Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Can You Back the Troops and Oppose War?
The Weekly Standard ^ | 04/02/2003 6:20:00 AM | Terry Eastland

Posted on 04/02/2003 8:16:37 AM PST by 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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: antiwar; iraq; support; terryeastland; troops; war
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-188 next last
To: ClearCase_guy
I would also add that military might exists for a reason. We have a volunteer force. Everyone in the military today is there with the express understanding that they may be put it harm's way. That's their choice. To say that "I support the troops, and I don't want them killed" is to say that I support your desire to be a policeman but I hope you never catch a criminal or help reduce the crime rate.

"Gee whiz, thanks fer yer support!"

141 posted on 04/02/2003 12:33:32 PM PST by ClearCase_guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: rintense
We support our troops but oppose our President

Bush is the "lead troop!"

It's clear that W is not USING the troops to distract from his sexual picadillos, and has NEVER claimed to "abhor the military" unlike another Commander-in-Chief (cough, cough, gag) I can mention.

142 posted on 04/02/2003 12:46:38 PM PST by ILBBACH (Semper Fi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: AbsoluteJustice
500,000 Rwandans were slaughtered in 1994 and we in the US did not suffer or experience any loss of security. I seriously doubt if Kosovo would have gone under there would have been any difference.
143 posted on 04/02/2003 12:53:25 PM PST by KantianBurke (The Federal govt should be protecting us from terrorists, not handing out goodies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: ILBBACH
Yep. That's why that phrase is just so damn funny.
144 posted on 04/02/2003 12:58:28 PM PST by rintense (The tyrant will soon be gone... or extremely dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

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

1. Then support the troops by voting for people who will increase the defense budget to give them superior fire-power.

2. Would you rather more American civilians were killed in terrorist attacks because you don't want Americans who volunteered to fight the War on Terrorism (as opposed to a non-exsistent war on Al Queda)?

3. Would you want a firefighter NOT to enter your home to save your family because he may die in the process?

4. So you believe you know what is better for the troops than the troops themselves when they voluntarily join the armed services?

145 posted on 04/02/2003 12:59:03 PM PST by ILBBACH (Semper Fi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: KantianBurke
I totally disagree....If the US would not have reacted the whole world would have been sent a message that it is ok to murder that many people and ethnic cleansing could continue and the US would trun a blind eye. If that were allowed to continue that part of the world would have become unstable and more Kosovo's would have ensued.
146 posted on 04/02/2003 1:03:25 PM PST by AbsoluteJustice (Pounding the world like a battering ram. Forging the furnace for the final grand slam!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: AbsoluteJustice
I guess we're gonna have to agree to disagree on this issue.
147 posted on 04/02/2003 1:07:13 PM PST by KantianBurke (The Federal govt should be protecting us from terrorists, not handing out goodies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: KantianBurke
I agree LOL....nice discussion though....I still like JOOOOOOOOOO :)
148 posted on 04/02/2003 1:08:03 PM PST by AbsoluteJustice (Pounding the world like a battering ram. Forging the furnace for the final grand slam!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: KantianBurke; All
Actually take a look at this and see where my heart is. I actually teared up at work when watching this.

http://www.talltexian.com/AmericaForever/id28.htm
149 posted on 04/02/2003 1:11:09 PM PST by AbsoluteJustice (Pounding the world like a battering ram. Forging the furnace for the final grand slam!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
To say that "I support the troops, and I don't want them killed" is to say that I support your desire to be a policeman but I hope you never catch a criminal or help reduce the crime rate.

Nonsense. Try this: "To say that "I support the troops, but not the war" is to say that I support your desire to be a policeman but I hope you never have to enforce the bogus drug laws and catch a nonviolent drug user."
150 posted on 04/02/2003 1:37:41 PM PST by Egregious Philbin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

Comment #151 Removed by Moderator

To: Protagoras
I support our troops, I support this war. I supported our troops in Yugoslavia but opposed that war.

Dittoes.

152 posted on 04/02/2003 2:31:17 PM PST by jimt (Support our troops !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: 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.

No, I must have set it too high for YOU, seems that everyone else on the thread got it.

153 posted on 04/02/2003 2:50:32 PM PST by Protagoras (Putting government in charge of morality is like putting pedophiles in charge of children)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: sausageseller
Your brother is profiting off of something he opposes! Hypocrite to the max!

Since you ignored he last hypothetical I used as a comparative, let me ask this one.

Some of our wounded troops have returned stateside for recovery and treatment. In your opinion, would a doctor who is against this war, but provides treatment to the troops be a hypocritical profiteer? In your eyes, would he be obligated to refuse to treat a soldier even if he was the most skilled and experienced in a specifically required method of treatment?
154 posted on 04/02/2003 2:52:18 PM PST by mr.pink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: southernnorthcarolina
"My letter to the editor, published in the Charlotte Observer on March 20. . ."

Well said!!! The protesters are cowards and that is the ONLY reason more of them don't come out and admit that they hate this country, the military and the troops! Screw em all!!
155 posted on 04/02/2003 3:03:16 PM PST by NFOShekky (Fight's On)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras
I must have set it too high for YOU, seems that everyone else on the thread got it.

Oh well. I must have been reading the wrong thread.

156 posted on 04/02/2003 4:13:24 PM PST by paul51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: mr.pink
Everyone puts themselves at risk everyday. just taking a drive. His risk level has nothing to do with his anti -war stance!

If your anti war why would you buy those stocks anyway?

You idea that someone would not enlist yet be in favor of the war and something is wrong with that is ignorant!

157 posted on 04/02/2003 5:24:09 PM PST by sausageseller
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: clamper1797
SEE WAR SURVEY AT MSN
158 posted on 04/02/2003 5:27:47 PM PST by shootist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: shootist
bump
159 posted on 04/02/2003 5:32:04 PM PST by shootist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: mr.pink
I didn't ignore, employment took me away.

The wounded would be treated by military doctors. So your hypothetical is ludicrous!

Please quit trying, your arguements are inane at best!

160 posted on 04/02/2003 5:33:47 PM PST by sausageseller
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-188 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson