “hate the war.” Stein, with refreshing - even if repugnant - candor, explains that they can’t … and shouldn’t:
I DON’T SUPPORT our troops. This is a particularly difficult opinion to have, especially if you are the kind of person who likes to put bumper stickers on his car. Supporting the troops is a position that even Calvin is unwilling to urinate on.
I’m sure I’d like the troops. They seem gutsy, young and up for anything. If you’re wandering into a recruiter’s office and signing up for eight years of unknown danger, I want to hang with you in Vegas.
And I’ve got no problem with other people — the ones who were for the Iraq war — supporting the troops. If you think invading Iraq was a good idea, then by all means, support away. Load up on those patriotic magnets and bracelets and other trinkets the Chinese are making money off of.
But I’m not for the war. And being against the war and saying you support the troops is one of the wussiest positions the pacifists have ever taken — and they’re wussy by definition. It’s as if the one lesson they took away from Vietnam wasn’t to avoid foreign conflicts with no pressing national interest but to remember to throw a parade afterward.
Blindly lending support to our soldiers, I fear, will keep them overseas longer by giving soft acquiescence to the hawks who sent them there — and who might one day want to send them somewhere else. Trust me, a guy who thought 50.7% was a mandate isn’t going to pick up on the subtleties of a parade for just service in an unjust war. He’s going to be looking for funnel cake.
Besides, those little yellow ribbons aren’t really for the troops. They need body armor, shorter stays and a USO show by the cast of “Laguna Beach.”
The real purpose of those ribbons is to ease some of the guilt we feel for voting to send them to war and then making absolutely no sacrifices other than enduring two Wolf Blitzer shows a day. Though there should be a ribbon for that.
I understand the guilt. We know we’re sending recruits to do our dirty work, and we want to seem grateful.
After we’ve decided that we made a mistake, we don’t want to blame the soldiers who were ordered to fight. Or even our representatives, who were deceived by false intelligence. And certainly not ourselves, who failed to object to a war we barely understood.
But blaming the president is a little too easy. The truth is that people who pull triggers are ultimately responsible, whether they’re following orders or not. An army of people making individual moral choices may be inefficient, but an army of people ignoring their morality is horrifying. An army of people ignoring their morality, by the way, is also Jack Abramoff’s pet name for the House of Representatives.
There you have it. If you can stomach it, read the whole thing. If you can’t stomach reading it all, read Mark In Mexico’s dissection of it instead. Mark nails it, especially at the end:
I think the guilt trip here is that of Stein, himself. A liberal wuss, a coward and a traitor who can’t even run to Canada, now. It is little wonder that the LAT ship is sinking faster than the Titanic.
Indeed!
Others blogging about this: QandO, Ace, Michelle Malkin, The Jawa Report, Say Anything, Outside the Beltway, Myopic Zeal, 4 The Little Guy
Update: Uncle Jimbo at Blackfive’s blog slams Stein - consider that one a must read! (Hat tip: Jeff Goldstein)
Update II 11:34 PM: Hugh Hewitt interviewed Stein today. Don’t miss it.
Update III Wednesday 12:22 AM: Check out Jim Treacher’s parody of Joel Stein. Heheh!
Wednesday Update 2:25 PM: Welcome to National Review Media Blog readers! Hope you like what you see. Please make sure to check out my welcome message and here’s a little info on me and my conservative credentials in case you are curious. Thanks to Stephen Spruiell for linking to me 
Wednesday Update 5:56 PM: A big welcome as well to World Net Daily readers!
Okay, this guy is a jerk, but I do agree at least he is willing to put it out there on the line for all to see. To many from the left hide behind false impressions.
As a retired member of the Air Force and one who spent an entire 20 year career flying intelligence gathering airplanes, his characterization of the intelligence as being false is just mind blowing.
I am a vet of Desert Storm. I spent the last 10 years of my career flying missions in and around Iraq. The intelligence was solid. What people have to remember is intelligence gathering is NOT an exact science and when connecting the dots, sometimes you can be wrong. Wrong is one thing and false is totally different. I would say, overall, the intelligence on Iraq was good. I know because I have seen it. Here is something else to consider, sometimes you will take a bit of a beating about your intelligence even when you know what is being said about your intel is incorrect. That is because you always want to protect the source and method (how you got the intel). Because if you devulge your source or method (i.e. NSA easedropping) your intel will dry up. Then you have to spend unimaginable amounts of man hours, time, and money to reestablish the intelligence flow, all the while, your enemy is plotting your destruction!! Please know, there are many good men and women out there who continue to collect intelligence and get it right the vast majority of the time. I wish we could honor them specifically, but more than likely, you will never know who they are. Support these troops as well as all troops and support their mission!!!
