While it may anger some people, to me it's oddly refreshing to hear somebody come right out and say, "I DON'T support the troops." The canard that leftists DO support them is most often deployed as a head-fake, a phrase intended to be followed by, as Pee-Wee Herman would say, "a big, giant 'but'."
Leftists deeply resent the need to say it, and when they do it, it's because they (correctly) recognize that they will simply lose all credibility with center-right audiences if they do not. They know they cannot say what they really believe, which is that all military activity is immoral, that violence can never be justified, that pacifism and negotiation, even in the face of brutal tyranny, is always the only correct course, and that this would be a better, more moral nation if the military were completely disbanded and the Pentagon turned into a giant meditation center.
Many people on right do not, I think, fully comprehend the extent to which many on the left believe that the American nation has been irretrievably corrupted and is no longer (if it ever was) something worth defending. And if you think that way, after all, why WOULD you support the troops? If you believe the U.S. capitalist, free-market, popular-rule system has created a hopelessly backward, repressive state where dimwitted masses live deluded, empty lives manipulated by a fascist imperial elite, then why would you "support" the paid, volunteer storm troopers who are doing the Empire's bidding and "following orders" that assist in the prosecution of an illegal and immoral war?
I was listening to somebody who held such a view on the radio, not long ago. (I forget his name, and who cares anyway?) His view, essentially, is that patriotism is a mental disorder. He said (more or less), "If an individual said that about him or herself--that he or she was better than everybody else--we would think that person ought to seek psychological help. But when the idea is expanded to encompass an entire nation, it somehow becomes this admirable trait."
"But," I yelled at the radio, "What about Muhammad Ali?"
See, that's where the argument falls down. It sounds good, very egalitarian, and it's designed to play on your "everybody should be treated equally" programming that's been drilled into you since childhood. But as much as it may pain these leftists, the truth is that some people are better than others. Ali could shout "I am the greatest!" and who could argue? As the saying goes, it ain't braggin' if it's true.
That, in an ultra-simplified nutshell, is the argument for a concept known as "American exceptionalism." It's the answer to the question you often hear: "Why should America be the 'world's policeman'? Why is America justified in unilaterally changing regimes in other countries that U.S. leaders deem tyrannical?"
To a percentage of people in this country, the answer to those questions is, quite simply, "it shouldn't and it isn't. The U.S. is an equal partner in the community of nations no better or worse than other nation, and it has no justification for taking a lead role in world events. All actions it takes should be approved by the United Nations."
Fortunately, most people think that's ridiculous.
Why is America better? Because we are the only nation in the world founded on an IDEA. Germany is Germany because that's the place Germans have always been. France is France because that's the place the French have always been. But America is different. Americans came here and built something new and different and unique on the planet, and it's a country that will never be just another nation. Sure, we're not perfect, and American exceptionalism isn't a claim of infallibility. We're not proud of the subjugation of Indians or of legal slavery. But we ARE proud of overcoming the mistakes of our past, of learning from them, of taking our experience and incorporating it into our future.

I have come to believe that this issue is the real divide in this country--and of a growing divide within the Democrat party. You can be a Democrat and be an American exceptionalist. You can be an American exceptionalist and disagree with the President. You can say: "This is the greatest nation in the world, and we should, and have a right to, take a leading role in world events--but the policies of President Bush are not the wisest course and this or that policy would make us an even stronger nation, one better able to accept its place in the world."
But the other half of the Democrats think America does not deserve a place of honor, do not think America deserves to shape world events, thinks (quietly) that 9/11 was (even though one may deplore the loss of life) an unavoidable result of the misguided American path. These are the people that deplore patriotism.
Let me make it clear: I'm not saying such views shouldn't be allowed. Part of the Idea America was founded on was tolerance of unpopular ideas. But I wouldn't want to be in the same political party with such a person, and I suspect there are a lot of Democrats who wouldn't want to be either.
In the next Presidential election cycle, I plan to push for an open declaration of American exceptionalism from both candidates. I have little doubt you could get it from any Republican. On the Democrat side, I think such a call will have the salutary effect of identifying the Democrat candidates who are not worthy of the office.
It's possible that such a call might splinter off a percentage of Republicans as well. But I believe a sensible 75 percent of America believes in American exceptionalism and is willing to stand up and say so. And those who feel differently, from academia to Hollywood to major urban centers, need to understand that they stand in fundamental disagreement with most of their countrymen.