November 26, 2007
I Support the Troops, But I Don’t Support the War
My wife is preparing to take the GRE in order to pursue a masters degree. Looking over her shoulder one afternoon, I saw her practicing analogy questions. GRE analogies are designed to test your knowledge of word definitions and your ability to understand the relationship between a pair of words. You are then asked to match that relationship to a pair of different words with a similar relationship. Analogies come in various sizes, shapes and types:
Analogy by defining characteristic. WANDERLUST is to TRAVEL as (Wanderlust, by definition, is the strong desire to travel)
APIARY is to BEE (An apiary is defined as a place where bees are kept.
Analogy by synonyms, where the initial pair are synonyms with similar parts of speech: EULOGY is to PRAISE;
or synonym variants, where both words are synonyms but of different parts of speech: DUPE is to CREDULOUS.
Analogies by antonyms and antonym variants, where the initial pair words mean the opposite, but are the
same or different parts of speech respectively, i.e., LOATHE is to ADORE and IMPECUNIOUS is to MONEY.
Anyway, I began wondering how many analogies I could conjure up for Democratics who say “I support the troops but I don’t support the war.”
I support the troops means that you stand behind them, value them and do your best to help them in their primary function — fighting for the country.
I don’t support the war means that you’re against the primary function of the people who have volunteered to fight for your country as they are fighting it, allowing you to kick back and enjoy the life “the troops” through decades have provided for you.
In trying to understand the disconnect there I fashioned some analogies to see if I could come up with some that best fit the original pair.
I SUPPORT THE TROOPS is to I DON’T SUPPORT THE WAR as…
- I LOVE MY WIFE is to I HATE MY MARRIAGE
- I SUPPORT MY CARDIOLOGIST is to I DON’T WANT HIM DOING MY BYPASS
- AL GORE is to SMALL CARBON FOOTPRINTS ARE CRITICAL
- ALLAH IS MERCIFUL is to 147 OFFICIAL SAUDI BEHEADINGS THIS YEAR ALONE
- I SUPPORT THE YANKEES is to I HATE BASEBALL
- I LOVE FOOD is to I DON’T BELIEVE IN EATING
- SENATOR KENNEDY CRITICIZING WATERBOARDING is to MARY JO KOPECHNE
- I BELIEVE IN LEARNING is to I DON’T SUPPORT EDUCATION
- I WANT SEX is to NOTHING TOUCHES MY PENIS.
- BARACK OBAMA is to DOWN WITH THE STRUGGLE
- I HIRE HOOKERS is to I DON’T SUPPORT PROSTITUTION.
- HONOR KILLINGS ARE DESPICABLE is to ALL CULTURES ARE WONDERFUL
- DIVERSITY IS WONDERFUL is to I LIVE IN A GATED COMMUNITY
- VOUCHERS ARE BAD is to MY KIDS GO TO PRIVATE SCHOOL
- I SUPPORT HILLARY is to I WANT HONESTY IN GOVERNMENT
Hey, Arthur ..
Good of you to get into the spirit of this. Thanks. In the GRE, some analogies are right, some are wrong. That’s the point here. I’m defining troops by their specific and only function, to fight wars. Once the war is on, we are bound by decency and respect for their sacrifices NOT to do anything to damage their will to fight, their morale, their integrity. Senators Reid, Durbin, Kerry have publicly done this. The entire Democrat party leadership has done their. The General Betrayus ad has done this.
The primary function of troops then, is to fight a war. The primary function of a chainsaw is to cut trees and tree branches. Not supporting the war in the initial analogy is not the same as chainsaws dismembering bodies because that’s not what chainsaws are designed to do. You got one wrong so far.
That’s not true, actually, but let’s pretend it is for the moment…
You’re still wrong. If the President decided on a whim that we should attack France because he just doesn’t like their attitude, I would not support that war. I would still hope that the troops come home in one piece and are not too mentally traumatized by the horrors of war (which is what “supporting the troops” means to me), but I would not hesitate to speak out against such a silly USE of the troops, and in fact, it would be my patriotic duty to do so.
Another analogy, this one more war-similar:
I LOVE MY FAVORITE CHESS SET is to I WOULD NOT WANT TO LOAN IT TO SOME FRIGGIN’ MORON WHO WOULD SACRIFICE THE QUEEN JUST TO GET A LOUSY PAWN, AND IF I SAW HIM START TO DO THAT, I’D SCREAM AT THE TOP OF MY LUNGS TO WARN HIM NOT TO DO SOMETHING THAT DAMN STUPID.
Catching on?
Troops are the agent. The war is what they do. I SUPPORT THE TROOPS. I DON’T SUPPORT THE WAR is like
I SUPPORT FREEDOM. I DON’T SUPPORT DEFENDING IT IF IT INVOLVES A COST
I SUPPORT WATER. I DON’T SUPPORT WATERBOARDING.
I SUPPORT MY TEENAGE SON. I DON’T SUPPORT HIM DOING DRUGS.
I SUPPORT MY EX-WIFE. I DON’T SUPPORT HER DOING THE FOOTBALL TEAM.
I SUPPORT THE POLICE. I DON’T SUPPORT THE POLICE RAMMING A NITESTICK UP A SUSPECT’S ANUS
I SUPPORT THE TROOPS. I DON’T SUPPORT THEM WITH ANYTHING MORE THAN AN EMPTY SLOGAN.
Why do people keep saying that war is the primary function of the troops? It’s like saying that a strike is the primary function of a union. War is a LAST RESORT. It’s what happens when nothing else works; it’s for emergencies only.
We have had a military since the inception of this country. They have spent a large portion of their time NOT at war. Did all that peace just waste their time?
(That said, Wayne, most of your examples actually reiterate MY point, though I’m not sure if that was intention or not. But thanks anyway.)