“Supporting the troops” has become synonymous with advocating the war in Iraq, particularly in Republican circles. But do Americans who want the war to end support the troops any less? Those who advocate bringing them home immediately would say that being an advocate for an end to hostilities is the greatest show of support. The anti-war troop-supporters probably see themselves as lifesavers. Supporting the troops, however, need not have anything to do with a stance on the war itself. Supporting the troops can be (and should be) the most non-partisan issue in the American discourse.
I recently conducted several interviews regarding the wounded in Iraq and the medical care of our servicemen and women who are wounded in battle. I also had a chance to view Terry Sanders’ excellent new movie FIGHTING FOR LIFE (www.FightingForLifeTheMovie.com) regarding these very same issues. Watching our soldiers rehab at Walter Reed Army Medical Center was heart-wrenching. But the most moving part of the movie was watching our troops LEAVE Walter Reed. The medical community had done what they could for each brave person and at some point there was no more to be done in an inpatient setting. The soldier returns home.
Damaged.
Broken.
Permanently disabled.
The medical community moves on to the next patient, but the wounded remain in a sort of suspended reality, trying to learn how to establish a “new normal.” What will life be like being disabled? How will they relate to their families? Certainly more questions than answers exist when they arrive home. Their service was temporary but the cost of their service is permanent.
What support is there for the soldier now? While overseas, the soldier could at least know that he would return to a country that valued his service. He wouldn’t be spit upon—those days are thirty-plus years behind us. It’s nice to return home and not be scorned, but goodwill pays few bills.
Let me suggest a way in which we can clearly and definitively support our troops when they come home, regardless of their physical condition: hire them. Give them a job. Yes, I am advocating discriminatory hiring practices—it’s true. Discriminate in favor of veterans. Nothing could be more supportive of the troops than taking the initiative to care for them, their families and their futures. We can’t replace limbs, sight or lost relationships, but American citizens can provide hope and a future. These brave men and women did their duty. Regardless of why they joined the military, the day came when their Commander-in-Chief called them to service and they responded. They didn’t eschew their commitments. They fought with their spouses over being “more married to the military” and got on a plane. They cried with their children and made promises they couldn’t know if they’d ever be able to keep.
It’s our duty now to help them keep those promises. Do you need a receptionist for your office? Forget the 20-year-old cutie in the little black dress and choose instead the 20-year-old corporal in the little black wheel chair. Make it a priority to interview veterans. Assume first that they’re hired and then make it a priority to find out what it is that would prevent them from doing the job well. I think it’s safe to say they’ve proved their mettle in tough circumstances. They’ve proved their loyalty and ability to work with others. Do you need a team player that can be trained to do anything? Look no further than the Transition Services Office at the nearest military facility.
What better statement for your company than to be able to say, “We REALLY support the troops?” What better way to say thank you on behalf of a grateful nation? When we needed our soldiers to go out on a limb for us, they entered the “how-high” phase of military life. Most of them might be too proud now to ask you for special treatment. It would be a shame if they had to ask.
We invest in what we value and if we truly esteem the higher values–Duty, Honor, Country–demonstrated by our all-volunteer military we should make an investment in their future. Giving a job to a veteran may cost you a little more money—a few extra sick days each year, handicapped accommodations, a little lost productivity–but these are the higher values WE are called to—these are the investments WE can make in America’s future.
A job is only the beginning of finding a new normal but it is an absolute necessity for a veteran trying to earn his keep in society. So, you want to commit to supporting the troops? You want to commit to demonstrating that you value their service, dedication and protection? Then commit to hire values.
As I thought about that later though, I don't feel that way at all. Honestly, I don't know how Disney delivers as much as they do for so little money. $60 for park admission seems high, yes. But look at the infrastructure, the options, the employees, the transportation. I can't believe they do it for as little as they do. Personally, I think it's a tremendous value and worth every penny I spent. 
But on the more important substantive issues, it was full of contradictions and misleading statements. He talked about being knocked down as a child and how his mother taught him to pick himself up. (Great lesson) Later, though, he lamented that at a time when so many Americans have been knocked down, Washington has done so little to help them get back up. (I thought, Senator, the point was to learn to pick YOURSELF up.)
He talked about how the most important aspect of work is that it provides the benefit of dignity and respect to Americans; but he then prattled on about how the work people have doesn't pay enough.
He talked about how tax breaks for corporations, which McCain supports, send jobs overseas. No, Joe, they don't. Tax breaks for corporations brings jobs home; companies have been sending jobs overseas because it already costs TOO MUCH to do business within the US.
He talked about a "promise that their tomorrow will be better than their yesterday." Who is making that promise, Senator? Only we can make our tomorrow better. Government can't and if government is promising that, and Americans want that, then this is the discussion that we should be having in America.
He quoted John McCain on Afghanistan from 3 years ago and Barack Obama on Afghanistan from 1 year ago. Why not break out a quote from McCain on Georgia from years ago and a quote from Obama on Georgia from last week?
Viewers of this speech who pay attention to his words, will not have been impressed with the content or the medium. 
