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.
mur·der (mûrdr) n. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice. Slang. Something that is very uncomfortable, difficult, or hazardous: The rush hour traffic is murder. A flock of crows. See Synonyms at flock1. v. mur·dered, mur·der·ing, mur·ders v. tr. To kill (another human) unlawfully. To kill brutally or inhumanly. To put an end to; destroy: murdered their chances. To spoil by ineptness; mutilate: a speech that murdered the English language. Slang. To defeat decisively; trounce. v. intr. To commit murder. Idioms: get away with murder Informal To escape punishment for or detection of an egregiously blameworthy act. murder will out Secrets or misdeeds will eventually be disclosed.
Killing in defence for self or others isn't murder;
kill (kl) v. killed, kill·ing, kills v. tr. To put to death. To deprive of life: The Black Death was a disease that killed millions. To put an end to; extinguish: The rain killed our plans for a picnic. To destroy a vitally essential quality in: Too much garlic killed the taste of the meat. To cause to cease operating; turn off: killed the motor. To tire out completely; exhaust: “The trip to work, and the boredom and nervousness of jobs, kills men” (Jimmy Breslin). To pass (time) in aimless activity: killed a few hours before the flight by sightseeing. To consume entirely; finish off: kill a bottle of brandy. Sports. To prevent a hockey team on a power play from scoring during (a penalty). To cause extreme pain or discomfort to: My shoes are killing me. To mark for deletion; rule out: killed the story. To thwart passage of; veto: kill a congressional bill. Informal. To overwhelm with hilarity, pleasure, or admiration: The outstanding finale killed the audience. Sports. To hit (a ball) with great force. To hit (a ball) with such force as to make a return impossible, especially in a racquet game. v. intr. To cause death or extinction; be fatal. To commit(in the act of) murder. Informal. To make such a strong impression as to overcome: dress to kill. n. The act of killing. An animal killed, especially in hunting. A person killed or to be killed: “Infantrymen... had seen too many kills suddenly get up and run away or shoot at them as they approached” (Nelson DeMille). An enemy aircraft, vessel, or missile that has been attacked and destroyed. Sports. A kill shot. Phrasal Verb: kill off To destroy in such large numbers as to render extinct.
Our service members are not murdering anyone, Saddam Hussien commited murder already...
Source please.
If a person stated before the war that it (the war) was wrong, that diplomacy or the UN or whatever was a better route to take, etc., that was fine. If this same person, after the commencement of hostilities stops bad-mouthing the CINC's decisions, openly embraces our troops, and shuts up about the pre-war issues (because they're moot), they can be said to oppose the war and still support the troops.
JMO A more accurate way to state the dichotomy and hypocrisy is this: Nobody can protest the war during the fighting and still claim to support the troops - that is rank hypocrisy.
Sorry for the inartful language.
He should be dishonorably discharged.
Not necessarily true.
Many men have honorably served in wars that they disagreed with.
When a Marine is given an order he is opposed to, the proper course of action for that Marine is a smart "Aye aye, sir," followed by the Marine carrying out the order to the best of his ability.
As Patton said "I won't have a yellow bastard in my army."
Separate issue. There is no room for cowardice in the armed forces.
However, there is plenty of room for individuals whose prudential judgement leads them to believe that a specific military campaign or battle is ill-advised, but who will remain true to their oath of enlistment or commissioning and faithfully carry out the orders of the Commander-in-Chief.
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.