This is an honest question. In the last 24 hours we have heard the President outline his plan to send more troops to Iraq. We have also heard many people call for various forms of resistance to that plan. John Edwards has called on Congress to refuse to fund the plan. Tom Vilsack has called on the Iowa legislature and city and state governments everywhere to pass resolutions opposed to escalating the war. I have also seen statements by Dennis Kucinich, Steve Kubby and Robert Milnes starkly opposing this move. All of these men are expected to be candidates for President in 2008, and I'm sure there are other potential candidates whose statements have not come to my attention.
Contrary to what some people may think if they have read my post, Divine Strake, and the comments that follow, my natural inclination is to support my leaders. I remember being uneasy when we started in Iraq, but I was not really opposed to the war until 2006.
This is what had lead me to this question. All those candidates have a much easier time than the President because they can make statements, but he has to make decisions. We will see the results of his decisions, unlike the results of their statements. I agree with their statements that increasing troop levels will not improve the situation in Iraq.
So while I disagree with out commander-in-chief I want to support him as much as possible. If there was a way to oppose him such that we could prevent him from executing this decision I think it would be better for our nation, on the other hand, if we openly oppose him but the decision is executed we risk making our global enemies more bold as they see that we do not all support our leaders.
What is the line between supporting and disagreeing with our leaders? There is a time for discussion and a time for solidarity. Which time is this? (and when does it switch to the other time?)