However, the speech itself probably did little. She certainly had nothing to say that might sway Republicans to rethink their party affiliation. Furthermore, absent too were talking points that independents might find attractive. The speech seemed to have two purposes. First, convince her supporters to vote for Obama. But who else were they going to vote for? Those people involved enough in politics to be at or watch on tv the DNC convention are also likely to be people who will value their vote and not stay at home. Those who might elect not to vote at all, certainly were not in attendance and might well have been watching America's Got Talent and missed the speech completely.
Secondly, and more importantly to Mrs. Clinton, the speech was littered with reminders of why she should remain relevant in the Democratic Party. This was a "You Picked the Wrong Guy" speech.
Will we remember her or this speech in 4 or 8 years? I suspect not. The speech didn't brand itself with any tag lines that might survive the next few years. But it was a hell of an effort.
I believe not attending to these differences is the cause of the apparent divide in American thought. True conservatism (not that practiced by the Republicans) understands the importance of relationships between people and values those relationships over the individual. The whole is indeed greater than the sum of the parts. Liberal ideology seeks to raise the needs and desires of the individual above the collective good. This is where the Libertarians lose most Americans. Intuitively, Americans sense the error of the "my liberty is more important than the collective good" ethos and shun the movement. Neither the modern Democratic Party nor the Republican Party has found a way to tap into the American belief in Freedom while simultaneously bonding us to society. This is the time for Democratic and Republican ideologies to be replaced by less "me" centered thinking and our nation should return to its ideological roots, which means that we understand our obligation to each other to value and defend each other's freedom, not just our own.
The Democratic support that the super delegates are so keen on being a part of should be viewed as something of a mirage. What would the delegate count be if the events of the last month had taken place in December? Would Obama have as much support as he does now? Would he be the presumed candidate? And yet the Obama of today is the one the Democrats are likely to insist represents their party. The Obama that sees middle America as "clingers," the Obama that wouldn't repudiate Wright but is now quite right to repudiate, this is the Obama that will face McCain in November. For a party as down on America as this one, an Obama nomination seems awfully optimistic. Perhaps, it's not just Michigan and Florida that need a do-over: perhaps the Democrats ought to have a national do-over.
Sure he's liberal. Liberal we can handle. Heck even socialist we can handle. We have systems in place to deal with presidential initiatives which we ultimately don't approve of. But relinquishing any control to any kind of world organization is very troubling. Being outside of our borders and constitution, we could find ourselves subject to a body we don't agree with and yet have few ways to get out from under its jurisdiction. This is a slippery slope. I fear Obama's need to be liked and validated will prompt him to try to enter the U.S. into many global initiatives.
Hillary, despite her belief that her ascension has been preordained, has a low ceiling and a high floor. Obama continues to manifest himself as a divisive candidate, creating his own new voting demographic within his party, one that surely will never be as influential as, say, the evangelicals have been for the GOP. It is no wonder that Clinton supporters would sooner vote for McCain, the two have significantly more in common and, to their credit, Clinton supporters can see through the audacity of hype. The sad fact for the democrats is that these two represented the best the Democrats had to offer. Perhaps it is a tacit admission of poor policy that the Democrats chose two candidates who are best known for their celebrity status and not their policies or experience. If the policy postulates of the democrats had more merit, a "celebrity" wouldn't have be needed to endorse those policies.
I'm afraid I just don't believe that her feelings are the result of poorly timed contemplation. My understanding is that the family was present for the photo shoot and got to see the picture in advance. They liked it and moved on. NOW all of a sudden Miley is embarrassed? These are smart people familiar with the media. I, of course, have no inside information, this is just my opinion, but it would appear she wants to have her cake and eat it too: do the photo shoot (be edgy, become known to new demographics) and then make a heartfelt apology to appease the core fan group.
Is Obama smart enough to see the error of his proposal to meet with such foreign leaders? Probably not. Too impressed with his own palaver, he'll stand by his words. But can McCain and the GOP make the same connection and exploit Carter's follies as empirical evidence that they were correct in postulating what such visits from US dignitaries would bring about?
His words address the inherently conservative values (not republican--conservative) most Americans believe in. But he also points out that while we believe in them, we don't LIVE them. His article can be, and should be, a call for personal change. It will be an exciting read for the number of times you exclaim (too loudly for those sipping coffee nearby) "Yes!" Although, if I'm honest, it is depressing on a national scale because I know most Americans act on their immediate desires and not on the values they hold most sacred. But, in the end, change starts at home.
Kicking the Anthill - Blog 
[…] 19, 2008 Click here for a new blog from Drexel Kleber, host of Kicking the […]
As a Vet, I couldn’t concur more. Great article…and thank you.
Hey there –
I wanted to let you know I have added your link to my blog roll. Matter of fact you have quickly become one of my favorites. I choose a blog every Thursday for my Blog of the Week winner and I wanted to let you know that I have chosen you for this coming Thursday Award.
Please keep up the great articles. It is a breath of fresh air.