There are TWO VERSIONS of what it means to keep up the troops' morale:

[snot]

1. What Cindy and her supporters mean is:
we want them to know we support and we don't hold the war against them.
we want their morale about themselves to be good and to know that we value them; we love and honor their courage and other personal virtues.
we want them to have hope for the future.
we at least wish we could afford them confidence that folks back home and in our government are in touch with reality and that troops will not be sent into danger for specious or sordid reasons.

2. What I've recently realized the conservatives mean is:
they want the troops to be single-mindededly efficient in killing or carrying out other orders, without any doubts or distractions that might arise if they begin to question their leaders' competence or motives.

[TahitiNut]

1. As a Viet Nam Veteran, I'd say it differently ...

That {1} we support who they are and can continue to be(come), or {2} we support what they're doing. (Or both. Or neither.)

It's {2} where the disconnect and self-esteem issues come into play. Altogether too many of us think who we are is what we do. I can only say we're human beings, not human doings. For young people who're indoctrinated in a factory method school system and culture where their value as a person seems completely tied up in what they do and how well they do it, it's easy to totally surrender one's self-esteem to the authoritarian military where you only have value from what you do. (That, by the way, is what 'cannon fodder is all about.)

Further, both the troops and many people don't see "what they're doing" congruently. I, and most of the troops, might say they're doing what they've been told to do -- and that's the deal they made: to serve. When a waiter serves, he's not delivering meals according to his own taste; they're the preference of the customer. It's the same thing for a person in military service - they do what the American People want them to do ... or so it's supposed to be.

[uppityperson]

2. That's good insight. I've been thinking about what they mean also

I totally agree with #1 and appreciate the insight of #2. What I have been thinking is that in addition to what you write, they believe (using their terms):

We are putting the troops in harms way, because the insurgents see that we want the troops to come home and if they (insurgents) kill more of our troops, we will pressure Our Dear Leader into calling the troops home and then they (the insurgents) can have the run of the country which is bad. If we truly supported the troops, we would not encourage the insurgents to attack and kill more troops.

I have been trying to understand their logic beyond name calling, and this is what I have come up with.

[TahitiNut]

3. What seems a bit crazy ...

... is the notion that we have a greater right to "have the run of the(ir) country" than the 'insurgents' do. I mean ... who the hell are we to say we have some greater right to be there than people who live there?

[uppityperson]

4. Yeah, I don't buy into the "insurgents" story

I mean yes, there will always be people who want to stir up trouble, and people travel country to country (we're all world citizens anyway) but this "insurgent" stuff is bs. I think Mr.bush really blew it there and I hope it won't hurt the world too badly in the long run. Amazing what a small group of megalomaniacs can do.

[TahitiNut]

6. It strains credibility to regard 60-100 attacks per day across Iraq ...

... as the acts of a handful of "insurgents." For every person engaged in transporting, fabricating, placing, and using every rocket or bomb, there must be at least ten providing cover, concealment, housing, board, funding, intelligence, and secrecy. When the estimated numbers of "insurgents" killed reaches 40,000 and the attacks don't subside, it infers that the number of remaining "insurgents" must dwarf the number killed. When the logical conclusion is reached that anywhere from 100,000 to 200,000 "insurgents" remain, that implies 1 million to 2 million people are directly engaged in the logistics and support. In a nation of 25 million, this is an enormous number. The equivalent in the US would be yet another order of magnitude larger - 10 million to 20 million. That dwarfs the size of our own military.

[uppityperson]

8. Yup. Busy handful. Then there are the pictures of the dead.

dang those baby bombers anyway. I sent pictures to a co-worker one day that gave me the Fallujah/insurgents line. It still strains our work relationship and appalls me that people who I think are educated intelligent people are so FOX informed.

[insane_cratic_gal]

5. Don't forget

Conservatives only support troops who support the war. Conservatives are the first to turn on troops who speak out or truthfully about what is going on over in Iraq.

If they supported the troops like they said they do, they'd be bearing more of the burden then the Yellow Ribbon on the back of their pick up truck. They'd be pushing for exceptional medical care, making sure Military families (reserves and guards) aren't being evicted from their homes due to Stop loss and time served is served. They'd be fighting for vests, up armored vehicles, the removal of Halliburton. I can rant on this subject for hours.

The sad truth is the military is nothing more then a hood ornament for conservatives.

[uppityperson]

7. Support the Troops, Not the War

[jedr]

9. Perhaps if we were given what the clear-cut goals of this

war/ occupation were; and the troops were given the means to do this and the administration would stop lying about every move that is made , everyones morale would improve and there would be no 1 and 2 ... You can't fight a war on lies . If the response is to equal the stimulus, then the stimulus needs to be a damn good one! damit...tell the truth Mr Bush...what was the noble cause that these people have died for? If it is as noble as you say , then I have no trouble supporting either the war or the troops and their morale. Don't know if that makes sense to anyone but me, but you can't have the reasons for a war be a multiple choice from week to week. Sorry for the rant , I speak as a vet. ( and I DO support the troops)