David M. McKenzie – 3/19/06

This page was last updated on March 19, 2006.

Who supports troops?; David M. McKenzie; Beaver County Times; March 19, 2006. This letter was entitled “Supporting the troops” when it first appeared on the Times website on March 16^th. Shortly after its website publishing, however, it was removed as were other letters. I should note there are minor differences – editorial, not content – between the March 16^th letter – critiqued below – and that of March 19^th.

This letter regurgitates many of the talking points in Mr. McKenzie’s previous letter. It’s an attempt to convince us – or maybe Mr. McKenzie himself – that people like Mr. McKenzie really support the troops despite despising everything the troops are doing.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.

“With all due respect, I’d like to enlighten letter writer Sgt. Daniel Mullenax (‘The troops are this war,’ Thursday) in regard to troop support.”

[RWC] I would have included a link to the Mullenax letter, but it was removed from the Times website.

“People like me showed our complete support for our military by insisting that this administration and citizenry differentiated [sic] between Afghanistan and Iraq. I’ll admit this was fruitless.”

[RWC] This is a common ploy. If you believe Mr. McKenzie actually supported the action in Afghanistan, I have a bridge to sell you. People like Mr. McKenzie like to rewrite history and claim everyone supported attacking al-Qaida and the Taliban so they can assert, “Iraq is different.” That presentation of history is false.

“We also supported our troops by insisting, if we can’t stop this war, then to at least follow the first Gulf War protocol of having 300,000-plus troops involved. This would provide for border security and actually do all the things needed to stop the present fiasco, thus saving troop lives.”

[RWC] Does anyone seriously believe Mr. McKenzie cares if we had sent 150,000 troops or 300,000+? I expect Mr. McKenzie would still have complained the number was too little or too much.

“The four-star general, who agreed with ‘us’ and insisted on the protocol, was publicly humiliated by this administration. I’m sure that you all know that this administration went into Iraq with less than 150,000 troops.”

[RWC] So, Generals Shinseki and Zinni were right and every other general was wrong? If every general had agreed, it would probably have been the first time in history. Further, if they had all agreed, people like Mr. McKenzie would be telling us dissenters had been squashed.

Finally, Gen. Shinseki was not “publicly humiliated;” he retired on schedule. Gen. Shinseki did not make his comments until after his successor had been named. Therefore, Shinseki’s comments had nothing to do with his retirement.

“Once again, ‘we’ supported our troops ‘they’ just played lip-service for support.

“We will continually support our troops by insisting on bringing them home from Iraq.”

[RWC] Everyone wants our troops out of harm’s way. The difference is, most of us want those brave men and women to finish their mission.

“‘We’ will only support aggression against those who have attacked us, not countries or regimes that simply don’t like us.”

[RWC] Mr. McKenzie just provided the justification he claims he needs. From the end of the 1991 Gulf War to 2002, Iraq attacked U.S. planes enforcing the Iraq no-fly zones many times.

“‘We’ will, however, insist on giving our troops everything they need to succeed.”

[RWC] Hogwash! It would not matter if we could make our troops indestructible. Mr. McKenzie and his fellow travelers would still claim our troops were not given “everything they need to succeed.”

“‘We’ will not pretend to support our troops through ‘Bush-speak’ while using them as cannon-fodder, a la FOX News.”

[RWC] In his letter, Sgt. Mullenax wrote, “And, as if we aren’t sacrificing enough, now we are dealing with the ignorance of protestors who go directly outside of a military post and demonstrate against the war during a memorial ceremony.” Mr. McKenzie didn’t tell us how that supports the troops, or the families of those men and women.

Does Mr. McKenzie really believe we don’t know he and people like him merely “pretend to support our troops?”

The bottom line is Mr. McKenzie doesn’t have the courage of his convictions to say something like “the end justifies the means.” Instead, he and his like come up with a warped definition of supporting the troops to hide behind.

Here’s what fellow anti-war guy Joel Stein wrote in an L.A. Times column of January 24, 2006. “I DON’T SUPPORT our troops. … And being against the war and saying you support the troops is one of the wussiest positions the pacifists have ever taken — and they’re wussy by definition. It’s as if the one lesson they took away from Vietnam wasn’t to avoid foreign conflicts with no pressing national interest but to remember to throw a parade afterward.” While I obviously disagree with Mr. Stein’s position regarding troop support, at least he has the courage not hide behind a false claim of troop support.