War is "continuation of politics (Politik) by other means"
Carl von Clausewitz
That has been the idea since time began that war is nothing more than just a continuation of the Country's political aims. It can be started, waged, and stopped at any time at the bequest of the people who commission the war. The soldier is a tool of this political activity, nothing more and nothing less. Yes, we revere him or her because of the risk they take but in the political realm of things they are a "hammer put to a nail". Sometimes when I pound a nail it bends I then have to put down the hammer and pick up another tool to finish the job. That is not a "cut and run" on the hammer it is just an admission that in this stage of the job, the hammer is no longer a valid instrument to achieve my ends. The hammer does not complain.
I say this because a constant theme from the far right and the military is that we have somehow abandoned them by calling for an end to this war. We have somehow shown that we are trying to lose this war by fighting to use a different tool to accomplish our end state rather than the military. Read this passage from Buzz Patterson (retired LTC from The Air Force) when he quotes an American Soldier (More can be read about this here):
"Every day, the enemy changes...only now, the enemy is becoming something
new. The enemy is transitioning from the Muslim extremists to
Americans. The enemy is becoming the very people whom we defend with
our lives. And they do not realize it. But in denouncing our actions,
denouncing our leaders, denouncing the war we live and fight, they are
isolating the military from society...and they are becoming our enemy.
Terrorists cut the heads off of American citizens on the Internet...and
there is no outrage but an American soldier kills an Iraqi in the midst
of battle, and there are investigations, and sometimes soldiers are
even jailed...for doing their job...It is absolutely sickening to me to
think our country has come to this." —Sergeant Eddie Jeffers, U.S. Army
Or how about this one from another LTC:
"We are at war, Representative Murtha, and your actions and conduct
give aid and comfort to our enemies...You have dishonored all of those
who have fought and died up to the day you stood on the floor of the
House of Representatives and demanded that we withdraw immediately.
Representative Murtha, you have given aid and comfort to our enemies in
a time of war. You have given them hope, which they have fast been
losing, due to all of the victories and sacrifice by our sons and
daughters on the field of battle in Iraq and Afghanistan. You have been
honored by our enemies on the front page of Al Jazeera. . . "
—Lieutenant Colonel Christopher Stark, U.S. Army
The question we must ask ourselves is are we doing something wrong by wanting to change this war in its current configuration? Are we "betraying" our soldiers or our Country by deciding we need to use a different tool since this one (Military) is not working? The obvious answer is no we are not betraying our soldiers anymore than changing a tool in the middle of a job is betraying the first tool. It is an admission that the current tool / method is not getting us the political end we desire. Therefore, wishing it were not the case does not help.
However, the rants continue from the likes of the Milbloggers Dadmanly and others who continue to blow the horn of "once the troops are in battle you can never call for their recall". As ridiculous as this argument sounds (imagine if you knew what you know today, would you still call for supporting the Cavalry slaughtering Indians, would you still call for military action in Vietnam?) we, the progressives, must accept the fact that the far right has chosen to use emotion rather than logic. They can quickly stir up a hornet's nest by playing the "You don't support our troops" card much like O.J. Simpson used the race card to stir up emotion. Once emotion is stirred up, you cannot discuss the argument logically; that is the "modus Operandi" of the far right.
Now this emotion stirring argument has been put into a book called, War Crimes: The Left's Campaign to Destroy our Military and Lose The War on Terror". I might pick the book up to read it, much like I can't help but look at the "Star" magazine when I am checking out at the grocery store, but I have not yet. Despite that, let's take a look at the stupid subtitle the author has put out there. Assuming (and this is a BIG assumption) that the subtitle is not just an attention grabber to get right wing lunatics to part with their last $17.13 I am going to assume that this truly is Patterson's thesis.
First, he believes the left is out to destroy the military. Why would the left want to do this? It defies logic and if it defies logic, it cannot be true. I am sure there are far fringe left people who believe the military is bad in any and all circumstances but he certainly did not write a book about them did he? Since "left" generally means anyone who is less conservative than, say, Sean Hannity, we must take this statement to mean that he believes the entire left is engaged in a conspiracy to destroy the military.
What we know is the following: The left, for the most part, believe the military is being misused in the political aim of ending terrorism and affecting stability in the Middle East. We also know the right, who have waged this war, have unintentionally, through absolute incompetence, destroyed our military. Our readiness has never been lower, our equipment is destroyed, we have had to lower standards dramatically to keep soldiers in and the deployments have had to be extended just to keep the fight up. We know that the right, by ignoring the symptoms which were easily identified 2 years ago, have effectively destroyed our military. All of this is the result of the far right, the "Rumsfeld, Bush, Cheney" triad. The left had nothing to do with this destruction.
Second, he is claiming the left has a campaign to "lose the war on terror". While I should chock this up to an inflammatory statement designed to sell books to the hoards of trailer park conservatives, I can not. It is such a bold statement I must take this to be what he believes. Does he really believe this generally left side of the political spectrum wants to "lose the war on terrorism"? For what reason? Why would they want to "lose a war"?
Or, in a very narrow definition of the "war on terrorism" does he mean the military battles on the front lines of Iraq. These two are completely different things. But, let us say that is what he means I must ask the same question, why would anyone want to "lose" those battles? Even if we were to believe the left were the most self centered people we know, what benefit could possible come from "losing the war"?
If Patterson infers that by asking for the end to the Iraq war the left is demanding a surrender then it shows the shallowness of both his political thinking and his military thinking. If he thinks the only way to win a "war" is by invading Countries then, again, it speaks to why he was in the Air Force and only made LTC.
Do I really have to remind him that the wall came down in Germany without firing a single shot?
Blackfive.net, another loony bin for the far right has comments about the book which are very interesting. The comment starts off like the person we all know who is about to tell a racist joke and says, "Now I am not a racist but let me tell you this joke....". Rather than have an honest review of the book, Blackfive can't help but fan the fire which this book will create.
At the end of the day, the military must realize they are a "tool of the state" which can be employed and put back at the will of the state much like you take a tool out of a toolbox then put it back. They are one of many hundreds of tools we have and when they are not working (as they clearly are not in Iraq), the state can recall them.
Further, the military must realize that we are an open society which means we have open debate about fighting wars. This has been true since the revolution and continues today. If they cannot handle that, or do not like that, so be it but it is what makes this Country great. If they do not like what makes this Country great then why are they defending it.
No, this book's subtitle, assuming it is the thesis, says it all. It is the equivalent of the magazine at the Grocery counter which tries to get you to read it with the title "Big Foot Found in Manhattan".