Comment by US Vet @ 1/24/2006 - 2:59 pm
US Vet,
Bush manipulated the intelligence….
Comment by Baklava @ 1/24/2006 - 3:50 pm
Baklava,
Tell me what intelligence he manipulated and how he did it. Have you seen the raw intelligence (intel before it even reaches the President)? I have seen much of it.
Comment by US Vet @ 1/24/2006 - 4:31 pm
“They seem gutsy, young and up for anything. If you’re wandering into a recruiter’s office and signing up for eight years of unknown danger, I want to hang with you in Vegas.”
How hardcore.
Comment by andrew @ 1/24/2006 - 6:27 pm
He did say one thing that resonated with me:
“Load up on those patriotic magnets and bracelets and other trinkets the Chinese are making money off of.”
Other than that, he’s an unrepentant jerk…
Comment by camojack @ 1/24/2006 - 6:39 pm
US Vet,
You’re a newbie here…
I honestly can’t tell you what intelligence he manipulated after over 100 converstations with liberals and after reading all sorts of stuff from liberal writers on Slate and The Nation and RealClearPolitics and more.
It’s an accusation that I simply repeated that I find assinine and irresponsible. The intelligence community presented intelligence to the politicians. The intelligence communities from many nations came to the same conclusions. Politicians from before 2001 (when Bush became Pres) all said the same thing about the intelligence coming from Iraq.
Self-important, USA hurting, GWB hating, so-called experts have been all over the place making the charge that Bush manipulated or manufactured or “lied” and they are doing this in a time of war and their charge is not only reckless but incorrect from the over 1,000 articles that I’ve read on the subject.
Sorry to get your heart going there for that minue.
Comment by Baklava @ 1/24/2006 - 6:59 pm
This is a surprise? At some point in the process (of ending the war) you have to come to the conclusion that the people fighting it are doing it because they like it and not because they are doing what they are told. That point is reached more quickly for some than for others(insight). This man’s opinion will be gaining strength the longer it takes to begin removing our troops. Analysis. Peace
Comment by steve @ 1/24/2006 - 7:26 pm
“because they like it ”
Yes. They like freeing an oppressed people and giving opportunities to women like education and stopping the bad people from taking over with another tyranncial regime. Yes. They like it. They like doing good.
Even more peace!
Comment by Baklava @ 1/24/2006 - 7:34 pm
I have great respect for this guy, and agree with him.
Especially that part. The left only say they support the troops because it is the politically correct thing to say. And saying things you don’t really mean in a debate makes the whole discussion pointless. You can never arive at the true difference in opinion.
Of course I disagree with his view on the war entirely, but it is very refreshing to see honest words coming from the other side.
You can see what he’s saying. He believes it is unimportant to win this war. He believes that the sooner we lose, the less lives will be lost. He doesn’t think there wll be any repercussions to our losing the war, or that they are not as important as the number of soldier’s lives that would be saved.
My view is almost the exact opposite. As a conservative, I believe that the only way to peace is to destroy all the people who are willing to commit terrorism, and create people-friendly governments (democracies) that will not harbor/promote terrorism.
Sure, we are in total disagreement, but at least we can discuss it - now that the other side is coming clean about their true beliefs. I hope more of them do.
Comment by blogagog @ 1/24/2006 - 8:26 pm
He does not blame the troops, but:
“The truth is that people who pull triggers are ultimately responsible, whether they’re following orders or not. An army of people making individual moral choices may be inefficient, but an army of people ignoring their morality is horrifying.”
In debate after debate, this sort of quixotic reversal shows up. Yes, be against the war, be against the troops, but don’t blame them, then do blame them. Very Kerryesque.
And, what does “not support the troops” actually mean, in pratical terms? Supporting them often means more to us than those cheesy magnets (remember to move them around on your vehicle as sun fading will leave shadows on the paint), such as adopting a platoon, sending gifts and gear, greeting returning soldiers, helping families, etc. Some phoney advocacy for more body armour sure doesn’t cut the mustard. Try lugging 50% of your body weight in 120 heat or up an Afghan mountainside. Armoured knights went out long ago for good reason.
