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.
People who do so are lacking a logical disconnect . My regret is they have children and vote . Understand that parents duplicate themselves in the family they create or accept .
The article is based upon emotion . Emotions are a small part of the real world so does the author expect to reconcile the 2 ?
Without Political Correctness it wont happen . What you will get is replies based on emotion for the most part .
Not so. I would agree if you had said;
Supporting the troops and opposing them fighting the war...
The war is a political decision which can be supported or opposed as a matter of moral or political judgment. Fighting the war, is not a political decision which can just as easily be opposed. Soldiers often fight in wars they do not agree with. My guess, is that there are many right now in Iraq who are doing just that. Separating the politics from the military mission, is quite easy, and enlisted men regularly are able to make that distinction. I'm sure we can also.
When a Soldier takes that oath, they do not stop being the same Americans they were prior to taking that oath. They carry into the military all the same prejudices and political views they had prior to joining. Among such views, may be opposition to U.S. foreign policy as well as opposition to war itself. Many others acquire such views after getting in the Army. Soldiers are human, and like all humans, each of them acquire their own unique views of the world around them.
What makes soldiers unique, is that they will follow through on what ever mission they believe to be lawful, regardless of their own political views of that mission. In other words, they set them selves apart from the rest of the country, by serving the country.
Answer: Bull Shit! If they didn't want the troops killed, they would not be out there demonestrating. All that accomplishes is giving aid and comfort the the enemy and encourages them to keep fighting or not to comply.
No insult, you sound just like a good many of those I've heard in the anti-military crowd who enjoy portraying soldiers as mindless robots.
Within each group of troops there was no vote about going to war or not.
Not relevant. No one has implied there was.
Lawful is defined by the winner.
That may be true with regard to war between countries. But with in the military, and the relationship between individual soldiers and their superiors, "lawful" is defined by law, which places responsibility on each individual soldier to determine within limitations, what is lawful. That responsibility, then continues to the immediate superiors and on up through the chain of command as defined by congress and as defined by the courts).
The point here is that many to most of these soldiers signed up before there was intention to go to war with Iraq.
That is correct. And therefore, one can expect a considerable more opposition to the war, than if most had signed up after the start of the war.
Protestors cannot seperate the soldier from the action, support the soldier and disapprove of the war.
Not just protesters, but any citizen (including individual soldiers them selves) can "separate the soldier from the action," as well as "support the soldier and disapprove the war." Your argument makes no sense here.
The soldier and the war are the same.
What does that mean? Congress and the American people are the same? Milk and the cow are the same?
Soldiers today have given consent to go when they enslist.
That is correct. Further more, the same as in the Vietnam war, if they are going to serve honorably, they are going to carry out the lawful assignments given them by their superiors. This they agreed to do when they took the oath.
Soldiers and Bush are of one mind.
Now that is an insult. Soldiers are individual human beings and not mere chess pieces. They make real sacrifices for the country by setting aside their own beliefs and opinions, to carry out the task assigned to them. To suggest otherwise, is to join those among the protesters who would claim that soldiers are nothing more than mindless robots. That they are not.
With the exception of the gay guy and probably a few others, those who enlisted before the intention to go to war with iraq stated through their behavior that they agree with the notion of going to war. Supporting them is supporting the notion of going to war as directed by the comander in chief. You are what you do notwithstanding the nonsense of loving the sinner but not the sin or you would have to love the devil but not his evil.
Supporting the troops but not the war is asking what the definition of is is.
The President even gets couple resounding ovations when he walks in to congress to give his State of the Union address. I'd hardly call that being of one mind with the President.
Your notion that supporting the troops is the same as supporting the decision to go to war is is a misuse of the troops for your own political purposes. Wanting a successful accomplishment of a great task (this war), does not mean that one favored the decision to set out upon such a task. The desire for total complete victory, does not equate with the desire for entering into the war to start with. These are separate issues.
Having been to a couple division calls and taken part in an honest cheering for success of our mission and unit, I find it insulting to suggest that I or any of my fellow soldiers were of one mind on any thing, except for the want of success that we were in particular cheering for. Soldiers quite naturally want to be successful. That does not make them of one mind with any political leader.
Weren't the democRATS refraining from applauding at one of Bush's addresses to both houses?
Look, a guy signs up to be a soldier and agrees before he knows who and where he may be sent to kill and destroy. It doesn't matter to him because his vocation is a matter of principle, wherever the commander in chief sends him he will go. He agrees to the action, he agrees to the war. If the soldiers were conscripted the arguement would not be valid. The soldiers currently on active duty volunteered to go to war, any war, and they suport it by their act of enlistment. Bush is for the war and the anti-American left does not support him, the troops support the war, they are there and they are carrying it out so they support it too. Why would you protest and not support 1 member of a team, Bush, but insist that you support another member of the same team, the soldier?
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.