Can You Back the Troops and Oppose War?

The Weekly Standard ^ | 04/02/2003 6:20:00 AM | Terry Eastland

[jackbob]

Weren't the democRATS refraining from applauding at one of Bush's addresses to both houses?

Yes, at only parts of the address. And had you been watching closely, at those same parts of the address, the military officers weren't applauding either. The officers actually clapped less than anyone in the room. I would guess only at about 60% of those parts of the speech that drew applause. They were quite careful not to applaud matters of politics, even where all others were applauding.

What you have done is confuse the word "support." Giving support for policy decisions designed to win the war, is not the same as support for the political decision to go to war. Your attempt to politicise the soldier, is exactly what the anti-war movement did during most of the Vietnam war. Regardless of what side it is done for, it is a misuse of the soldier, who is completely innocent of the political decision which sends him to war.

Supporting the military decision to go for total victory in the war, is not the same as supporting the political decision to go to war.

[RWG]

it is a misuse of the soldier, who is completely innocent of the political decision which sends him to war...not so. Remember this administration has warned iraqi generals and soldiers that they will be held accountable for all orders they give or follow.

[jackbob]

...not so.

Not so? what are you saying? Its OK to use our soldiers for internal American political purposes, because we warned Iraqi soldiers (as we do ours during training) that as soldiers, they will be held accountable for illegal orders given and illegal orders followed. The two are unrelated. Do you have any idea of what you are talking about?

[RWG]

This is really tiresome. We have an all volunteer army. Those who enlist have indicated that they will do as the commander in chief directs without qualification. His decision has already been affirmed by the members of the military even before there was anything to decide. This does not make them mindless or robots. Soldiers have agreed to execute any war and any other action even before there is such. They support the war. Bush supports the war. Anti-American leftists are using flawed but pc logic when they try to separate the willingness of the warrior from their resistance to it. I am anti-abortion but I support a woman's right to have one. Nonsense.

[jackbob]

Those who enlist have indicated that they will do as the commander in chief directs without qualification.

Here you are absolutely wrong. You know nothing of military law. The relationship between the president and the soldiers, are full of qualifications. You may wish our Army were run like the Iraqi Army, but it is not.

They support the war.

Without a doubt, they as American citizens (the soldiers), support the war, as do most American citizens. But as I explained in #181, you have confused the usage of the word "support" with regards to soldiers. Your inability to distinguish between support of the mission to achieve total victory, and support of the political decision to go to war, allows you to imply that the soldiers are politically supporting the President domesticly (not domestic issues, for clarity), because they are of "one mind," with him.

Again I repeat, American soldiers are not robots. They are not of "one mind," with the President. And yes this is getting tiring.

[RWG]

Ok then, I'm all for the war but I do not support the troops.

[jackbob]

You've got. Just leave the politics out of it, and you support both. There is no politics in calling for our defeat (just treason). And no politics in calling for victory, just patriotism. Which really supports the troops.

[jackbob]

You are all for the war. I am all for the war effort. By being for both, you can claim one up on me.