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.

[Eala]

[clamper1797]

Can you support the troops and oppose the war ???

Sure you can ... depending on who's troops you're supporting ...

[Eala]

Thanks for posting this!

[Egregious Philbin]

Can You Back the Troops and Oppose War?

Yes! I can and I do.

[Protagoras]

Yes! I can and I do.

Most troops oppose war.

[The Old Hoosier]

So do I. I hope they kick ass, take names and get home fast, but I still believe we should never have gone there.

[AbsoluteJustice]

No you cannot that is a hypocritical statement.

How can you support the very people that are carrying out the action that you oppose?

Is that not hypocritical? You cannot say that I support the people that are carrying out the action I am against. There is no way to back up that statement.

[mr.pink]

Can You Back the Troops and Oppose War?

Yes.

[Egregious Philbin]

What if a soldier is opposed to the very action he/she is carrying out?

[Zavien Doombringer]

"Can You Back the Troops and Oppose War?"

Can you, love a sinner but hate the sin?

[zeaal]

NO.

If you support the Troops, you support their mission!

[AbsoluteJustice]

LOL.....Possible that some may be....But I tell you this I served my friend for 5 years USMC (3rd LAR) and I highly doubt you will find many ACTIVE DUTY Marines who oppose it..Keyword active duty.... If he/she does oppose it then guess what they never should have joined ALL join knowing that one day without question they may be placed into harms way that is the nature of the beast.

[Chairman_December_19th_Society]

"demonstrators [save, it appears, for some in San Francisco] have been careful to express their admiration for those serving in the armed forces."

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.

[spectre]

I agree.

The anti-war opposition should just say "we wish the Troops well".

sw

[ClearCase_guy]

I think a good question is: "The War has begun. Which side do you want to win?"

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?"

[BlueLancer]

"Can you, love a sinner but hate the sin?

"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.

[southernnorthcarolina]

My letter to the editor, published in the Charlotte Observer on March 20:

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

[sinkspur]

What if a soldier is opposed to the very action he/she is carrying out?

He should be dishonorably discharged.

As Patton said "I won't have a yellow bastard in my army."

[AbsoluteJustice]

To further that if you support the troops then you want the US to win. And for the US to win you must want the mission to be successful and for the mission to be successful the war must be a success. The only way for all 3 to tie together is to support the war for if you oppose one of them all fall by the wayside.

[AbsoluteJustice]

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

[KantianBurke]

What were conservatives saying about our troops during Clintoon's Kosovo adventure or "Operation Desert Fox aka get impeachment out of the headlines?"

[AbsoluteJustice]

What are you asking on this?? I would like to respond to it.

[richardtavor]

How many more Iraqis would die if we hadn't gone there (or Afghanistan?) Wedidn'tgo to Rwanda either, and "only" 800,000 died. We can stay out of every conflict and avoid U.S. casualties (until they come here.) Certainly, we are not the policemen of the world, but to knowingly allow slaughter when we could do something about it, seems morally repugnant. Could Hussein give WMD's to terrorist that could attack us directly? Who knows. I personally am concerned with these dictators that slaughter thousands (or millions) with no worry about retribution (it is obvious that the UN has never held anyone responsible for mass murder.) Therefore, I believe that the belief of these tyrants that the US and its allies will hold them responsible is actually a deterrent. And yes, I did serve in the military during time of war and understand the trepidations of the morality of battle.

[Sloth]

That sign doesn't really exist. I know, because Janeane Garofalo said so.

[Zavien Doombringer]

Murder is the act of killing with a selfish motive

mur·der (mûrdr) n. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice. Slang. Something that is very uncomfortable, difficult, or hazardous: The rush hour traffic is murder. A flock of crows. See Synonyms at flock1. v. mur·dered, mur·der·ing, mur·ders v. tr. To kill (another human) unlawfully. To kill brutally or inhumanly. To put an end to; destroy: murdered their chances. To spoil by ineptness; mutilate: a speech that murdered the English language. Slang. To defeat decisively; trounce. v. intr. To commit murder. Idioms: get away with murder Informal To escape punishment for or detection of an egregiously blameworthy act. murder will out Secrets or misdeeds will eventually be disclosed.

