1st US officer checks out of Bush War II

[Nicholas Carey]

1st Lt. Ehren Watada of Hawaii tonight announced his refusal to deploy to Iraq tonight, regardless of consequences.

Good on him for standing on his principles:
Watada did not apply for conscientious objector status. "In order to qualify as a conscientious objector you have to be opposed to war in any form, and he is not. He's just opposed to this war," Seitz told The AP.

http://www.king5.com/localnews/stories/NW_060606WAKobjectorKC.5efc842a.html

[BrianW]

The younger Watada enlisted in the Army in 2003 after graduating from Hawaii Pacific University.

I'd have more respect for his opposition to 'this' war, had he not enlisted while it was happening. It was no secret that we were at war.

I'd like to hear about any money he received for college or other benefits that he'll need to pay back.

[PeterSibley]

follow the money eh Brian ?...always a good idea .

[BrianW]

follow the money eh Brian ?...always a good idea .

Yes, exactly. I suspect given he obviously knew we were at war when he signed up, that there may be another reason for his enlisting, then going to OCS, then accepting an appointment as an Officer.

[skuthorp]

Maybe he believed those who said that the war would be over by then. Well it is, this is something different.
Nonetheless, and not withstanding my objections to the reasons for it, the risk of getting into shooting wars would seem to me to be the base presumption when joining up. And then to accept OT as well. Of course he may have had some sort of epiphany meantime, maybe he should retrain as a medic, other objectors have in past wars, that would be the ethical path.

[PeterSibley]

Maybe he was confused ,you know , about WMDs , flowers on the streets ,lies in general...wars of agression. Who knows, perhaps he believed the same BS that was being doled out by the bucket and has since turned into .............drivel.

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

An RAF doctor who tried that is currently serving a term in the slammer, having been convicted by court martial of wilful refusal to obey a lawful order.

[Phillip Allen]

I don't have all the information of course...but if it is like posted above...he will either decide to deploy or go to prison...

I remember one mother stating for the news that the only reason her son joined up was to get his schooling paid for and he should not have to deploy...go figure

[PeterSibley]

"I remember one mother stating for the news that the only reason her son joined up was to get his schooling paid for and he should not have to deploy...go figure"

I would support an ethical change of mind , a financial one would be a little different .

[skuthorp]

Way back we had a major refuse to go to Vietnam on a second tour after revelations regarding a fake document asking us to go in the first place. Quoted the Nuremberg principal but I don't know how he got on.

[JimD]

maybe he should retrain as a medic
If they'll even let him retrain. It costs a lot of money to train a soldier.

[skuthorp]

costs money to keep him in jail, he'd be useless as a combatant or an officer but he'd know the drill and how to keep up with his group. Hard to know how they'd view him though.

[JimD]

For the sake of discipline and morale throwing him in jail might be money better spent.

[LeeG]

I think so,,he's screwed. A friends brother is over there hunting IEDs,,his other brother is in a FOB telling him where the IEDS are,,and his WIFE is over there as well.

Still amazes me that in WWII surviving sons didn't go into battle zones and the entire country was involved and in this one we've got mercenaries, private potatoe peelers and grandfathers in the battle zone. WTF?

[ishmael]

Conscientious objectors of past wars were often given the option of training as medics. But this fellow isn't a CO, which requires one be opposed to all war, so I imagine he'll end up in the brig.

Giving him the benefit of the doubt -- that he's not merely caught wind of the conditions in Iraq and is having second thoughts out of cowardice, but has come to be opposed to this war on moral grounds -- it's a courageous act. Life in one of the service prisons for someone who has refused orders can't be pleasant.

At least he's not making a dash for Canada!

[JimD]

At least he's not making a dash for Canada!

American soldiers awol from Iraq are finding the welcome not quite as warm as it was during Vietnam.

[Bob Adams]

To the brig he should go. Like the war or not, following orders is not optional. The US armed forces are entirely volunteer,and if you join and part of the package is you may go to war, you may die, and YOU MUST FOLLOW ORDERS regardless of your personal feelings.

[Norman Bernstein]

The article is especially scanty on details, so based on presumptions of the circumstance, I'd say that the guy should indeed go to the brig.

I can't condemn anyone who takes an action on the basis of conscience and is willing to accept the consequences. If he was arguing that he should simply be allowed to resign his commission, I'd say he was totally wrong. If he refuses to go, and willingly accepts the punishment that the refusal would incurr, than I'd say the guy was demonstrating some strong character. It's really a case of civil disobedience, which is noble only when the one who is civilly disobedient willingly accepts the consequences.

[B_B]

The US armed forces are entirely volunteer,and if you join and part of the package is you may go to war, you may die, and YOU MUST FOLLOW ORDERS regardless of your personal feelings.

when you sign up for a three year stint and congress passes a law abrogating your right to leave after the 3 years are up makes it no longer voluntary.


what pisses me off is that MOST American soldiers who have sought assylum here have never been to war....signing up for the benefits (college) then running to Canada looking for escape from their obligations.

[Cuyahoga Chuck]

I hope Mr. Watada knows what he is in for. The Leavenworth stockade is not a happy place. I've heard that all the screws are Marines now.

Charlie

"What hath God wrought?"

[Bob Adams]

[QUOTE=Braam Berrub]when you sign up for a three year stint and congress passes a law abrogating your right to leave after the 3 years are up makes it no longer voluntary.


Sorry sir, an extention is also a possibilty when you sign up.Happened in WW II also. Would someone have been justified for walking away from that one?

[Phillip Allen]

"Kings-X...I didn't think I'd get caught screwing the tax payer"

[B_B]

[quote=Braam Berrub]when you sign up for a three year stint and congress passes a law abrogating your right to leave after the 3 years are up makes it no longer voluntary.

Sorry sir, an extention is also a possibilty when you sign up.Happened in WW II also. Would someone have been justified for walking away from that one?

yup.

Contract is a contract.

If they THEN wanted to to draft you, through a 'normal' draft system, that's a different proposition. What congress has done is institute a 'draft' without the political ramifications, that's what makes it wrong. And if you're gonna draft, draft. No more of this bull**** where rich boys/sons of CIA directors get to volunteer for the guardsmen and then don't show up :rolleyes:

edit.
I feel the same way about people who, during WWII, volunteered for the airforce only to be told, once they signed on the dotted line that they were now members of the Navy. Utter bull****.

And don't "Sir" me.

[Phillip Allen]

The contract is for 6 years...it was when I joined back in '68 too

[Bob Adams]

[quote=Bob Adams]

yup.

Contract is a contract.

If they THEN wanted to to draft you, through a 'normal' draft system, that's a different proposition. What congress has done is institute a 'draft' without the political ramifications, that's what makes it wrong. And if you're gonna draft, draft. No more of this bull**** where rich boys/sons of CIA directors get to volunteer for the guardsmen and then don't show up :rolleyes:

edit.
I feel the same way about people who, during WWII, volunteered for the airforce only to be told, once they signed on the dotted line that they were now members of the Navy. Utter bull****.

And don't "Sir" me.

Geez....Sorry Sir. Now I know why Canada depends on the US for defense.

[Norman Bernstein]

I wonder what the contract says, these days.... does it include a clause giving the government an option to extend service at it's own discretion?

If it does, than the guy doesn't have a leg to stand on.

If it doesn't, then I'll have to agree with those who say that the extension is a 'back door draft', and an ethical violation, at the very least, of a cntractual obligation.

[Bob Adams]

Until you get tour DD 214...you are in.

[Phillip Allen]

If I recall the draft was 2 years active plus 2 years active reserve plus 2 years inactive reserve

for me (navy) it was 4 years active and 2 years inactive reserve except I signed up for nucular power trainning and got 6 years active.

[BrianW]

I may be wrong, but enlisted sign 'enlistment' contracts, they need to re-enlist (if they want) when those contracts expire.

Officers don't re-enlist, they are basically considered career status until they resign. That the military would would retain officers in a time of war is not unreasonable.


I should note, that at least in the Coast Guard, after 10 years even enlisted were considered 'career' members and did not need to reenlist every so often. I think it was a cost saving attempt, to reduce the number of reenlistement bonuses.

[B_B]

I may be wrong, but enlisted sign 'enlistment' contracts, they need to re-enlist (if they want) when those contracts expire.
Brian,
That's what I thought.

FWIW my post had nothing to say in support of the 'officer' in question, and lambasted those soldiers who are AWOL due to not wanting to go to war.

However, the policy of arbitrarily abrogating someones rights because you don't have the balls to make a politically sensitive decision is b.s.



Geez....Sorry Sir. Now I know why Canada depends on the US for defense.
KMA bobby. You've just received your DD214 from this thread.

[htom]

He submitted his resignation a couple of times, and it was rejected each time. I don't see any outcome from this other than his going to the brig for at least the duration of what would have been his deployment (or longer) and then a discharge he won't like.

The first lawsuit about enlistment extension was during the American Civil War; the trooper lost.

The actual DD4 for enlisting is posted here:http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/19_03/military_enlistment.pdf and elsewhere on the web.

Basicly, enlistment is for the stated period (eight years) plus as much as Congress wants, currently that's the length of the declared war or emergency plus two years. It's been that way for a long time, people just didn't pay attention to it because the draft was always filling the pipe at the other end.

[Meerkat]

"Length of the declared war" could be a long damned time.

[ljb5]

It's kinda like Bob Adams' position on beating someone up for flag burning.

You know you're going to jail for it, but if it's what you really believe, you do it anyway.

[Norman Bernstein]

Basicly, enlistment is for the stated period (eight years) plus as much as Congress wants, currently that's the length of the declared war or emergency plus two years.

Hmmmm..... seems to me that there's an obscure and obviously ignored provision of the Constitution that says that only Congress shall have the power to declare war.

Since Congress hasn't declared a war since WWII (despite a number of 'wars' in the mean time), I suppose that provision is moot.

[BrianW]

Irony,irony. Do what I say, not what I do.
Maybe that's why he (Bush) went to war. He was too rich to go to Vietnam, so now he had the chance to show everybody how big his pen*s was.
My sympathies are with the guy in Hawaii. He's been lied to,told the war is for his country,which of course it is not.

Uh, the Hawaiian never had to sign up in the first place. He wasn't told to go to war for his country, he volunteered, then backed out.

I'd agree with your position, if he were drafted.

[htom]

Emergency, in this context, can be declared by executive order, and it has been.* As well, Congress passed the provisions of "stop-loss", which use the same nebulous provisions.

*I don't think that there has been a time since shortly after the beginning of WW2 that we haven't been under some executive order or another. It used to be that they were all published, but I think that now they can be classified and not published.

[B_B]

, but I think that now they can be classified and not published.
and, IIRC, in the case of Reagan and Iran-Contra they could be retro-active :eek:

[KNOCKABOUT]

As a former seargent first class NCO who did his time in the breach I find this situation all too familiar. I never wanted to serve my deployments and missions, and I served in a foreign army where deployments meant you saw combat. Its a difficult case, that needs be handled gently, and certainly not by a bunch of wooden boat floaters who have never been shot at in anger. Combat and war is a special circumstance that gives only those who have seen it a right to judge it. Generally this rule does not apply, but combat is such a delicate matter - that I would caution anyone on this forum to be judicious in they're vehemence. Easy on the jingoistic stuff gentlemen, this is a young man who is uneasy and unsure, and whom very likely has realized he has made a huge error in judgement on a number of counts.

[John E Hardiman]

First, he his not in Hawa'ii, but Fort Lewis WA, with the the 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, the 1st Stryker Brigade Combat team. He enlisted in the Army in 2003 after graduating from Hawaii Pacific University. He reported for boot camp in June of that year and began officer candidate school two months later, standard "hawsehole" enlistment. His commission required that he serve as an active-duty officer for a three-year term ending Dec. 3, 2006.

If the ba**ard didn't want to go, he should have enlisted in the Navy (but it seems from this that his grades wern't up to it :D ). A voulunteer that now doesn't want to go because it got hard. He took the oath and now wants to back out. Bust his sorry a** to E1, have him do the rest of his time in the stockade, brand him as a felon, and DD his lying soul. "Officier and gentleman", my a**!

[paladin]

yup...big error....wanted money and schooling...took it....now dunno wanna do the time.....:mad: sorry...I have a really warped sense of humor on this subject.......I guess he could pay back all the money or do a year in the brig for each $5000 used......

[Bob Adams]

Brian,

KMA bobby. You've just received your DD214 from this thread.

Glad to see your sense of humor is intact!

Alpha Mike Foxtrot

[Nicholas Carey]

"Length of the declared war" could be a long damned time.What declaration of war is there? AFAIK, the Congress has never made one.

[Kim Whitmyre]

The Courage to Face the Consequences

By Ray McGovern

Hope is here. The cold light of truth is piercing the cloud of lies conjured by Donald Rumsfeld and others about the war in Iraq—even in the defense secretary’s own bailiwick.

A Matter of Conscience...

