{ 2006 09 28 }

‘Support the troops’ does not equal support for war [or Butler]

John Gormley on Tuesday said that Layton doesn’t support the troops, because he doesn’t want them to fight in the Afghanistan war. This is a lot like Rider fans that are accused of being anti-Kerry Joseph when they chant for Rocky Butler the backup quarterback.

As for the Riders, problems at the quarterback position leads to the chants from the crowd for Danny Barrett to do something about the offensive production. Joseph isn’t bad overall like some QBs we’ve had over the last decade, but when you can only put up 10 points in 3.5 quarters, it’s time for a QB change, about a quarter and a half ago. There’s nothing saying he can’t come back in three plays later, according to CFL rules. But Butler hasn’t let us down this year, and when Kerry fumbles on the 5 yard line with 2 minutes to go and only gets a lucky bounce and an eager Fantuz #83 to save us, it is not a convincing performance. It’s more like a gong show on wheels - and the flat is never changed, so the show limps along all night.

Rod Pedersen hopefully noticed that B.C. had no trouble changing their quarterback, and when they did make that change on us last time, their backup Buck beat us. Giving Butler a chance to bounce B.C. isn’t admitting defeat under the leadership of Joseph, and is only a lasting blow to Kerry’s apparently fragile ego if he lets it be. The blow to his ego should come from only earning 17 points through 4 quarters plus all of overtime. Danny never changes the star quarterback unless they are injured, and it’s cost us several games over the years.

I’m not saying that we’re not “scoring enough points” in Afghanistan, but there are serious problems with some aspects of the mission, so to say that people who have alternate solutions to the political problems in that country are somehow against the military, isn’t fair. Unless Layton is making statements concerning the wellbeing of the troops, he can’t be accused of not supporting the soldiers. I’d consider calls to reduce military supplies, funding, veterans benefits, health care, or operational support as something that’s anti-troops. Putting our troops into combat without competent air support could also be considered anti-troops.

[I am only defending Layton on this issue because I haven't heard him say anything anti-military. I don't agree with his position that we can negotiate with the Taliban, but he's welcome to take his party to the grave. Gormley could criticize Layton for being out of touch with reality, but to use the tired attack of "you don't support the troops" is lame and wrong.]

A call to bring our soldiers out of harm’s way where they are [possibly] not being used in an effective or necessary way, is not anti-troop, it’s anti-war and pro-troops. You wouldn’t say generals in World War I were “pro-troops” when they ordered them over the top onto enemy machine gun fire. Sending soldiers to certain doom with no winnable outcome is decidedly anti-troops. If Bill Clinton and Gwyn Dyer for instance are right and we aren’t putting enough troops in Afghanistan to actually win, then perhaps we are committing our soldiers to a violent and dangerous task when there is no hope of them reaching the goal of a peaceful Afghanistan governed by a democratic government that respects human rights.

Please everyone: Stop saying people don’t support the troops if they aren’t glad that soldiers are dying overseas. According to Harper we can improve our International reputation by getting bloodied up like the other countries in the war on terror. That’s gotta be bad for troop morale, to hear exactly how highly he values their life and wellbeing. Their deaths make him more chummy with Bush because he’s getting Canada to “chip in”.

Posted by Saskboy on Thursday, September 28th, 2006, at 8:35 am, and filed under Saskatchewan, news, politics, sports.

Follow any responses to this entry with the RSS 2.0 feed.

You can post a comment, or trackback from your site.