Chris's Mailbag

[EagerBeaver]

As some of you read, I began a podcast last week entitled "Here's What's Brewin." I'm throwing the second episode together today, and it'll be available tomorrow.

If any of you want to get involved, I have a segment I am starting, entitled Chris's Mailbag, in which I ask a question and read responses from both sides of the issue of the question I am posing.

This week's question goes as follows:

Is it possible to support the troops over in Iraq without supporting the war?

I know the war has been a hot button topic around the country and here on Jude2 at times, and I wanted some fellow Christians' perspective on it so I can read the responses during my show tomorrow. If you want to get involved, please shoot me an email at chris -at- chris-brewer.com (remove the -at- and use @ instead, of course) with your response.

I'll read every single response I get on the show tomorrow. Thanks again!

[MacUser]

Is it possible to support Christians in the Great Commission without supporting their called ministries?

or

Is it possible to support ministers/pastors in the Great Commission without supporting them locally.


Example Concept: I'm for the Pastors ideals... but not for his called mission or ministry. Or if you are against the persons called mission/duty are you against the person? Can you effectively separate your Support, Money, Prayer etc. from his or her called mission. By denying the latter do you harm or help that unique person?


Just something to think about as I don't know all the answers.

[dolfan]

I said from the get-go that you can't. Centrist and I disagreed over it here way back, respectfully. I've always maintained and still do that if you don't support the success of the troops in their combat mission, you don't support the troops. You don't have to support the policy by any means; you can think we never should've gone to Iraq. But, we're there, our young men and women (and older ones, too) are on the ground. To say we support them but don't support what they are trying to accomplish or the way they're going about it is empty. The only other option is failure at this point. So, to say, "I support the troops but I don't support the mission" is tanatmount to saying, "I support the troops and hope they fail." The troops ARE the mission, still. That may change one day, and I hope it does because it is time for Iraq and its people to stand up on its own weight. Maybe it's getting there; I don't know. The ultimate success of the mission is political, but for now, the combat and hostilities remain. So, you can't support the troops if you don't support the mission, IMO.

[EagerBeaver]

Thank you guys for your responses! I'll read the text verbatim on the podcast which will be available noon central time tomorrow!

[forestwalker]

Is it possible to support the troops over in Iraq without supporting the war?

First I should say that it's a stupid and nonsensical question used by policymakers and hawks to, most obviously, bully dissenters but also in a more subtle way to essentially hold the troops themselves hostage for the ransom of public support. To actually support the troops (rather than policy or a political party) means greeting questions such as this with extreme skepticism.

It's common to suggest that to "not support the war" must ipso facto mean that you desire the troops to fail in their mission, hate the troops or think they and/or their actions are evil, actually wish harm upon the troops, and/or hate America. It's simply not so.

Consider this scenario: A building is burning and a dozen children are trapped on the top floor well out of reach of ladders. The building is in imminent danger of collapsing. You overhear the fire batallion commander order all his men away from the burning building with children inside to the adjacent jewelry store which is also on fire.

Or consider a more tragic scenario: Same burning building with children, but this time you overhear a report that the ten firefighters trying to reach the children have been killed on the seventh floor and that all stairwells above that floor are completely impassable. You hear an engineer tell the batallion chief that the building will be coming down literally at any moment. And then you hear the chief shout to a group of a dozen firefighters, "Get to those kids, now!"

In neither scenario could standing up and challenging the policy of the batallion chief be honestly construed as "not supporting the firefighters". To do so would be thought nonsensical, even outrageous, to anyone standing by. Neither scenario, of course, is perfectly analogous to our current wars but they're akin to how dissenters see the situation and it's perfectly reasonable for them to say that they "support the troops but not the war".