Support The Troops

What exactly does it mean to say "I support the troops"? Apparently, any type of questioning or criticism immediately disqualifies you from the "supporter" camp. Whether it be Harper on Afghanistan, or Bush in Iraq, it is imperative that we rally behind a mission in an absolute way. Anything less somehow weakens resolve, and even more alarming, emboldens our enemies. So, when you see the mounting Canadian casualties, accompanied by an ever more dangerous theatre, it is required that you bite your tongue and stand in support. Any overt concern expressed hurts troop morale and takes away from the ultimate sacrifice.

I appreciate the fact that when a soldier dies it is bad form, especially with regards to the family, to suggest that somehow their sacrifice was in vain. We want to believe that casualties are the price of success and that ultimately these deaths will bear fruit. Losing or withdrawing isn't an option, because this admission cheapens the "cost". However, is it not our duty to make sober assessments of our mission, precisely because we don't want to see people die needlessly? I would argue that supporting the troops is best manifested when we demand clarity, purpose and a coherent endgame. Afterall, the concern is primarily for the troops wellbeing and those of the families.

I find it quite disturbing that the right equates patriotism to support of the mission. It is not anti-Canadian, anti-military to suggest that our mission is flawed and the terrain more dangerous. I prefer pragmatism over blind support because this allows for constant re-examination in the face of rapidly changing events. Despite all the rhetoric from commanders and politicians about "success", it is argued in the context of this reality:

Meantime, a Taliban spokesman is vowing to step up attacks against Canadian and other NATO forces in Afghanistan.

"We will increase the attacks against NATO, Canadians and other foreign supporters in the south (of Afghanistan)," Qari Yousaf Ahmadi said in an interview with The Canadian Press.

The threat comes after four Canadians died and 10 were injured in intense fighting on Thursday with Taliban insurgents.

More suicide attackers from across the war-torn country have converged in the south to carry out strikes against non-Muslims, Ahmadi said.

"We have got more suicide attackers, so of course suicide attacks will be increased."

In recent weeks the American military has been forced to admit that the Taliban is now stronger than at any time since the invasion. The number of insurgent attacks have increased. The nature of the attacks have become more sophisticated and co-ordinated. Our forces are increasingly viewed as merely another in a long line of past occupiers, which is a dangerous trend as we move forward. All these facts fly in the face of "progress" and suggest that we may simply be spinning our wheels in Afghanistan. The question isn't one of resolve, but more one of prudence and realism.

I support the troops. I support Canadian attempts to make a difference in Afghanistan. However, that support doesn't mean endorsing an open-ended commitment, that lacks real goals and discounts the cost of casualties. Supporting our troops demands a sensitivity to every casualty, as opposed to simply rationalizing them as part of a greater purpose. Stubbornness is not support, in fact it actually puts our troops in harms way because if fails to acknowledge a fluid reality.