Nowadays, he is asking if you would support soldiers who frag their officers. Here is the quote:
Churchill: "For those of you who do, as a matter of principle, oppose war in any form, the idea of supporting a conscientious objector who's already been inducted in his combat service in Iraq might have a certain appeal. But let me ask you this: Would you render the same level of support to someone who hadn't conscientiously objected, but rather instead rolled a grenade under their line officer in order to neutralize the combat capacity of their unit?"Here again Churchill shows that he doesn't have the tiniest clue what he is talking about. Any place you have line officers, you have line NCOs. Let me tell you a story just to illustrate my point.
Back during the first Gulf War, I found myself in charge of a bunch of soldiers that I didn't know, and I asked that they meet me at a given place at a given time. When I got there, I found that the soldiers had already arrived. I found the ranking NCO, walked up to him and told him to put the soldiers in formation.
I had no doubt in my mind that he would follow the order. He was a professional NCO. I could see that from his demeanor, the fit of his clothing and the shine of his boots. His conduct in the following months only increased my respect for him. During field operations he knew the orders as thoroughly as I did. He acted as my strong right hand. He was often two or three mental jumps ahead of me, anticipating problems before they arose and taking action to mimimize the impact of those problems. There is no doubt that he could have led the unit as competently as I. My only doubt was this; was he leading me as well as the men? I am convinced he is a better soldier than I was. I am honored and gratified that he followed me.
If I had been disabled, wounded or killed, I have no doubt that he would have consolidated the command, issued new orders to his junior NCOs and carried on. Had I been fragged, there is no doubt in my military mind that he would have gone totally apeshit on the unit and prosecuted the offender. The other soldiers in the unit would have suffered, because he would have digged deep in his bag of NCO tricks and impressed on them that fratricide is bad, bad, bad.
Fragging a line officer is repulsive. Fragging anyone is criminal. Ward Churchill shows that he doesn't know doodly-squat about line units by asking such a question. The loss of an officer does nothing to neutralize the combat capacity of that unit.