Troops in Iraq = Freedom in the USA

Bad Men were doing Bad Things to destroy our freedom.

So we must destroy them where they are to preserve our freedom.

The end.

(I wish there was something more to it than that but there is literally nothing else to it at base. The more elaborate types spin out the idea that Iraq was going to be a haven for al Qaeda but it boils down to the same thing.)

As for the need, the need is one of security (as in a security blanket rather than actual security), justification and the ever-hopeful sign that it all 'meant something.' Because if it means nothing, everything else collapses and a whole bunch of people are in fact dead for no reason. That many people don't want to confront that is understandable, but that doesn't make their stance any less justifiable.

Troops in the Pacific/ North Africa/ Europe = Freedom in the USA

was much more credible a belief, wasn't it?

"It was true then, it must be true now!"

Ergo, the troops are fighting right now so they must be fighting for freedom.

I honestly believe that a lot of people say it out of habit without thinking twice about what they're actually saying.

http://www.shafted.com.au/photos/albums/funnies/a/normal_Animal%20Sex%20(Kangaroo%20Feeding).jpg

Actually, it's not merely about *our* freedom, though. That'd be selfish. It's also "freedom for Iraq," "freedom everywhere," and "democracy."

Because it seems permanent, I'd guess. It seems forever present and (by self-definition) 'strong,' therefore it has value attached to it. Like most traditions it's not THAT old and yet it seems eternal.

But skeptical takes on power are truly long-lived. It's very me to say this, perhaps, but I am reminded of a line of Faramir's from The Lord of the Rings (the book, that is): "I do not love the sword for its brightness or the arrow for its swiftness. I love only that which they defend." Tolkien as a war vet doubtless said this from the heart and it's a viewpoint I am highly sympathetic towards, speaking as someone who grew up in the military and all. It serves as a warning and in and of itself can have its meaning twisted to alternate ends, and I think we see something similar at play now.

If nothing else, it's like pro-wrestling; lose a "loser retires" match, stay off the cameras for a few months, then do a run-in fresh as can be to be brought into the storylines again.