What It Means to Support the Troops

ENLARGE PHOTO+

American soldiers on patrol in Baghdad, Iraq, on Jan.29, 2007

Franco Pagetti for TIME

• Share

When Lieut. General David Petraeus appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee a few weeks ago, he was subjected to a curious line of questioning by Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut. The questions seemed substantive, but they weren't really. They were intended to lure the general into the Senate's political debate over a nonbinding resolution of disapproval of the President's so-called surge policy in Iraq. In the manner of a friendly prosecutor, Lieberman steered Petraeus toward his objective--a clear statement from the general that such a resolution would hurt the morale of our troops in Iraq and give the enemy "encouragement." Petraeus, clearly uncomfortable with this line of questioning, refused to give a direct answer: "A commander in such an endeavor would obviously like the enemy to feel there was no hope."

In the initial debate on Iraq war resolutions last week, Lieberman was at it again. The notably mild Warner-Levin resolution of disapproval would "discourage our troops and hearten our enemies," he said. A day later, I asked Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska about politicians--not Lieberman specifically--who made such statements. "They're despicable," he said, in a decidedly unsenatorial tone. "Those sorts of statements are the last refuge of a scoundrel. They suggest a lack of patriotism on the part of people like me and John Warner and Carl Levin. They hurt our democracy."

Lieberman's honorable, if mistaken, support for the war has curdled into demagoguery. Senator John McCain has taken a similar path, calling those who would vote for the resolution "intellectually dishonest." He suggests the "honest" path for surge opponents would be to go ahead and cut off funds for the war. But the Senators who favor Warner-Levin are pointedly opposed to immediate withdrawal from Iraq. So who's being intellectually dishonest here? It is sad to see McCain and Lieberman disgracing themselves this way. It is tempting to say, "Shame on you," and leave it at that. But I had a conversation with two colonels last week--very smart guys, very much aware of the dire situation in Iraq--and their attitude was much the same as McCain's and Lieberman's: the politicians were undermining the mission.

Mission is a sacred word in the military. When you are given a mission, you are trained to complete it, to keep on trying new tactics until the objective is achieved. It is a matter of duty and honor. And so, when politicians criticize a mission, the reflexive military reaction is to assume they are acting dishonorably, putting politics above duty. This is a common attitude in the uniformed military, and it deserves a serious response.