"I support the troops, but . . . "

How often have we heard someone say, "I support the troops, but I don't support their mission."? I have been trying to parse what this odd sounding phrase really means, and cannot see any logic in it. Maybe the word "support" is what is in my way.

So, I drag out the ol' Funk and Wagnalls and look up "support." Let's see, um, "to approve of and encourage." No, that doesn't sound like what Nancy Pelosi had in mind. How about, "be actively interested in and support the success of?" Well, certainly the first part is right. Most of the left wing and anti-war types are obsessed about the war as part of the BDS. But, how about the second part, wishing for the success of the mission?

That is a bit more problematic for the Democrats. Clearly, none of them is willing to openly root for the failure of the US in Iraq as did Jane Fonda in Vietnam. But, neither are they willing, for the most part, to openly express the notion that they are hoping we "win" in Iraq. Ask a leftie what they think about that, and you will get a range of responses from intense hemming and hawing to logical reasons why the mission is doomed to failure, no matter what we do.

So, back to supporting the troops, but not the mission. I cannot imagine how that can be. It is like saying that you "support" your hometown baseball team, but you don't want them to win the World Series. How can you root for the team, but hope they are not successful?

It is nonsense, and I don't buy it.

Experts say that a US failure in Iraq would have far-reaching and disastrous implications. Iraq would become a haven for terrorists. A loss there would prove Osama bin Laden' s theory that the US does not have the stomach to actually win against determined Islamic terrorism. A US failure in Iraq would serve to unite the Islamic jihadists, creating an unnatural coalition of Sunnis and Shias to drive Western influence from the Mideast. And, worst of all, the new front in the war on terrorism would likely open on US soil, in Europe, or both.

So, how could apparently patriotic Americans really wish that we lose in Iraq, with all that would entail?

It is simple. It is the latest escalation of partisan politics. The needs of a political party to dominate is given a higher priority than the needs of the country. I am sure that the majority of partisan hacks don't talk in these terms or even consciously plan our demise. I would imagine that they have done what I think is the worst mistake a person can make. When you start to believe your own BS. I am sure John Kerry believes that serious negotiation with America's enemies would yield positive results, despite the historical evidence.

My only question about negotiating with the likes of Iran and Syria, dictatorial Islamic republics headed by tyrants, is, "What magic words would you say to them to get them to change their behavior?" In 1939, after the armies of the Third Reich rolled a blitzkrieg across Poland, Illinois US Senator, William Edgar Borah, famously said, "Lord, if I could only have talked with Hitler, all this might have been avoided."

I would ask Sen. Kerry the exact same question I would ask Sen. Borah. "But, what would you say?"

No, unfortunately, history has shown it is impossible to talk a fanatical dictator down without backing up your words with a credible military threat.

And, to be able to make a credible military threat, you have to support the troops, and the mission.

Greetings from Sunny South Carolina

These were the scenes that greeted us here in the Midlands of South Carolina this morning at, 8:10 AM. Not very typical for this area, but we have pictures now for this year's Christmas cards!