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.
...and possibly having to go fight in Vietnam.
His effort will be half-hearted, no matter what he says.
Don't be quick to say that unless you've actually spent significant time in the Big Green Machine. I was handed many orders that I thought were ill-advised, foolish, et cetera. The one time that I didn't obey the order and try my damndest to make it come out in synchronization with the commander's intent was when it was both morally and legally wrong. (Morality and legality of orders tends to line up very nicely in the US military--it's nice being one of the good guys.)
The military is all-volunteer. I'm of the opinion that if a service person cannot support a military effort, and makes that known, he should be shown the door.
There ARE grounds for separating the person under those circumstances. To wit, he is definitely in violation of Article 88 of the UCMJ (contemptuous speech towards or about public officials).
And discharged dishonorably.
Article 88 can easily get you six, six, and a kick (confinement at hard labor for six months, forefeiture of pay and allowances for six months, and a dishonorable discharge).
My ass.
Opposing war and at the same time knowing that reality sometimes requires it are not inconsistent positions.
I oppose killing people in general, but would kill an intruder in my home without a moments regret to save my family.
The other question (which the question of this thread begs) is, can you support our troops but oppose a specific war?
I support our troops, I support this war. I supported our troops in Yugoslavia but opposed that war. If you can't, oh well.
By the way, Poohbah, it's now a DD, total forfeitures, and a year.
Paddy Boy's previous statements stand as a lasting testament to his opposition about the war. His "I love the troops" statement is hollow.
Whatever distinction you make is lost on the people who drop bombs or are the targets of them.
Armies shooting at each other is war no matter what you choose to call it.
Thats what they say on "Springer".
I never said they did, you might be debating yourself.
In other wars many did. I will debate that with you if you like.
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.