Maybe our writer should express his lack of support. How’s about go to airports where returning troops come into the country and giving them a piece of his mind? The troops, of course, would have to ignore him, but not everyone else. It would be fun to watch. Not very much real sport, but fun.
Comment by rick vid @ 1/24/2006 - 8:52 pm
“And, what does “not support the troops” actually mean, in pratical terms?”
Interestingly he supports all sorts of vet benefits.
Comment by andrew @ 1/24/2006 - 10:49 pm
Andy,
It means he wants them to lose the war. He doesn’t want them to die, just to lose.
Comment by blogagog @ 1/24/2006 - 10:57 pm
“It means he wants them to lose the war. He doesn’t want them to die, just to lose.”
I’m not seeing an argument about winning or losing.
Comment by andrew @ 1/25/2006 - 2:15 am
His interview with Hugh Hewitt
Must read.
Joe is an idiot.
Sorry that is just my opinion
Comment by Baklava @ 1/25/2006 - 2:18 am
Went to the radioblogger site.
Better than reading a transcript you absolutely must listen to the mp3. And while you listen consider that this rodent Stein graduated Stanford. Like, fer shure.
Hewett just skewers the creep.
Gotta listen.
Comment by CZ @ 1/25/2006 - 8:07 am
An idiot can be identified as the stupid person who says in all earnestness “I want to see the troops lose, but not die.”
Idiots don’t understand that to lose the war your troops and civilians ARE DYING!
Comment by PCD @ 1/25/2006 - 8:10 am
Baklava,
I am sorry, I am a newbie here and wasn’t clear on your meaning. I think you and I are going to be good friends on this blog. I like the way you think!!! You are absolutely right about those who make the charge “Bush lied, people died”.
Having some experience in the area and with intelligence gathering, when the time comes (the subject comes up), I will put forth what I believe happened to the WMDs and other issues based on what I saw.
BTW, if I may ask a personal question, what is your heritage? Interesting you picked Baklava as a name. I have lived in Greece, Saudia Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and my wife is from Iran…all claim baklava, which I happen to love.
Comment by US Vet @ 1/25/2006 - 9:24 am
I also wanted to address those who agree that the troops like fighting. What a shame that someone can be so simple minded. As a former troop who has fought, I can tell you first hand, the troops don’t like it.
The troops are true patriots and believe in this country and what it stands for. The believe in the President as their Commander. The believe in protecting the American people and the American why of life. The believe in their families and your family. When you believe in this and much more, sometimes you have to do things you don’t like….like fighting a war. But when called upon to do so, you do it with all the strength and courage you can muster. You rely on and trust your buddies (male and female) who stand on the battlefield with you. Just remember though, when you look at the average American on the battlefield, he/she is probably in the 19 -22 age range. Next time you are out and about, take a good look around at what the kids in that same age group who at here in the US enjoying their lives are doing. Then think about those on the battlefield and then tell me they are there because they like it. Bulls*** I say. But you will have to admit those on the battlefield are great patriotic Americans.
Now to address the issue of “the sooner we lose, lives will be saved”. That is just plain crazy. It is actually just the opposite. Where were we fighting them when terrorists flew civilian jetliners into the WTC? If we lose and withdraw from the battlefield, the terrorists will see it as a sign of weakness and will again bring the fight to the US, but this time it will be in our shopping malls. We must press the fight to the terrorists no matter where the decide to hide. If we can draw all the terrorists to Iraq to fight, sobeit, kill them all in Iraq.
Comment by US Vet @ 1/25/2006 - 9:43 am
Oil production in Iraq dropped 8% in 2005. Your doing a heck of a job bushie. Peace
Comment by steve @ 1/25/2006 - 11:21 am
steve, I thought you said Bush was stealing the oil. If that is so, why is production going down?
Comment by PCD @ 1/25/2006 - 11:28 am
Steve, do you really know what you are talking about??? You sound like you are one of those “Bush lied, people died”, “No Blood for Oil” types. You want to say we are fighting the war so Bush and his buddies can get their hands on the oil, but as PCD points out using your words, you are just repeating the tired diatribe of the left.
If oil production is down as you say, then it is because your friends, the brave terrorists, are the cause. Not only are they attacking and killing Iraqi civilians at an increasing rate, they are attacking the oil production facilities as well. Since you seem so worried about the drop in production, maybe you can ask your friends, the brave terrorist, to stop attacking the facilities.