Killing in defence for self or others isn't murder;

kill (kl) v. killed, kill·ing, kills v. tr. To put to death. To deprive of life: The Black Death was a disease that killed millions. To put an end to; extinguish: The rain killed our plans for a picnic. To destroy a vitally essential quality in: Too much garlic killed the taste of the meat. To cause to cease operating; turn off: killed the motor. To tire out completely; exhaust: “The trip to work, and the boredom and nervousness of jobs, kills men” (Jimmy Breslin). To pass (time) in aimless activity: killed a few hours before the flight by sightseeing. To consume entirely; finish off: kill a bottle of brandy. Sports. To prevent a hockey team on a power play from scoring during (a penalty). To cause extreme pain or discomfort to: My shoes are killing me. To mark for deletion; rule out: killed the story. To thwart passage of; veto: kill a congressional bill. Informal. To overwhelm with hilarity, pleasure, or admiration: The outstanding finale killed the audience. Sports. To hit (a ball) with great force. To hit (a ball) with such force as to make a return impossible, especially in a racquet game. v. intr. To cause death or extinction; be fatal. To commit(in the act of) murder. Informal. To make such a strong impression as to overcome: dress to kill. n. The act of killing. An animal killed, especially in hunting. A person killed or to be killed: “Infantrymen... had seen too many kills suddenly get up and run away or shoot at them as they approached” (Nelson DeMille). An enemy aircraft, vessel, or missile that has been attacked and destroyed. Sports. A kill shot. Phrasal Verb: kill off To destroy in such large numbers as to render extinct.

Our service members are not murdering anyone, Saddam Hussien commited murder already...

[finnman69]

Can you support firemen but oppose them putting our fires?

Can you support policemen but oppose them catching criminals?

Can you support doctors but oppose them curing diseases?

Can you suport teachers but oppose them teaching students?


Supporting the troops and opposing the war is a very weak copout lie.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

No, you can't. It is an inconsistency, and an utter lie.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

This thread has become an exercise in disingenuous and fake sincerity from our "friends" of the paleocon left.

[TracyPA]

I don't think most troops oppose war. We have a volunteer military. In the back of their minds the troops knew they would eventually have to fight sometime. If a person is a true pacifist (opposed to the use of force under any circumstance) why on earth would they join the military!!! If we still had the draft you might have a point.

[mr.pink]

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?

Okay.

My brother, who is absolutely against this war is currently on his third trip overseas to deliver tanks and armor to our troops.

He should be enjoying a four month vacation, but was called to make this voyage. Is he, while firmly against the war, not supporting the troops?

[Lost Highway]

Most troops oppose war.

Source please.

[KantianBurke]

I'm trying to demonstrate how it can be logically permissable to be for the troops and yet be opposed to the mission they have been assigned. Conservatives obviously didn't come to hate US troops during Kosovo but certainly objected to Clinton's actions. Let's be consistent and acknowledge that.

[Sid Rich]

And you bring sincerity and honesty to the table?!

[MortMan]

I think there's a VERY fine line.

If a person stated before the war that it (the war) was wrong, that diplomacy or the UN or whatever was a better route to take, etc., that was fine. If this same person, after the commencement of hostilities stops bad-mouthing the CINC's decisions, openly embraces our troops, and shuts up about the pre-war issues (because they're moot), they can be said to oppose the war and still support the troops.

JMO A more accurate way to state the dichotomy and hypocrisy is this: Nobody can protest the war during the fighting and still claim to support the troops - that is rank hypocrisy.

[BlueLancer]

I completely agree with you ... my examples may have been off-the-mark, but my question to Mr.Pink was questioning his ability to "back the troops but oppose the war".

Sorry for the inartful language.

[stuartcr]

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

[Poohbah]

What if a soldier is opposed to the very action he/she is carrying out?

He should be dishonorably discharged.

Not necessarily true.

Many men have honorably served in wars that they disagreed with.

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.

As Patton said "I won't have a yellow bastard in my army."

Separate issue. There is no room for cowardice in the armed forces.

However, there is plenty of room for individuals whose prudential judgement leads them to believe that a specific military campaign or battle is ill-advised, but who will remain true to their oath of enlistment or commissioning and faithfully carry out the orders of the Commander-in-Chief.

[Leatherneck_MT]

Amen

[Egregious Philbin]

No, you can't. It is an inconsistency, and an utter lie.

So I should support the troops AND the war for... the sake of not being inconsistent? THAT would be a lie - my opposition to the war is based on extensive reading and newswatching. I really believe that it will not make us safer. I oppose the war yet hope we win. If I oppose the war AND hope we lose, THEN I would not be supporting the troops. I will not lie and say I think the war is a good idea, nor will I put aside my desire to see my friends and relatives in the military return safely.

[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.