OPPOSE THE WAR, support the troops.

It's the new mantra of the anti-war movement. And it's also a complete about-face from the Vietnam era. Back then, anti-war activists saw American soldiers as baby-killing monsters, armed with napalm and eager to ravage the Vietnamese people My Lai-style. In the eyes of the anti-war movement, the soldiers bore as much guilt for the prosecution of an immoral imperialist war as the president, the Pentagon and the rest of the Establishment. Returning soldiers were shamed and spit upon.

In the kinder, gentler anti-war movement of the 1990s, however, things have changed. American troops are no longer seen as the embodiment of evil. This time around, they're practically knights in shining armor.

A classic example of the anti-war movement's new attitude toward American soldiers appeared in a column in this month's Perspective. "The American men and women fighting in the Persian Gulf and their families are heroes," the columnist wrote. "They deserve every bit of support and honor we can give them... They are there because Bush asked them to be, and we must respect the fact that they have no choice but to follow orders."

Therein lies the fundamental difference between the movement's perceptions of American soldiers in Vietnam and their modern-day counterparts in Saudi Arabia. Unlike Vietnam veterans, individual soldiers in the Gulf are considered tragic heroes, blameless pawns caught up in a situation they cannot control.

Granted, most anti-war activists would ultimately like to "support" the troops by bringing them home. That's fine. But until then, these same activists--in a clear case of moral hypocrisy--will continue to "support" the American "heroes," even if they are fighting what is alleged to be an immoral (and not merely unwise) war. In the eyes of these anti-war activists, it's not the soldiers' fault.

They are, after all, just following orders.

WHITHER moral responsibility for individual actions?

The decision by the anti-war movement to excuse--nay, pat on the back--the foot-soldiers of this allegedly immoral war is downright scary. It is inconsistent to argue the immorality of Desert Storm while giving the moral green light to American soldiers in Saudi Arabia. Carried to its logical conclusion, such a stance would sanction the most morally despicable conduct by individuals--so long as they were only following orders.

Make no mistake about it--many of the same anti-war activists who support the troops of Desert Storm find their mission to be, like Vietnam, immoral (and not simply unwise). In the words of the Perspective columnist, Desert Storm is "senseless, dehumanized, hypocritical violence instigated by the United States." But in the eyes of the anti-war movement, the agents of this immorality--American troops--share none of the blame for the conduct of the war.

The same columnist noted that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. did find individuals responsible during times like these. "Every man of humane convictions must decide on the protest that best suits his convictions," the civil rights leader said in 1967, "but we all must protest" Clearly King believed that Americans on the home front should express their opposition to the Vietnam War.

But what about those Americans sent to fight in the jungles of Vietnam? Were they suddenly exempt from their moral responsibility to protest an immoral war? As long as they followed the rules of war (the Geneva Conventions) should they have been excused from the rules of morality? Twenty years ago, the anti-war movement said no. Today it says yes.

HISTORY HAS SHOWN that some wars and wartime tactics are indeed morally repugnant. The soldier who participates in these outrages certainly merits much less than the label of "hero."

What would proponents of "oppose the war, support the troops" say, for example, in the case of a Nazi SS soldier ordered to serve as a guard at Auschwitz during World War II? Is he a baby-killing monster like the Vietnam veteran, morally accountable for his actions? Or is he a "hero" like the soldier of Desert Storm, deserving "support" and "honor" because he had "no choice but to follow orders"?

What about those police officers in Selma, Ala., who in 1965 sent attack dogs after civil rights demonstrators? The South African security guards who enforce apartheid? And the Iraqi Republican Guard, or even the ordinary Iraqi soldiers, who invaded Kuwait? Weren't they all just following orders?

And what about the American soldiers of Desert Storm? Sure, they have their orders, but if they believe the war is unjust they can also refuse to fight. It may be a difficult decision, and the consequences may be severe. But with so many lives at stake, the choice--maybe a "heroic" one--must be made by each and every soldier.

TO "oppose the war, support the troops" may be a more comfortable, more appealing way for anti-war activists to justify and gain support for their claim that Desert Storm is an immoral war. But to "support the troops" by absolving them of individual responsibility for whatever actions they take is a dangerous doctrine.

It is scary to imagine a world--and an America--where people are allowed to just follow orders. It is a world that would sanction moral atrocities like those committed by Nazi guards, Selma police and South African security forces. Is that the kind of world that anti-war activists want?

Shouldn't individuals be forced to answer for their actions? Indeed they should. And so must Americans--all Americans, from George Bush to the soldier in the field to the college student who supports or opposes the war--answer for their individual conduct during Desert Storm.