For quite some time now, I've wrestled mentally with the matter of speaking out against the war versus "supporting our troops." I've finally managed to see a clear distinction that I hope may be helpful to both supporting patriots and dissenting patriots. Free of charge, of course, here it is for any clarity that it may supply to your thinking and opinion (I assume that you think before you opine, of course!):
On the positive side -- Now that we're engaged in the war, vocal support (irrespective of supportive reasons for it) supplies vitality to the morale of the fellows over there doing the dirty work and living with the dirty conditions and memories. Therefore, expressions of support provide a positive effect on their morale without affecting the decision to wage war.
On the negative side -- Now that we're engaged in the war, expressions of opposition (irrespective of supportive reasons for it) sap the morale of the fellows over there doing the dirty work and living with the dirty conditions and memories. Therefore, negative opinion has a negative effect on their morale without affecting the decision to wage war.
Under the present circumstances -- the war as a fait accompli -- support for it doesn't decide whether we engage in war, but it does show, in ways that strengthen our troops personally, our appreciation for them.
OTOH, holding forth against it -- especially with allegations of despicable ulterior motives -- has no positive or beneficial effect that I can see, on either the war or our warriors. The only effects that I see are all favorable to the enemy and his warriors -- encouraging the other side, discouraging our guys. I can not see how that's patriotic, no matter how loudly the dissidents squall their claims to patriotism.
Having said all that, I must add that it's obvious to me that many dissidents start with opposition and then look around for "reasons." One of my good friends on the left coast is a very logical man when he's dealing with technical facts -- won't form or accept a conclusion until he knows all the data and sees how they fall into sense. But his opposition to the President and the Administration (not just the war) is the benchmark from which he looks all around for reasons to oppose and dissent. Good logic would have him base his dissent on reasons, not derive his "reasons" from his congenital hatred. I see his method of finding "reasons" very obvious in much of the dissidents' arguments against the war. As one addicted to logic, I find this an appalling abdication from applied thinking. It's also clearly why they can not be swayed by clear logic that leads to conclusions that don't match the opinions that for one reason or another they find politically tasty.
Yes, I agree that our God-given, constitutionally guaranteed right to speak freely includes dissidents' right to dissent in this matter as in any other. I see no way that the right to speak freely is relevant to this issue. What we face is a matter of using good judgement, not a matter of the right to speak. He who speaks is responsible for using his judgement. I'm for using it wisely, especially when it favors silence over decibels and heat.
