why a bunch of troops don't have anything to do with our freedom. or at least why it isn't that simple.

Ever since Vietnam, politicians from both sides of the political spectrum have been very careful not to demonize the armed forces. It's a difficult balancing act to play: opposing an unjust and illegal war during which countless of innocent people are killed without blaming those individuals who are physically responsible for dropping bombs or pulling the triggers.

I have always had a hard time grasping the culture of our military. I understand how it works: structure and chain of command are essential to a successful military. When a soldier is given an order he acts on it without question. This leaves civilians like myself with the impression mindless action is valued more highly than independent thought. Well, because it is. Imagine if everytime an order was given the soldier had a choice whether or not to carry it out. Chaos would ensue. The individual on the front line can not think about the moral and strategic consequences of a military action. They must simply carry it out. The justification behind this is that those higher up the chain of command have already considered/thought through all of the possible implications of the action. That is all fine and good but at the end of the day the people pulling triggers are human. Despite not being able to make decisions based on morality, the moral implications of their actions must be a heavy burden. It is essential to the continued success of our military that they feel as though the conflict or war they are involved in is an endeavor aimed at protecting the pillars of democracy our country was founded on.

I am grateful to individuals who chose to enter the armed forces (I could get into an entirely different discussion as to whether or not it's actually a choice--joining the military is still considered an excellent "way out" of poverty and a pathway to paying for higher education, but that's for another time.) They have chosen a life wherein they are responsible for protecting the rights and freedoms of Americans. They are willing to put themselves in danger to protect those rights.

Jennifer Granholm thanking the troops in Afghanistan and Iraq for protecting our freedoms was political lipservice. The continuing conflicts have little to do with protecting U.S. rights and more to do with expanding our influence globally in an area where we need control.

I'm certain that there are many who would most heartily disagree with me. There are those who would say by continuing to stay in Iraq we are ensuring a breeding ground for terrorists will not spring up (let's not mention that terrorists wouldn't be there in the first place if we hadn't illegally invaded that country, but again, that's for another time) thereby protecting our interests. We will never, ever be able to control Iraq. Ever. The situation continues to deteriorate the more power we turn over to the Iraqi government. We will eventually leave that country with yet another failed conflict under our expensive American belts. We opened Pandora's Box in Iraq and have unleashed a very strong potential for civil war. The beauty of it all is that bin Laden continues to pop-up to remind us all that he's still there. He has made it so easy for the administration to continue to justify our presence despite the majority of the violence being sectarian not insurgents.

The number one problem with our global war on terror is that it is not a winnable war. It's too vague and convoluted. With the major objective being to end tyranny, we are clearly not going to come out on top of this one. However, the words sound good for politicians. How can anyone be against ridding the world of tyranny? How can anyone be against ridding the world of evil? It's a no-brainer that forces otherwise intelligent people to say stupid things like thanks-to-the-troops-in-Iraq-and-Afghanistan-for-fighting-for-our-freedoms because no one wants to be against the troops. We need them to think despite the fact that they will not win and despite the fact they shouldn't be there in the first place that they are there for the lofty and non-debatable reason of protecting the rights and freedoms of Americans.

Our military depends on that.
And so do our politicians.

This is all ramble-y. I tried not to rely on rhetoric (unsuccessfully), but tried to sort it all out for myself. This is so tricky and complicated and tangled up in military culture, political pandering, and a voting public that for the most part doesn't bother to take the time to try and untangle the mess. It's easier to hear "we're there for our freedoms" than it is to hear "we're there for geopolitical maneuvering." It's also easier to call someone un-American for not supporting the troops than it is to try and figure out what's really going on.

It's a work in progress.