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.

[Warrior Nurse]

I have read most of the posts. If there is a war there must be a Warrior to go fight in it. War and Warrior are synomonous with each other.

Those of us that join the military know that we are supposed to do the Commander in Chief's bidding. When I heard about Sgt. Akbar fragging his officers I felt that there had to be some kind of breakdown. This guy messed up and didn't like the punishment. I didn't like that sign most of those protestors would not want anything to do with the military. They are the same ones calling us storm troopers and baby killers. We are liberators that is all.

One trooper on FOX was screamming God and Country is why we are here. Think about that.

The last person that wants to go to war is the warrior because he has seen the carnage and the shortening of young lives. But when we get the call let us go hard and met out the full force of our military. GW dose that Clinton hated the military so he never measured up to be a Commander in Chief b/c the troops never respected him. GW on the other hand is well respected by most of us in the military.

[stuartcr]

Yep, thanks.

[Zavien Doombringer]

Indeed I do, more than I would like too :)

[ILBBACH]

The left sure as hell won't let anyone get away with saying of homosexuality - Love the sinner, hate the sin.

Just ask Dr. Laura.

[stuartcr]

I too believe that the president is respected by most in the military, as well as the world. The thread was about supporting the troops while opposing the war, which I believe is quite doable. As you said, the last person that wants to go to war, is the one that has seen it, and has to go.

[yonif]

I think a good question is: "The War has begun. Which side do you want to win?"

If you support the troops, you want the US to win. If you want the Iraqis to win, you must be hoping for a lot of American troops to be killed.

"Who do you want to win?"

Good. However, some protesters say they support the troops because they don't want them to be killed. How does one answer that?

[AbsoluteJustice]

You mean to tell me that the extermination that was being done in Kosovo was ok with you? That it was ok to not remove Milosevich? Are you kidding me about justification?? I agree with you on the premise of Clintoon but the justification was there and conservatives on the hill agreed with that mission to remove the murderous dictator Milosivich.

Your last paragraph we can agree on :)

[rintense]

Can You Back the Troops and Oppose War?

This is a nice PC trick of the left. They use this as a way to 'seem' like they love their country and military, when, in fact, they hate the military. In fact, the left uses this very same statement when refering to the President: We support our troops but oppose our President. I'm sorry, but I find the logic in such statements laughable. It's been used over and over again by activists on every cable news show. Personally, the statement, as laughable as it is, carries no meeaning at all.

[ILBBACH]

Yes, many people here opposed Kosovo (dont even try to deny it) yet supported our troops.

I now admit that I was wrong opposing Kosovo, but at the time I opposed it because it was PROVEN that Bent Willy was untrustworthy and I thought he USED the military as his personal positive-image-maker.

Remember, he deployed more troops around more parts of the world than all the other "war-mongering" Presidents before him!

[AbsoluteJustice]

For the last time you CANNOT support the troops and in the same sentnce say you do not support THE WAR.
Again here is the logic....How can you support the troops if they are performing the action that you do not support? There is NO WAY that you can make this statement. NO EXCEPTIONS.....There is no logic in the statement.

[yonif]

Are college age men who are in favor of the war, but do not enlist hypocrits in your opinion. If not, why not?

I do not feel hypocritical. What you are saying does not make much sense. It's like saying I'm a hypocrit for supporting the police getting criminals, but not joining the police force. Or supporting the firemen putting out fires, even though I do not want to be a fireman.

[TracyPA]

It must have been so demoralizing to serve a Commander in Chief like Clinton! Someone who said he loathed the military. What a difference it must make to have a leader you respect.

Also it is important that the troops know their country supports them. One reporter said they always ask what Americans back home are saying.

[yonif]

Again here is the logic....How can you support the troops if they are performing the action that you do not support? There is NO WAY that you can make this statement. NO EXCEPTIONS.....There is no logic in the statement.

How does one answer to their "argument" that they support the troops because they do not want them to be killed?

[stuartcr]

Here's a scenario...I am a troop/sailor, doing my job to the best of my ability...I am supporting the troops I work with by these very actions. I may even be getting shot at, or worse yet, already shot...or I am a civilian working in a defense industry. All this while, I do not believe we should be in Vietnam/Kosovo/Gulf, etc., but I still do the job. You figure.

[KantianBurke]

No I was and am not ok with the genocide in Kosovo and other hot spots in the world. That said I do not believe it is our armed force's job to clean up humanity's messes. They sign up to defend their homes,families and liberty, NOT to be a global policeman.

[AbsoluteJustice]

Something more appropriate to say in this instance would be that I wish the troops a safe and fair return. I guess you could also state that but to make a blanket statement that you support the troops but not the war is ridiculous because if you support the troops then you support the action that they are performing which is the total success of the war. And if you you support the action that they are performing then you have to support the war because if you support the troops then you support every premise of said action they are performing not just a small aspect of support.

[Jhoffa_]

I think it's possible to respect our troops and oppose the reasons for any given war.

To be honest with you, I was kind of in that situation with Kosovo. It was never explained to my satisfaction and I was never comfortable withour presense there.

This did not mean however that I am anti-American or that I ever had ill will towards a single one of our Service men and I didn't want to lose.

In contrast, what the Democrats are doing is more akin to blind hatred than it is to reasoned objection.

[Jhoffa_]

Oh wow..

I see Kosovo was someone elses first thought also.. Small world.

[ClearCase_guy]

However, some protesters say they support the troops because they don't want them to be killed. How does one answer that?

Of course, some of these people will not accept any counter-argument. However, I would say that we have been fighting a two-week war, we've taken less than 100 casualties and nearly "conquered" a country the size of California. This is a great, largely bloodless operation. And "peace" demonstrators who express unhappiness about it are showing their hand: they DON'T care about the troops. They DON'T want the mission to succeed. They're unhappy because it's going well.

[AbsoluteJustice]

This global policemen argument has been used for years and years but unfortunately my friend we must remain such for if we were not global security as well as the international monetary system would collapse. Thus that nice little home that the intellectual yuppies up in Seattle live in while sipping on their mocha frappcino el crapie would be non existent.