Don't encumber our troops' mission

I am continually perplexed by those who offer platitudes of support for our troops on one hand while they seek to encumber their mission in the field with the other.

Some of them will respond to this letter saying blind support is bad, they support the troops but oppose the President, the war is illegal, etc.

These individuals need to consider that any mission our military is called upon to carry out is not of their making or choice. The choice is not, and should not be, the prerogative of the military.

Our military is bound to obey the orders of its civilian leaders. It is not up to them to decide the righteousness of a conflict or whether it is appropriate to fight it, lest we risk consigning our liberty to some general who thinks he knows better. Instead the military is charged with determining how to fight it.

The "support" rhetoric seeks to divest soldiers from the mission to ease the conscience. Unfortunately the soldiers in the field and the policy are deeply entwined and tough to disassociate, kind of like distinguishing a dancer from the dance. It is difficult although not impossible to do so, but you cannot have one without the other.

Perhaps those who fail to see any purpose in current affairs and raise their voice in opposition should consider the words of a former president, one who was admired by all, of the Democrat Party, and elected by less than a majority of the popular vote (49.7 percent):

"When there is a visible enemy to fight in open combat, many serve, all applaud, and the tide of patriotism runs high. But when there is a long, slow struggle, with no immediate, visible foe, your choice will seem hard indeed." The president? John F. Kennedy.

While President Kennedy was referring to the Cold War, a 50-year struggle, his message then, and invoked by President Clinton in 1995, is one of perseverance in the face of uncertain struggle.

It is unfortunate that many do not share these sentiments.

Jeff Grady

Palatine