Troops? War? - Terry Eastland

Troops? War? - Terry Eastland of the Weekly Standard asks the question - is it possible to support the troops but oppose the war? To Eastland, the answer is "no":

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.

I'm more and more inclined to agree. A soldier's life and well-being is deeply interconnected with his/her mission. If the soldier fails to accomplish the mission, it's usually because they've been harmed in some drastic way - or they've abandoned the mission, rendering their and their comrades' sacrifice vain.

Supporting the troops while opposing the mission is logical, in the same way that wishing for puppies not to die is logical; it feels good, but there's really no logical basis to the idea.

Posted by Mitch at April 6, 2003 12:57 PM