Can You Back the Troops and Oppose War?

The Weekly Standard ^ | 04/02/2003 6:20:00 AM | Terry Eastland

[yonif]

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.

[Protagoras]

Was a War resolution ever brought to any house in congress?

Please reread my post for the answer.

[Egregious Philbin]

I'm a reluctant backer of this, but I don't care one bit about most of the world, especially Western Europe

Not to mention the disingenuousness of France, Germany, and Russia. One foolish argument used by protestors is the "war for oil" shtick, but the irony is that the countries motivated by economics are the opposition (and, I fear, some of our coalition partners).

I agree with you re: liberation. What if we don't ever find an al-Qaeda connection? My opposition to the war is based partly on a lack of evidence of that connection.

[Tall_Texan]

There *is* a proper way to support the troops and yet oppose the war, and I did this in Kosovo. For the time leading up to our military involvement, I wrote letters and spoke openly how I opposed our intervention. It was Europe's problem - let Europe deal with it. There was nothing for the U.S. to gain and plenty for the U.S. to lose (principally, our soldiers and our weapons).

Once Clinton announced that he was going to participate, I shut up and let the war run its course. I didn't think of marching in the streets, staging "die ins", going around with a bullhorn or standing outside the capitol holding a sign. These would have been ineffectual and an affront to our military, just as the anti-war protestors now are.

Deep down, they must realize that their antics don't change anything. Their only purpose is to reduce the morale of our troops and give comfort to the enemy. The military has a job to do and orders to carry out. They don't get to choose which missions to carry and which to sit out. They go and do what they are told.

I think people have the right to voice their concerns about going to war and even stage demonstrations to make that point. But once the firing starts, a loyal American will not take any action that is contradictory to supporting our troops in battle. To me, that's where the line is drawn.

[AbsoluteJustice]

I thought I established this already I said I believe MOST did say they supported THE ACTION and they DID support the action of removing Milsovich that my friend is a FACT they did SUPPORT the action BUT BUT BUT because it was at a very very curious time (Clintoon scandal) THAT is what was in question the timing of it. Clear enough??

[Protagoras]

That is also just opinion but it seems to me if you were correct, the troops wouldn't be troops or we would have a lot more CO's.

Ok, you disagrre with my opinion and I disagree with yours, it Freerepublic. If I agreed with everyone here, I'd be elsewhere.

[KantianBurke]

Sigh

One more time, why can conservatives support the troops regardless of mission or commander in chief and yet claim that such sentiments are beyond the average (as opposed to the America hating elite) Democrat / Liberal?

[Zavien Doombringer]

I speak Navy, I am working at the Norfolk Naval Housing welcome center, I am with the ADP staff (civ-contractor of course)

[paul51]

Yes, I agree, however I think you would have to admit you set the threshold pretty high for yourself when you said most troops.

[Zavien Doombringer]

Now that is Old Corps!

[AbsoluteJustice]

"One more time, why can conservatives support the troops regardless of mission or commander in chief"

NOOOO now you are changing the wording to commander in briefs.....Lets bring ya back into the loop again we are talking mission and your assumption was that conservatives did not support the Kosovo mission....Yes they did therefore they did support the troops but they did not support the timing of it.....The difference is today liberals who SUPPORTED the war drive on Iraq when Clinton was in office now say THEY DO NOT SUPPORT THE WAR not because of Bush (which it is) but they just do not support the war. This is a huge difference.....DONT throw in the commander in chief comment now.

[mr.pink]

...much more directly and importantly than fighting age keyboard drumbeaters.

I think that is what you are replying to with this...

Sorry Mr. Pink I did my time in the USMC

I did not direct that comment to you, and apologize for not being clear about that. I knew from your initial post to me that you were USMC.

I stand by my initial comment.

[AbsoluteJustice]

Good to go.....

[KantianBurke]

A simple "Yes/No the everyday Democrat can(t) support the troops even if he/she hates Bush and doesn't think the mission should go off" response would be adequate.

That said:
your assumption was that conservatives did not support the Kosovo mission....Yes they did
I'm a conservative and I did not support the mission but I was always worried about the safety of our troops. You make it a habit of generalizing?

therefore they did support the troops but they did not support the timing of it
That's a statement without any basis for justification. How can you say that ALL conservatives liked the idea of bombing Serbia, a armpit of a country which is Europe's problem not ours, for Kosovars? Besides maybe some thought like Clintoon; hate the troops which are nothing but pawns to him but love the idea of "selfless" missions?

The difference is today liberals who SUPPORTED the war drive on Iraq when Clinton was in office now say THEY DO NOT SUPPORT THE WAR not because of Bush (which it is) but they just do not support the war.

Point taken. However my original question is directed about the Democrats in general. As for bringing up the "commander in chief" bit, that was only in response to your curious statement regarding Bubba and your dislike of his timing.

[stuartcr]

Then you know what the Navy is like.

[xhrist]

IMO it is intellectually dishonest to support the troops but not their mission.
Also, for someone to say they support our troops, does this not also mean they support the leader of said troops, the President ?
I wonder how many people protesting and holding such signs can say they also support W?

[Egregious Philbin]

I wonder how many people protesting and holding such signs can say they also support W?

Does that matter?

[stuartcr]

The majority of personnel in the military do not have college degrees, they are not officers, can't be COs. The enlisted in all armies throughout history, are the ones that get most of the bullets thrown at them. I would agree that probably 99% of those that have has had bullets shot at them, do not want to be there. No proof, just experience.

[u-89]

For some their opposition to war comes from a concern for the lives of their fellow Americans who serve in the military. Since human life is precious it is not to be frivolously squandered. They regard certain foreign policy theories as recklessly endangering the lives of the military personnel and the nation so therefore oppose the policy. However they "support the troops" in as much as they have great concern for their fellow citizens lives and hope and pray that as few of them as possible get hurt and greatly mourn those who are.

[gcruse]

Of course they love the troops but hate the war.
Most FReepers do something similar here daily.
Does love the sinner, hate the sin sound familiar?
The protestors support the troops, but hate what the
troops are doing. I can't make out the bright line
where the Great Divide occurs, but then I'm not
all that able to go along with hating what someone
does while claiming to love them, either.

[paul51]

they are not officers, can't be CO

Sorry, I meant conscientious objectors, which will hopefully make more sense to you in the context of the discussion I was engaged in.