> I think this is an extremely disrespectful and kneejerk reaction to a very thoughtful comment on the parent article.
I disagree, given that the comment was in keeping with the spirit of the parent comment (i.e., using the opportunity presented to hack in and tear away at the topic being presented).
> that any critique, however mild, of the armed forces is met with furious moral indignation.
The best possible way to "support the troops" is to not send them to war in the first place, is it not? I'll disagree with a "blame the victim" mentality everywhere I see it, and you should too.
For instance, let's consider a fictional city (perhaps Gotham). Cities need firemen, even though we all hope that our stringent building codes will keep fires from starting (or at least, keep them from spreading), improved safety technology helps people put out their own fires, etc. But none of these are foolproof, and the idea of an uncontrolled fire spreading through densely-constructed buildings is so horrific that we have no choice but to maintain a cadre of firemen. OK.
But eventually our building codes and safety technologies become so good that Gotham realizes that the biggest risk of a large conflagration is actually from a fire starting in the border city opposite, so Gotham signs up their firemen for "mutual assistance" and helps put fires out in their neighbors, under the catchphrase "better to fight the fire there than have to fight it at home!". The logic seems to work, despite the number of firemen who die fighting these fires each year, and our neighboring cities are doing better at stopping fires too, so we sign up for mutual assistance with cities further and further away.
But larger and larger fires start to break out and worse, there are nasty and persistent rumors that those fires are actually being started by Gotham leaders, and even some of the firemen. Yet no one has completely solved the issue of fighting fires in Gotham, so the need to have some people with the training and skill to fight fires at home remains. And yet we don't like the idea of shady people doing shady things to start fires abroad.
So who do you blame, the people who signed up to fight fires (possibly abroad, with good reasons), or the people starting the fires?