During the recent rancorous debate surrounding the Congressional resolution to set bencharks and erect a timeframe for the orderly withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq, two things stood out to me:  one, comments I read representing all points of view from left and right, on a Talking Points Memo thread about the resolution, and two, an e-mail exchange between me and my sister-in-law about her son's upcoming deployment to Baghdad with the Army.   I'd had a similar conversation with my conservative friend Robby, and all these things helped me clarify something I want to say, right here and right now, about the whole debate.

During the past 12 years of Republican rule, anyone who did not follow along in lock-step with the right-wing talking points were automatically branded "liberals," and were scorned in best-selling books, talk radio and television, and any other venue the most loudmouthed of the party could find.  You were either Righteous--or you were one of those awful, miserable, ignorant, America-hating, godless, depraved, immoral, and probably "faggot" (to quote their queen, Ann Coulter) LIBERALS.

If there is one thing that the recent debate among Democrats about this war has accomplished--I hope--it has laid that myth to rest.

Democrats in Congress represent a broad swath of at least half of the American public who elected them, from conservative "Blue Dogs" who campaigned on pro-life, pro-gun platforms, to more moderates who hold a variety of opinions across the spectrum, all the way to the liberal left wing who, in terms of this war, advocate nothing less than complete withdrawal of all American troops as soon as physically possible.  To fund one more day of Bush's war, to them, is immoral.

But as the recent polling among the members of MoveOn.org--which is supposed to be an unabashedly liberal group--showed that only SIX PERCENT of its members held that position, (86% of MoveOn members voted to support the resolution) proves, it is that the "liberal" point of view is, in fact, a very small percentage of Democrats. 

Furthermore, when the vote count was taken, only FOUR Democratic members of the liberal wing of the party actually voted against the House resolution.  ALL OTHER MEMBERS of the party, and two brave Republicans, voted FOR the resolution.

It turns out that "red" and "blue" actually encompasses many, many shades of purple, on both sides.

However, as is so often the case, the very smallest minority of any viewpoint on any subject tends to be the loudest and the most visible, the most camera-ready, the most active.  And God bless them, on both sides of the aisle and in blue and red states everywhere.  There is usually truth to be found beneath all the rhetoric on either side.

However, when it comes to anti-war rhetoric of the most vehement of peace activists, I have to speak out on behalf of the "troops" they claim to want to protect.

Yes, I want this war to end.  But I do not subscribe to an all-or-nothing philosophy that accepts nothing less than loading up every single American soldier and Marine onto a supersonic jet and flying them home NOW.  This is not a realistic view, and I'll tell you why it does a disservice to our troops.

Reading through some of the posts from the more liberal readers on the Talking Points thread, I was struck by the thought that, to hear them talk about the troops, you would almost think they are children who need protecting, and that if we would just get them home, they would be safe.

I want the guys to be safe, too--as I've said before, I've sent a son and a nephew into the bloodiest areas of Iraq FIVE TIMES already, and will be sending yet another beloved nephew into the war soon.  I don't want anything to happen to any of them.  And I think that the overwhelming ignorance, arrogance, and self-interest of those who started this war in the first place has put all our troops into terrible dangers they should have never had to face if, in the first place, the civilian leadership had listened to their own military generals and experts about HOW TO WAGE WAR.  Instead, they fired anyone who disagreed and only listened to the yes-men who went along with their schemes, and the rest is history.

But that's not what I'm here to talk about today.

What I want to say to those well-meaning, sincere, and passionate liberals who beg for our troops' safety is this:  They are not children.  They don't need you or anyone else to protect them.

THEY ARE WARRIORS.  WARRING IS WHAT THEY DO.  IT IS WHAT THEY TRAIN FOR, WHAT THEY LIVE FOR, AND WHAT THEY VOLUNTEERED TO DO.

To treat them or even regard them as anything less is insulting.

The truth is that, although the majority of active-duty military personnel now want this war to end, now feel that we should never have gone in in the first place, now feel that terrible mistakes were made at their expense--they don't necessarily want their awful sacrifices to have been wasted.

They want to feel that, even if they were sent in like so much cannon fodder, and even though it is unfair to ask them to pay this same price over and over and over again (most who eagerly went once aren't too crazy about going back)--still, they want to feel that the deaths of their buddies and the war-wounds of other buddies, and all they went through, will COUNT for something.

They want us to support them, but they are frustrated and angry that "support" seems to mean merely waving the flag and slapping yellow ribbon magnets on our cars.  They want sensible support, and leaders they can trust to make the best decisions possible in how they will use the skills and training of those who serve.

They want common sense, pragmatism, and reality-checks over rhetoric from either side.

These young people who enlist into the armed services to serve their country, and raise their right hands to defend and protect, take what they do very seriously, and they are proud of their service.  All they ask is that they can trust their leaders not to squander that solemn oath for political or egotistical reasons. 

Those who will actually be fighting a war, or who have fought wars in the past, take war very, very seriously.  They know what war is, what its costs, and although they will do as ordered, they want to be able to feel that they can trust those orders to have been given for only those reasons that are most pure.  Anything less is a betrayal of that sacred trust.

This is why I believe passionately that anyone who would dare send troops into battle simply to get themselves elected or re-elected, or to settle some kind of diplomatic score, or to swagger and strut on the world stage, should burn in hell.

That said, once the men and women have been sent into battle, we must be willing to do whatever it takes to undertake course-corrections when necessary, arm and armor them to the best of our ability, and set up the best conditions possible to make that terrible sacrifice worthwhile.

However, that does not mean "staying the course" and being "resolute" with other people's courage indefinitely.  Asking troops to redeploy over and over again, sending them into battle before they are sufficiently trained, and worst of all, forcing them to remain in-theater for months past the time they were promised they'd get to go home...are, in my opinion, criminal offenses.

What the House bill does is set up benchmarks that would force the Iraqis to fight their own war and take responsibility for its own government, and the timeline is there to force them to understand that we will not be sending our troops there to fight their battles for them indefinitely.

Vigorous diplomatic efforts, to include our Middle Eastern friends such as Saudi Arabia and Jordan--AS WELL AS OUR ENEMIES SUCH AS IRAN AND SYRIA--that are designed to find common ground for peace that would benefit all parties in some way or another is the ONLY way to make the toils, labors, blood and sweat of our troops count.

Giving the Iraqi government six months to BEGIN showing signs of real progress while, at the same time, making them understand that they've got about a year and a half before we'll be leaving, one way or the other, will force them to cooperate more closely with other nations in the region to help settle the strifes within their own borders.

Getting rid of the morons that constructed this disaster, such as Donald Rumsfeld and General Tommy Franks, and replacing them with Voices of Reason such as Bob Gates and General Petraeus, are all steps in the right direction, and although the administration is to be commended for it, they should be castigated for waiting damn near too late.

The men and women who are fighting as we speak, and the others soon to deploy in this escalation of Bush's, want to know that Congress and the American people are doing everything possible not just to end this miserable war, but to do it in such a way that their extremely hard work will have produced results that will give the fledgling nation of Iraq the best chance possible to get its feet underneath it.

After that, it's up to the Iraqis.

As my combat-vet Republican husband said, "If we pull out too soon, and chaos erupts, the United States will be blamed for it.  If we give it every chance to succeed, and then pull out, and chaos STILL erupts, it will be the fault of the Iraqis."

That's all our guys want.  They want to know that they gave it their best shot, and that maybe, just maybe...any peace that results is something that they made possible.