I had occasion to employ this metaphor earlier today in connection with another matter altogether; and just as quickly realized that it possessed application to recent discussions here.
You know the Biblical story: King Solomon, in his legendary infinite wisdom, faced with a dispute between two women over the true motherhood of a baby, proposes a resolution: since the dispute can’t be objectively decided on the facts (the testimony of the claimants), the baby should be split in two–divided into equal shares for each woman. One of the women immediately folds. She dismisses her claim and offers the other woman the whole baby. So, who’s the real mother? (aside: Christians, and particularly fundamentalists, ought to pause to reflect that the true power of this metaphor lies not in the perceptual issue of its literal truth–i.e., did it really happen?–but in the conceptual issue of its meaning.)
Applied to the current Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde dispute over whether one may contradictorily "condemn the war" but "support the troops," I propose that we "split that baby." Any takers? Anyone wish to be a "friend to a troop," while morally condemning his mission? Not me, and not a lot of others. So who’s the real patriot, which means: who is most acting in accordance with the nature and moral duties of humanity within the context of American ideals?
Here’s what I think it boils down to, as concretely as I can envision it: the left wishes the military to become unionized. Think about it. How did we go, for example, from cops who filled a valid and valuable role in domestic violence (I mean: a wider concept that "wife-beating") to a situation where very often, they are preying upon non-violent people–often with deadly force? We could argue about it, but I suspect it will come down very close to some point where they realized a significant say in things that went far beyond simply quitting if they didn’t like the way things were, i.e., to the point where they had a collective voice and power: in the form of a labor union.
What we have is a bunch of cops who want the pay, the medical care, the bullet-proof retirement plan, but who don’t what to do the fundamental job of a cop, i.e., risk life and limb against violent people. Only the force of absolute shame–and the availability of cool G.I Joe SWAT gear–keeps them in that game at all, anymore. What do you think the driving force is with The War on Drugs and other such preying upon non-violent people? It’s a low-risk proposition. I’ve smoked pot. Makes me happy, introspective, and annoyingly talkative. Essentially, cops nowadays want all the benefits, but want to criminalize non-violent behavior so they can fake the notion that they’re "doin’ their job" and "servin’ the people."
(Don’t even get me started on the revenue-generating missions.)
What The Left wants, in parallel, is a military of similar "servant-victims." You can see it in their every posture. It irks them to no end that the military is largely conservative, politically, cheers and respects their Commander-in-Chief–when he’s someone worthy of military respect–and is gung-ho towards go-get-’em things that very literally threaten their very lives. It just kills them.
Never be fooled. The "support the troops" mantra is an idiotic deception. They really believe–the morons–that they can make of military guys the same sorts of victims they cultivate and nurture in "the projects" and grow to maturity in the various industrial factories. Except, that doesn’t work anymore. Nowadays, such vegetation must be fertilized and cultivated for "public service." They believe that the military, as true servats of the publik, are ripe. Just you watch.