In The Rall World

by Greg Strange

You’ve heard the expression "Support the troops, oppose the war." It’s generally used by antiwar types who wish to convince mainstream Americans that while they oppose the war in Iraq, they’re just gaga over and have nothing but respect for the troops who were, through no fault of their own, hoodwinked into an illegal and immoral military action. It’s all about avoiding -- or at least giving the appearance of avoiding -- the excesses of the antiwar protests of the Vietnam era which involved branding returning soldiers as "baby killers," etc.

While that’s so very thoughtful of them, extreme left-wing columnist Ted Rall says poppycock, piffle and balderdash to all that. In a recent column he advised lefties to just "drop the ‘support the troops’ shtick" already. Why? Because, in his words, "These individuals, who enjoy free will, fire the guns and drop the bombs. If personal responsibility is to have any meaning, the men and women of the armed forces have to be held individually accountable for the carnage."

Excuse the bad pun, but that makes about as much sense as a screen door on a submarine. If a person had free will in the context of the military, he could just walk out of basic training and file a harassment suit the first time a D.I. raised his voice or issued an unpleasant order, such as, "It’s time to get out of bed, soldier!" But as anyone knows, soldiers give up their free wills for the length of the contracts they sign when they join the military. There couldn’t be a military if all its members had free will and could refuse to take orders on the addlebrained pronouncements of Ted Rall.

His column continues: "Soldiers, they say, must obey orders. However, ‘just following orders’ wasn’t an acceptable excuse at the Nuremberg trials, where the charges included waging a war of aggression."

You know, like the one in Iraq? I mean, really, what’s the difference between that war and Hitler’s war against civilization? And if "just following orders" wasn’t an excuse for Nazis, then it ought not be an excuse for Americans fighting an illegal war in Iraq.

Rall is all over this military legalities stuff like white on rice: "Do our government’s poorly paid contract killers deserve our ‘support’ for blindly following orders?

"Not according to the military itself. The U.S. Army’s ‘Law of Land Warfare,’ taught in basic training, says that U.S. troops must always refuse an unlawful order -- one that violates the Constitution or . . . is not reasonably linked to military necessity or is issued by someone without the proper authority."

And guess what? Since, according to Rall, the war in Iraq is illegal, then any and every order given within the context of that illegal war should be disobeyed by American soldiers if they are to be deserving of our support. Otherwise, they’re no better than Nazis and, presumably, can burn in hell for all Rall cares.

If your incredulity has been pushed near to the breaking point, just wait because we’re going to go through Rall’s pat little list of reasons for why he believes the war in Iraq is illegal. But maybe, just maybe, they won’t hold up to scrutiny.

Rall’s first reason: "Congress never declared war against Iraq."

So what? They had a vote in Congress and the president was given approval to go into Iraq if he deemed it necessary. It wasn’t an official, notarized, gussied-up declaration of war, but those went out with bobbysocks and the jitterbug. It was certainly enough to meet the requirements of the War Powers Act of 1973 which was designed to balance the military powers of the President and the Congress. Well, except that in this case, according to Rall:

"As an unelected imposter, George W. Bush did not enjoy authority under the War Powers Act to commit American forces abroad."

Ahem. Actually, George W. Bush was indeed elected, and by a healthy margin at that. Don’t know how Rall missed it -- it was in all the papers. Oh, wait a minute, was he referring to the "stolen" election of 2000? Shoulda realized that right off. Rall and many others may not be able to get beyond this stolen election claptrap, but even the rabidly anti-Bush New York Times got over it long ago. Here’s what the paper of record said on November 12, 2001:

"A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year’s presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward."

For Rall and millions of others to continue to believe that Bush stole the 2000 election is no more rational than the belief of Islamic suicide bombers that voluptuous virgins await them in paradise. In fact, it’s less rational since it has been demonstrably proven that Bush won, whereas it is impossible to disprove the religious beliefs of suicide bombers.

Continuing with Rall’s illegal war arguments:

"Concentration camps at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere violate the Geneva Conventions, which as treaty obligations are binding under U.S. law."

Even if that were true, it has nothing to do with the overall legality of the war.

And finally: "Iraq is not the subject of a UN-led international police action."

This is perhaps the most clueless argument of all. It reeks of the idiotic notion that no war can ever be justified, either legally or morally, and no dangerous tyrant ever removed, without the official sanction and 100 percent backing of the UN. But what in the world could possibly give the UN such status and authority? The UN doesn’t do anything to promote freedom (meaningless and interminable talk doesn‘t count). Nor does it do anything meaningful to thwart dictatorial regimes or to discourage states that sponsor terrorism. In fact, it welcomes such regimes wholeheartedly into the community of nations by granting them seats in its club of gentlemen debaters, giving them a degree of legitimacy they would not otherwise have.

Nonetheless, Rall concludes his list of supposed illegalities by saying: "Thus, by several measures, the war is illegal. Every order to deploy a soldier, aviator or sailor to fight in Iraq is by definition an unlawful order, one that he or she is legally and morally bound to refuse."

And there you have what passes for reasoned thought in the Rall world. In the real world, however, things are a bit different and every piece of evidence Rall offered of the war’s illegality is either, at the very least, debatable, or, in actuality, demonstrably bogus.

Rall’s assertions are not based on logical interpretations of Constitutional and military law, but rather are symptomatic manifestations of a virulent mental pathology which has as its primary feature a perverse psychological need to believe that Bush, in liberating a country from the murderous tyranny of a madman, is the world’s real evildoer.

Rall really ought to see someone about that nasty condition, though the cause is indeterminate and there probably is no cure. But at the very least, how about a round or two of group therapy with some of America’s "poorly paid contract killers?"