The troops join because they want to help their country. They do not choose the politics or the wars that they fight in. They cannot be held responsible for the wars that they are thrust into. You can still offer them support and aid without agreeing with the war that they are in.
To anyone with the mental capacity to separate to soldiers from the military-industrial complex responsible for war, one can support one but oppose the other because they are two distinct entities. I personally hold our courageous men and women in the fight in the highest esteem, however, I deplore the political and corporate machines that are responsible for perpetuating war where it need not exist at the expense of both the lives of Americans and the peoples we war upon.
I would if I were. I'm actually from the Middle-East, Muslim as well so this should mean a lot more to you than it would coming from an average American. I don't support the wars, I don't support all the political intrusions in the name of peace but I definitely support the troops. To be so involved in what has been going on in the Middle-East at the moment, it's given me an awareness about how unwilling people are to do what they do but it doesn't stop them from doing it anyways. Someone's got to do it, right? Because ironically, the troops don't support the war either.
If you say you support the troops but not the war, then you most likely mean you support the people fighting because (in the simplest terms) they're living, breathing people. No one wants to see people killed or injured. I would assume if your concern for the troops is genuine, you are a kind-hearted person who also wouldn't want to see a teacher, doctor, or bus driver killed or injured. Your support for the troops is not exclusive to troops. You are really supporting people, and that's okay. It's okay to say you don't support the troops, because troops are war. War doesn't exist without troops.
The troops are the war. If there were no troops, there would be no war.
It is to sit atop a nearby hill and watch a battle take place and then turn to your guide and say - OK, thanks for showing me the troops, I'm in support of them and all that I have seen... But when are you going to get around to actually showing me the war? I'm not in support of the war and, if I were to see the war, I would not be in sport of what I would be seeing.
How would we, the guide, reply to you, the ignorant?
We might sensibly say something like - No, you are somewhat confused. The troops they are the actors or players in the war and this battle you saw is one of many battles that collectively constitute the war, the tools that they use are the weapons of the war and when they shoot them and kill each other these are the casualties of the war. 'The war' is nothing more than a term to describe all those things collectively to consider them as part of a series of purposeful actions with the same goal.
This is argument 101. A basic error that would not be accepted in any academic work.
Read about Gilbert Ryle and category mistakes here - http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake
This isn't a debate. There is a fact about the matter. You cannot support the troops and not support the war.
Leftists and other anti war zealots tend to view America as the perpetual "aggressor" in foreign conflicts. These people think that terrorism is a reaction to our foreign policy. How then can they support the military and make blanket statements about the American "war machine" in the same breath? The left loves to dehumanize soldiers and cast them into crude stereotypes, then have the gall to claim they support the very people doing the fighting (to keep them safe!) but oppose all wars and conflicts. That is childish, insincere, unpatriotic and complete hypocrisy. The threats we face are very real and extremely dire. Instead of saying thanks, the left's moral flagellation is tying the hands of our men and women in uniform behind there backs... And for what, to defend Muslim terrorists? WE ARE AT WAR.