Funny how after three years of war in Iraq, war supporters still can't answer these three simple questions:Let's see:
1. How does sending our troops to Iraq, separating them form their families and loved ones, putting them in harm's way, and keeping them there equal "supporting the troops"?
2. Why do those who claim to "honor their sacrifices" want them to continue sacrificing?
3. Why don't those who bloviate about "supporting" and "honoring" the troops against an enemy they think threatens Western civilization actually, you know, put on combat boots and join them?
1 is a straw man argument. Supporting the troops means expressions and concrete acts of solidarity with the troops and their mission.
2 is sort of a duh. Their worthwhile efforts should continue, meet with rapid success, and involve as little sacrifice as possible.
3 is the old chicken-hawk argument. Does Kos support the efforts of firefighters? So why doesn't he go out there and fight fires with them? (And what does he have to say about people who express solidarity with the fire?)
Further thoughts: When I read this sort of argumentation, I often feel that I am reading the words of a pacifist, someone opposed to all war, who is pretending (not very convincingly) to merely object to the present war. Some of the writers in the Kos comment thread point out that these questions could be asked about any war.