Why do people say "support our troops" when they mean support Bush's war in Iraq?

It stems from the era of the Viet Nam conflict, when people opposed to the war would erroneously blame the returning veterans for having done what they had been told was their duty while in the service. It was a really ugly scene all around, and when the US first went to war against Iraq in the '90's, it became fashionable to proclaim one's "support of the troops" in an undercover acknowledgement that what had happened 20 years earlier was bogus and ought not to be repeated; that regardless of what we thought of the war, we wouldn't vent our rage on the (ironically by then all-volunteer) veterans.

This has been cunningly maipulated during the current conflict to attack those opposed to the war as non-supportive of the troops. These are two separate issues. they are not the same thing. One is expression of philosophical opposition to a policy and series of decisions, the other is in some way insulting or assaulting the returning individual participants simply for having participated, knowing nothing of the circumstances of their service.

It's a trick, a smokescreen, a diversion.

Your initial premises are right, by the way.

Ya - it's funny to see all those "support our troops" things on the back of peoples' cars - but our troops have been denied weapons and armor and leave and rotation - and when they get home they're denied medical help and so one and so forth.

Americans are largely complete idiots - they just want to appear as if they support troops - mostly they don't care. The war doesn't touch them - they just want their tax rebate check.

That is a rather arrogant stance, and your assumption is false.

1) Many Americans DO send our troops money, food, air conditioning units, etc. and therefore support our troops in that way.

2) Considering the fact that most of the military votes Republican, voting Democrat does not support them.

Supporting the troops means supporting them in their mission. Sitizen X, we do subsidize farmers, we do rebuild infrastructure, and we spend much more than $12 billion/month doing it.

Some people feel that you cannot support the troops without supporting their mission.

I don't support the idea of war and would rather see things worked out differently, but I stand behind our troops and the decision they have made to go and try to make things better for the people over seas.

supporting the troops means to send them the equipment to be protected...it means sending them candy, cookies, magazines, letters, beef jerky, etc....supporting the troops does not mean to prosecute a war.....supporting the troops is not putting them in harms way.....they may have to go in harms way, but that's policy...but sending them to a war zone is not supporting them....being glad your son or a friend is in Iraq is not supporting him....can't be put in that context

Support them , By under equipping them? By ignoring them and mistreating them when they come home "changed" ? By placing them in a war for oil, that we all pay for with our hard earned money and our children ?

Oh no... they don't support the troops,,they believe the lie.

Hey to the answerer above me,,,, want to "help a country" in need with 12 billion a month ? How about we pour that into our farming communities and our cities ? How about our roads and infrastructures ? ... that's our 12 bil, how is downtown Baghdad doing for your electric bill ?

Sometimes I wonder if those people can actually distinguish between supporting our troops and supporting the war. Those SAME people can't seem to distinguish between dissent and disloyalty either.

It's impossible to say you support the troops, but don't support the mission in which they were tasked.