Several months ago US Army 1st Lt. Ehren Watada decided that US involvement in Iraq is illegal and immoral. Like so many of us, Watada concluded that there was “intentional manipulation of intelligence” was manipulated to justify the invasion. Unlike so many of us, he has had the courage to stick his neck out and pay the price for resistance.

We should, I suppose, give the neck its due. It is a pleasant thing—a convenient connection between head and torso. We do not risk it out of caprice. But if there is nothing for which we will risk that neck, then it has become our idol. And necks are not worthy of this status. Finally, an active duty US Army officer has refused to engage in that kind of idol worship.

No publicity seeker, Watada earlier this year quietly submitted a request to resign from the Army. The request was denied. He then refused to deploy to Iraq with his unit this summer, and is prepared to face prison rather than violate his conscience. Meanwhile, he fully expects the kind of ostracism encountered by those few Army enlisted men who objected to the torture at Abu Graib. In what might well be the understatement of the month, Watada says he may be “the most unpopular person at Fort Lewis.”

...and a Gift for Dan Berrigan

Watada may not realize this, but he has presented a pearl of great price to long-time war resister, Jesuit priest and poet Dan Berrigan, who celebrates his 85th birthday this weekend in New York. Facing ridicule and ostracism for acting on their principled opposition to the war in Vietnam, Dan and his late brother Phil, were no strangers to prison—or to profound disappointment at the dearth of those willing to witness in the way of Watada.

In No Bars to Manhood, Dan wrote:

“‘Of course, let us have peace,’ we cry, ‘but at the same time let us have normalcy, let us lose nothing, let our lives stand intact, let us know neither prison nor ill repute nor disruption of ties...’ There is no peace because there are no peacemakers. There are no makers of peace because the making of peace is at least as costly as the making of war—at least as exigent, at least as disruptive, at least as liable to bring disgrace and prison, and death in its wake.”

Dan Berrigan will be encouraged by Watada’s resistance. And so, I hope, will Faiza Al Araji, one of the courageous Iraqi women who came to the US in March to give first-hand testimony to the suffering of the Iraqi people. Executive Manager of Arab Water Treatment Co., Faiza is a highly educated engineer who took a month off to appeal to US citizens to do something to end the tragedy of her people.

I had the privilege of sharing speaking duties with her on several panels arranged by progressives in California. It was painful. Faiza would pour out her heart, only to be met with expressions of sympathy—and impotence. After three successive days of this, she found a way to express her outrage without wearing out her welcome. We were in Santa Cruz, speaking to a standing-room-only audience. After Faiza’s account of the horrors being experienced by her people elicited the all-too-familiar, hand-wringing moans of “what can we do,” she lost it.

Candid Sharing...

Returning to her seat next to me on the panel, she grabbed my notebook and filled the top page with what she really wanted to say. Her poignant words, as she wrote them:

“So, Iraqis are in the middle between American people who don’t know what to do alway? and American Administration who had plans to war and never listen!

Where is the key to help poor Iraqis?

In the beginning of my meeting I feel sad for American people but after passing of time my people are dying and Americans still asking stupid questions like what can I do?

I feel sick.”

Faiza could see it. We are, for the most part, blissfully (perhaps studiously?) unaware of our own power—the power we still enjoy as Americans, even as the claws of fascism creep steadily closer. We in the dominant culture often feel impotent, despite the power of our inherent privilege. Perhaps it’s a subconscious thing. Maybe we prefer to remain in denial because, otherwise, we would have to look in the mirror and decide whether we have the courage to put that power into play.

...and Becoming Aware

At the Servant Leadership School in Washington, DC, we are constantly grappling with the debilitating accoutrements of white privilege and unexplored racism. At one point an African American trainer threw up his hands, looked at us, and—as calmly as he could—explained:

“If someone has their foot on my neck, I will say once, please get off my neck. If you continue to stand on my neck and explain how you didn’t know you were there and why you were there and how difficult it is to move, I cannot be nice about it any more. It’s not about conversation; in the end it’s about getting your foot off my neck.”

And so, we are back to necks. We must stop the hand wringing and find ways to get our country’s foot off Iraq’s neck.

What can we do? Get together with a few friends and figure it out! If we were willing to put something on the line, if we were willing to stick out our own necks, as Lt. Watada has done, things could change.

Ray McGovern was an Army officer (1962-64) and an analyst with the CIA for the next 27 years. He is on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). On May 4 he confronted Rumsfeld directly about the lies he told—and continues to tell—about the war in Iraq. Ray now works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in Washington, DC.