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.
Sure you can ... depending on who's troops you're supporting ...
Most troops oppose war.
Can you, love a sinner but hate the sin?
If you support the Troops, you support their mission!
Saying you are against the war but support our troops is, fundamentally, intellectually dishonest.
The way to catch them in their dishonesty is to ask the protestor "what is the job of the military."
One of three answers, IMO, is likely:
1. To make war;
2. To protect the country;
3. To provide humanitarian relief.
If the third answer is given, then you are dealing with a hopelessly brainwashed leftist moron who fails to draw any distinction between UN relief workers holding a bucket of grain and a soldier holding an M-16. Certainly, the individual believes the main purpose of the M-16 is to serve as the upright stake for a scarecrow in a field of grain.
If the second answer is given, they are hedging, because they know the first answer is correct, and they just don't want to go there. It would probably be necessary to lead them through a series of questions with the aim of getting them to either devolve to choice 1 or 3.
If the first answer is given, then they are sunk. If they understand the purpose of the military is to fight and win wars, then by opposing the war they are opposing the very function the troops are there to perform.
But suppose they insist the third answer is correct. Then, since they don't understand the purpose of the military, how can they possibly purport to support the people in the organization--"the troops"? It is simply a logical impossibility to support the troops without supporting what they do. To do otherwise is to invalidate these people as individuals.
Thus, if a protestor says they support the troops but don't support the war, they do not even have the strength of their convictions to admit they really support neither. If they are at least going to protest the war, they should have the moral fortitude to be intellectually honest.
But that's just my opinion.
The anti-war opposition should just say "we wish the Troops well".
sw
If you support the troops, you want the US to win.
If you want the Iraqis to win, you must be hoping for a lot of American troops to be killed.
"Who do you want to win?"
"Love the murderer, but hate the murder?"
"Love the rapist, but hate the rape?"
Mr.Pink ... please explain how you can support troops that are carrying out a mission that you believe to be immoral, illegal, or for whatever reason you oppose the mission? It might .. just might, perhaps .. be logical if these troops were drafted into the military and forced to perform the mission upon threat of death or grievous bodily harm. These are volunteers; most, if not all, are performing the mission because they believe in it. The remainder are performing the mission because they took an oath to obey their superiors. In either event, the soldiers ARE the mission.
You can no more logically state that you back the troops and oppose the war than you can say that you back the murderer but oppose the murder.
Get ready for it, folks. As soon as the missiles are launched, protesters (celebrity and otherwise) will elbow their way to the nearest microphone and proclaim their allegiance to "the brave men and women serving in our armed forces," while continuing to decry their mission.
This is, of course, bogus. It's impossible to be for the warriors and against the war. Most of these protesters (and let's call them what they are: not antiwar but anti-American or anti-Bush) will be hoping the war goes badly, even to the point of an outright defeat. Such an unlikely turn of events, of course, would result in cataclysmic casualties among the troops they so piously support. But for most protesters, better a war gone bad than a success for George W. Bush.
The protesters have chosen their side. Don't let them share in the victory to come. Never forget what they were saying before the war began. If they try to climb onto the bandwagon, kick them off.
"southernnorthcarolina"
Weddington, NC
He should be dishonorably discharged.
As Patton said "I won't have a yellow bastard in my army."
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.