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.
Yes. If you consider a war unjust, then you would be right in not wanting your troops sent into harms way to fight that war. Demanding they be brought home is consistant with this.
One thing that is overlooked is that when all is said and done, one side is going to find itself on the wrong side of history. Even though there is much disagreement on the issue, we can at least respect those we disagree with for taking that risk. For this reason and many others, I hope some form of civility can be maintained in this debate.
And this you know how?
Hypocrite to the max!
When I first went into legal (court reporting) from infantry, I thought that the worst I would be seeing was some AWOLs, disrespects, some minor drug-usage/sale offenses, the normal type of (what I later found out to be) non-judicial/Captain's Mast type of stuff. My first three cases were an aggravated murder/rape/mutilation case; a child molestation/child endangerment/murder case; and a murder-for-hire case.
Shows you how naive I was ...
Anyway, now, the max penalty for a BCD Special case has increased to one year confinement and two-thirds forfeiture per month for one year (up from six months for both). And we NEVER see regular Special courts-martial (the ones that didn't authorize a kick) anymore.
Unscientific survey spanning many decades. It was an opinion, and it is assumed to be one by it's form.
This "we support the troops" lie needs to be exposed.
I'm a reluctant backer of this, but I don't care one bit about most of the world, especially Western Europe(most hate us anyway - it's cultural). Personally I also think we should get out of the damn UN(which is the biggest problem and a cause of a lot of the opposition).
That said, while the Iraqi people have my sympathies, I do not think we should be there to liberate Iraq. That's a PR game used. I want Saddam and his sons and party leaders out, and I want to see the evidence tying them to Al Quieda(Sp) that is supposed to be there afterward. That's the only reason I back this. If liberating Iraq is the main goal, send them guns, stinger missiles, and gas masks and let them liberate themselves.
Lastly, this war must be fought to win. No halfway measures.
Hard to comment on that type of rhetoric. Carry on.
In that case, I think you are wrong. That is also just opinion but it seems to me if you were correct, the troops wouldn't be troops or we would have a lot more CO's.
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.