Vetting the surge

Today's Post had an interesting perspective on Drunky McStagger's surge speech, from some men who know a thing or two about military service.

As President Bush spoke Wednesday night of sending 21,500 more troops to Iraq to fight America's latest war, some men who have fought earlier wars leaned on the bar at American Legion Post 141 off Belvedere Road, watching the television, wondering and remembering.

"Before we send more troops over there, we should know more about why we're sending more troops," said J.B. "Jimbo" Howe, 64, who served with the 101st Airborne Division from 1959 to 1966. "I think we're losing a war because we're fighting a country that's been at war for many, many years. We don't want any wars we're not going to win again."

Howe hesitated. "But he's the commander in chief," he said of Bush, "and I do support my president - even though I didn't vote for him - because I'm an American citizen."

Howe's response was echoed by several other vets who stood silently watching the president's speech. They didn't favor more troops. They doubted his plan would work. But they wanted their support for the president, and especially for the troops already in Iraq, perfectly clear.

It's really rather simple, and I still don't understand why the wingnuts don't get it. It is possible to support the troops without supporting the president and, as these men show us (even though I don't agree), it's even possible to support the president without supporting the "surge."

"I'm not for sending more troops over there," said Ken Powell, 58, a Vietnam vet who is a past state commander of the American Legion. "I'm for bringing them out as soon as we can bring them out safely. When they didn't find any weapons of mass destruction, we should have started reducing our troops."

But Powell, too, was quick to emphasize his respect for the nation's leader. "I'm not downing the president," he said. "He's done what he's done because he thought it was right at the time. But backing the troops now means bringing them home."

See the distinction? I'll be the first to "down" the preznit, and I don't care if he did what "he thought ... was right at the time." That's no excuse. However, I love the phrasing, "backing the troops now means bringing them home."

It's not about "winning" or "losing" -- now it's just about the lives of loyal, patriotic Americans, fighting someone else's war, and dying only for the pride of the madman in the White House.