(had to forward this, brought to my attn via Dan Peirce, Talk 610 AM WGIR):
Can You Back the Troops and Oppose War?
From the April 1, 2002 Dallas Morning News: In a word, no.
by Terry Eastland
04/02/2003 6:20:00 AM
BOUNCING AROUND the Internet is a photo of a huge banner that was carried in the recent "peace" demonstration in San Francisco. The banner says, "We support our troops when they shoot their officers."
Now, the calm response to that banner is that "our troops," were they to shoot "their officers," would be violating the oath they take upon enlisting, which obligates them to obey "the orders of [superior] officers," which don't include shooting or otherwise committing acts of violence against those officers. And such acts, it probably doesn't have to be pointed out, aren't merely violations of the oath of enlistment but duly punishable crimes.
Among the terrible early stories of the war is that of the Army captain who was killed after a serviceman rolled a grenade under his tent. The blast also injured 15 soldiers, one of whom later died. An Army sergeant, in custody, is suspected of the crime. Presumably, he or whoever pulled the pin on the grenade is exactly the kind of soldier some war protesters "support."
To be sure, there are protesters who define their "support" for "our troops" in more appealing terms. Indeed, as The New York Times has reported, "demonstrators [save, it appears, for some in San Francisco] have been careful to express their admiration for those serving in the armed forces." But only for them. The anti-war movement has settled on a formulation that simultaneously expresses its support for "our troops" and its opposition to the president who commands them, George W. Bush.
Rep. Charles Rangel of New York has stated it succinctly: "We support the troops, but we don't support the president."
That is morally better than supporting our troops "when they shoot their officers." Yet what does it mean, what can it mean, to support the troops but not the president?
Not very much. The protesters "support" the troops in the sense that they hope our men and women in uniform will be okay, notwithstanding their dangerous environment. To spell out the obvious, they hope our troops won't suffer death or injury or capture, nor hunger, nor (too much) sleep deprivation, nor (another) blinding sandstorm.
But note that the protesters' "support" doesn't extend to the troops' actual mission. Consider that the oath of enlistment obligates each soldier to obey "the orders of the president of the United States." President Bush's orders to disarm Iraq and effect regime change, given to the Pentagon and our armed forces, are precisely what the protesters oppose. Thus, they are unable to support our armed forces in Iraq in the discharge of the very responsibility they have accepted and that matters most to the country--the execution of their mission.
Those who oppose the war but meanwhile declare their "support for the troops" may feel better for having made that declaration. And they may think that, by voicing such "support," they and their cause will look better to a country overwhelmingly behind the president and that supports our armed forces as they seek to accomplish their mission. But the support the protesters offer our troops is beside the point.
What isn't trivial is the act of a U.S. soldier who actually disagreed with the president's decision to go to war but who nonetheless has accepted his duty and now is carrying it out. The decision to go to war, whether one agrees with it or not, belongs to civilian authority, not the military. It is the responsibility of the soldier to live up to the oath of enlistment and thus to obey the orders that come ultimately from the commander in chief, the president. To refuse those orders would be wrong. The protesters may be astonished to learn that American soldiers may have thought more--and more clearly--about the morality of using force in Iraq than they have.
We may be in for a longer war than many armchair generals once advised. If so, we can expect more demonstrations. And no doubt more statements of "support" that fail to recognize the duties of a soldier.
Terry Eastland is publisher of The Weekly Standard. This article originally appeared in the April 1, 2003 Dallas Morning News.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/474xssjr.aspAnalysis: Russia advises Iraq on U.S. plan
By Martin Sieff
UPI Senior News Analyst
From the International Desk
Published 4/1/2003 3:39 PM
WASHINGTON, April 1 (UPI) -- Russian military advisers have told Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and his government that the main Allied drive on Baghdad will not take place until mid-April and will then come around the west of the city, Russian journalists and analysts with strong links to Russian military intelligence now claim.
Strikingly, the Russian analysts, whose work appears on the iraqwar.ru Web site, believe that U.S. and Allied forces are still overwhelmingly likely to win the war and that they are performing in a highly impressive manner. The reports are described as "based on the Russian military intelligence -- the Main Intelligence Directorate or GRU -- reports."
A March 31 report on the site revealed that Iraq was receiving analytical advice from Russian officials. "Russian military analysts are advising the Iraqi military command against excessive optimism," it said.
The Russian analysts stated that "There is no question that the U.S. 'blitzkrieg' failed to take control of Iraq and to destroy its army. It is clear that the Americans got bogged down in Iraq and that the military campaign hit a snag."
But they then went on to caution the Iraqis, "The Iraq command is now in danger of underestimating the enemy. For there is no reason to question the resolve of the Americans and their determination to reach the set goal -- complete occupation of Iraq."
And they continued, "Despite some obvious miscalculations and errors of the coalition's high command, the (Allied) troops that have entered Iraq maintain high combat readiness and are willing to fight. The initiative in the war remains firmly in the hands of the coalition."
Indeed, in a March 30 report the Russian analysts predicted, "The coalition is already planning a new large scale operation that will utilize the new forces currently being deployed in the region."
Russian intelligence believed "this large scale operation will be launched from the general vicinity of Karabela and will develop into a wide maneuver around Baghdad from the west ending in the area of the Tartar lake east of al-Hadid -- or east of the Tartar lake at Samarrah," the Russian analysts' report said. "From this point a part of the force will continue advancing toward Saddam Hussein's home town of Tikrit and from there it will turn towards Baghdad from the north through Samarrah and Baahkuba; meanwhile the rest of the force will strike the rears of the Iraqi forces fighting in the north near Kirkuk and Mosul."
"Such an operation would require up to 60,000 troops, no less than 300 tanks and 200 helicopters," the Russian analysts concluded. "It is believed that such forces can be put together by April 15 and by April 18 they should be ready for to attack."
It remains to be seen, of course if the war will indeed follow this highly detailed prediction. Current reports indicate that U.S. forces are slowly closing in on Baghdad and probing for weaknesses in Iraqi defenses already.
What is certainly the case is that Iraqi resistance has been impressive and prolonged and that contrary to universally held U.S. media assumptions -- and the confident expectations of Defense Department war planners -- the Iraqis have succeeded in holding up and preventing U.S. conquest and occupation of all major cities to this point, almost two weeks into the war. The main -- and bloodiest -- clashes of the war are clearly still ahead.
With this in mind one other, sobering conclusion of the GRU analysts may prove significant. The March 30 report concluded, "Russian military analysts believe that the critical (point) for the U.S. duration of the war would be over 90 days" -- in other words, after mid-June -- "provided that during that time the coalition will sustain over 1,000 killed. Under such circumstances a serious political crisis in the U.S. and the world will be unavoidable."
Copyright © 2001-2003 United Press International
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030401-024727-1436r