Can You Back the Troops and Oppose War?

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

[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.

[Zavien Doombringer]

I have found war opposers are not Opposing, but are actually afraid of war. Which is understandable. War isn't something we just rush into everyday, Not like the Vikings or the Mongols. Who, I understand were "high" on mushrooms while they attacked.

[BlueLancer]

He is performing his job. In this sense, it's again an instance of hypocrisy. If he were truly, vehemently, and honestly against the war, he would have declined to participate in giving them the weapons with which to fight it. I assume he's getting paid for his work and decided that keeping his job or getting paid for the overtime was worth more than his belief that the war is wrong. If he should be "enjoying a four-month vacation" but is, instead, ferrying military equipment to a conflict that he is against, then he has simply chosen money over his principles ... rank hypocrisy.

So, again, no ... that is NOT supporting the troops but opposing their mission.

[spectre]

"OMG SPEC!!!!!! Haven't seen you for ages...LOL "

There IS life after the Peterson threads...grins!

sw

[Zavien Doombringer]

"Many join the military for the education/benefits, but never want to go to war. "

And many of us know those are the wrong reasons. Gulf War I taught a lesson to many.

The Military will give you education and benefits, but those are contingent upon your type of duty and time constraints. Those that have the time to go to school are usually the admin. types that have the coushie 9-5 hours. I worked 12 hour shifts and my shift happened to cut into class time... And your shift could change mid semester which required you to drop class and get a "W" or an "I" for that class...wasn't worth going. First a soldier/Airman/Marine/Sailor..Student second.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

And that way, when they return safely having done a job which you didn't want done, you can pretend like we're all a big happy family, and don't have to tell them that you thought they should never be there.

That is the typical sophistry and hypocrisy that we've come to expect from the paleoconservative left - lie in order to pretend that you were behind them.

[AbsoluteJustice]

My heart bleeds...He had to make a sacrafice and give up his 4 month vacation....He joined did he not? Noone held a gun to his head to join right? As they said when I was a Marine...SUCK IT UP!!!!!!

[Catspaw]

They do come crawling out from under their rocks on these threads, don't they? They've done everything in their power to undermine this war, including some joining forces with International ANSWER. Now they want claim they support the troops. Hypocrites.

[sinkspur]

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.

His effort will be half-hearted, no matter what he says.

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.

And discharged dishonorably.

[mr.pink]

If he should be "enjoying a four-month vacation" but is, instead, ferrying military equipment to a conflict that he is against, then he has simply chosen money over his principles ... rank hypocrisy.

Nonsense.

So a fighting age college guy who fully supports this war, but not enough to actually enlist is suppporting our troops, while a guy who is against the war, but putting himself at some risk to bring critical supplies to our troops is not.

When Sean Hannity turns down his paycheck, I'll suggest to my brother that he does the same.

[stuartcr]

No problem. As an example...in this conflict, the everyday life of an enlisted sailor at war, is not very different from that of an enlisted sailor at peace, they just work harder, but the job is the same. It is very easy to oppose the war, and still do your job.

[AbsoluteJustice]

Agree.

[BlueLancer]

Well, I guess if Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, et al, can be called "chickenhawks", those like your brother .. apparently prostituting their true beliefs to make a buck .. could be called "war profiteers".

[Dan from Michigan]

You can only support the troops while opposing the war by shutting the hell up out in public. Call the congresscritters and protest that way, but by parading the Bush is a Nazi horsecrap and stuff, they aren't supporting the troops, but are hurting the mission, which means a longer war and more casualties.

These left wing democrats and greens that go out there and protest do not support the troops.

[SanFranRepublican]

SF bay area cannot be taken seriously....

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/882490/posts

[discostu]

The problem with the question is that "oppose war" is a very generic statement that can be used to mean very different things.

In our hearts I think we all oppose war, we hope that war will become a thing of the past and never be fought again, but we understand that this isn't a perfect world and war will eventually happen again. With that definition it's very easy to support troops but oppose war, really they go hand in hand, part of opposition to war as a general concept is not wanting to kill troops.

Now as for opposing a specific war, again it's a simple progression. If you don't think troops should be dieing for this particular cause, because you think it is a cause that is unworthy of human blood, so again it is quite easy to oppose war and support the troops. And all those who doubt it should remember that John Wayne didn't think we should be in Viet Nam, actually campaigned against LBJ because of it, but turned around and made The Green Berets because he supported our troops.

Then there's the leftists, they oppose war because they think the military is evil. It is impossible for them to support our troops at any level, because they are against the very concept of troops. If they were to support our troops they would have no foundationto build their opposition to war on.

So I guess the answer to the question is: it all depends on why you oppose war and which wars you oppose.

[mr.pink]

My heart bleeds...He had to make a sacrafice and give up his 4 month vacation....He joined did he not?

My point is that he has been supporting the troops while being against the war, much more directly and importantly than fighting age keyboard drumbeaters.

[Egregious Philbin]

And that way, when they return safely having done a job which you didn't want done, you can pretend like we're all a big happy family, and don't have to tell them that you thought they should never be there.

You keep trying to push lies on me. I WOULD tell them that I thought they should never have been there - I wouldn't lie to my family and friends - well after I tell them how I great it is to see them, and how happy I am that they returned home safely.

[stuartcr]

I'm talking about military technical training. During the Vietnam era, the best electronic/communication education you could get, was in the Navy. 18 months of school prior to going to the fleet.

[mr.pink]

apparently prostituting their true beliefs to make a buck .. could be called "war profiteers".

Fine. But unlike Sean or Rush, he is profiteering while putting himself at risk, and he's not profiteering by selling out the country like Mr. Perle.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Whenever the paleocon left and its leading grifters (er, make that "intellectuals and candidates") hold their hand out for money, its easier to get it if they pretend that they love this country and its institutions. If you noticed, Paddy Boy flipped on a dime after some horrendous America bashing in order to make a feeble "I love the troops" statement.