Comment by US Vet @ 1/25/2006 - 12:03 pm
Steve’s showing us what he really believes in. More oil, and who cares if people are dying or suffering, as long as his oil is cheap.
Comment by Severian @ 1/25/2006 - 12:05 pm
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling, which thinks that nothing is worth war, is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertion of better men than himself.
John Stuart Mill
Comment by JAH @ 1/25/2006 - 3:01 pm
JAH,
I like that, very nice!!
Comment by US Vet @ 1/25/2006 - 3:08 pm
When I eat, I eat. When I sleep, I sleep. Zen Buddhist formula Peace
Comment by steve @ 1/25/2006 - 3:33 pm
And what does the Zen Buddhist formula Peace say when you are attacked by someone wanting to kill you?
Comment by US Vet @ 1/25/2006 - 4:07 pm
I’m with blogagog, in his assessment of this.
I think Michelle Malkin and Hugh Hewitt kind of missed the boat on this one. Sure Joel Stein’s opinion (or lack of it) is sad and ignorant;but he is just one opinionist out of a sea of many, and not worth picking apart. What is refreshing is that he is able to admit what others of his ilk are afraid to: that he doesn’t really support the troops. And that was the whole point of his article, which seems to have been lost in all this.
Dennis Prager and Michael Medved both saw the article for what it is: a gift to those on the right of this war. Those who say they support the troops but not their mission need to reexamine whether or not they truly do support the troops or are just saying that, to not be exposed the way Joel Stein has exposed himself. Wanting to bring the troops home is something we all want. But how does Code Pink protesting in front of Walter Reed…how exactly does that support the troops? How does John Murtha saying he wouldn’t enlist in today’s military…how does that support the troops? They may care about the soldiers and want them home safe. But that’s different than being supportive of them.
Comment by wordsmith @ 1/25/2006 - 11:30 pm
Yay Wordsmith! I feel the same way, but could not articulate it as well as you.
In an interesting side note, Code Pink forgot to renew their license to protest in front of Walter Reed, and the Protest Warriors applied and received the ok to occupy their corner of the entrance! Code Pink is still protesting around the corner, but at least our wounded soldiers can’t see them anymore.
The Protest Warriors rock. I strongly suggest you download some of ther videos to see what we are up against. The other side is definitely not peaceful.
Comment by blogagog @ 1/26/2006 - 12:07 am
Blogagog, I’ve seen the pictures Da Goddess and Civilian Smash put up from the Protest Warrior events in San Diego. They have the Libs so on the run, the ACLU sent out their Green Vested goons to try intimidating people.
Comment by PCD @ 1/26/2006 - 8:50 am
While most may despise this view. Mr. Stein made some interesting observations.
Why do people buy “support the troops” paraphanalia that is made in China?
Isn’t this like funding the ultimate enemy of democracy? Way to go soccer mom for making communism that much stronger.
How can anyone support U.S. troops by giving over their dollars to the a communist regime?
Besides mutilating, torturing “ULC’s” and raping Iraqi women detainees by US personell isn’t exactly a proud moment for those who want to support the troops.
Personally for myself I don’t condone raping women for any reason. I would never torture another human for any reason or for anyone. It’s just not my style. But alot of Americans think it’s a cool thing to do if there may be even the slightest possibility of gathering intelligence.
Myself my biggest problem with Iraq/Afghanistan/GWOT is not so much the low level of moral conscienciousness. But the outrageous efforts made by our executive branch to conceal the monetary accounting of war. Is Iraq really worth this much cash? Outside of robbing them of their oil they really have nothing to offer. What’s with all the American mercenaries in Iraq? Why all the contractors? Are we actually outsourcing a war?
I think that US servicemen and women are the finest on the planet. And most of the functions that are contracted can be done by our miltary for less money and done far better.
Comment by GBA @ 1/26/2006 - 2:04 pm
GBA, Joel Stein is an idiot. He gets paid for his misinformed opinion. He asked for the grief and he’s getting some of what he richly deserves.
I think both you and Stein had really rethink your position, especially if you travel outside the country. Why? Um, could it be that maybe Islamofascists would like to make a propaganda event out of beheading you rather than joining you in a Bush Bash?
Comment by PCD @ 1/26/2006 - 2:28 pm
Who bashed Bush?
I didn’t.
What are you talking about?
Comment by GBA @ 1/26/2006 - 2:52 pm