Army to allow Iraq war objector to resign

[radhak]

To all the devil's advocates here, I should be with you (as I am against this war), but can't. I see nothing in this particular case but a 'cop out' by somebody who enjoyed a hospitality under false pretenses.

My daughter asked me the other day why I was never in the forces or even a firefighter and I just said I didn't think I was brave enough for it. And part of it has to do with the ability to follow orders. Since I know I would have bouts of conscience attacks, I am not the right person to be in such a position, and should not volunteer.

Following the example of Hitler and those times is an easy way to step out of the firing line, but does not apply all the time.

[cabinetman]

In simple words the individual is a COWARD. He is no different than the guy going over the hill.

He was provided with the Army's "Mission Statement" which goes like this:

"The Army exists to defend the nation and its interests. Its primary aim is to achieve this defense through deterrence-posing the realistic threat of lethal action should it become necessary. The Army's strategic function is to provide trained and ready forces to support the combatant commanders."(FM 100-1 The Army, pg11). This mission statement is understandable, clear and is backed up by an additional 15 pages of clarifications, definitions and explanations. This mission statement can be shortened to " The Army exists to defend the nation and its interests", and keep its clear message.

The Army is an infantry organization, and all members are in support of the infantry. All are given "basic training" which is infantry oriented, including military bearing, firearms training, and things like hand to hand combat. Did he ever wonder why he received that training and whether there was any legality to having to use that training.

He can suppose all he wants that his denial is based on his conviction that he thinks the war, and ordered to it was illegal. That's just a cop out no matter how it tries to get justified.
.

[paintandbodtman]

Sorry read enough and can't sit on the sideline any longer.
What about the premise of a "volunteer " army.There is nothing volunteer about it when we overextend peoples enlistment because of what history may or may not deem an unjust war.
If this war was so important for us as a nation to fight then where is the outcry for reinstatement of the draft, Oh! but wait a minute then my family member may be forced to come in harms way like we are doing to someone we deem as a coward.
If we as a nation are going to have a volunteer military then it should be exactly that volunteer in,volunteer out.
During the Veitnam war we had draft dodgers both legally and illegally in my opinion. The legal ones just did it by being able to afford an education that exempted them from the draft.If our freedoms are important enough to wage these kind of wars then it is time to bring back the draft and no one is exempt in whatever age group is deemed fit for military service.This includes gender,sexual oreintation ,convicted felons,whomever in whatever age group is considered fit for duty.
When you are willing to force your family member to go to war to protect everyones freedoms then you have both the freedom and the right to voice these opinions about someones perceived cowardice, Then and only then.
I'm sure you people that are so quick to espouse your opinions about this individual don't agree with this post but this opinion comes from a Veitnam era veteran with a service-connected disability.
JUST MY HUMBLE OPINION on the subject.

Wayne

[cgallery]

but step and think of what happened in wwII. those who fought in the german army, anyone that can be found alive despite their age & health condition, are charged with a crime against humanity.

Only those accused of crimes against humanity were charged and continue to be sought. The rank and file were not charged or prosecuted.

[paintandbodtman]

Only those accused of crimes against humanity were charged and continue to be sought. The rank and file were not charged or prosecuted.

In todays war we see rank and file taking the heat and being prosucuted for following orders and the commanding officers getting a slap on the wrist and continuing with their careers.

[Stytooner]

Everyone in this thread has been exercising their freedom just as this guy did. He had the freedom to disagree and he did so. He did not have the freedom to choose not to deploy. His oath and promise should have been fulfilled, but since he choose not to honor either of those, then he is not officer material anyway.

A real officer would have been concerned that the men under him did not break any rules and carried out their assigned duties. He is only concerned with himself and should be booted to the curb. End of story.

In the chain of command, it is fine to have a desenting opinion and even healthy sometimes. It's another thing entirely when your nation asks you to fulfill your obligation and you choose not to cause you don't like it. Compounded by the fact the the nation was at war when you joined. Penalties are typically much stiffer during war times than during peace times because the consequences of actions or inactions are more dire. The laws are in place to have him terminated, so I think he's getting off rather easy for desertion.

[ragswl4]

Just another sign of our times. Lets not make him responsibile for his decision to join nor his decision to deploy. When one volunteers in to the military service it is for a set length of time due to enlistment contract or ROTC or whatever other stipulations may have been made at the time of joining. Officers have to also commint for a certain term but once they are career officers I believe they have the right to resign at some point. I doubt that this LT had fullfilled his time requirement. I am not at all surprised that he was let off so easily while others make the ultimate sacrifice or loose limbs or return with other dibilitating injuries. Not only does he make me want to puke so do the officers that let him off.

I will bet you that any enlisted person who does the same will find themselves in the stockade or brig in short order. We have been sliding downhill for some time and the slope is only getting steeper.

You would be hard pressed to find a Marine that would do this.

Ragswl4
USN Retired.

PS: I have been against the Iraq war from the beginning but were I currently in the military I would serve as ordered as I did in Viet Nam.

[Russianwolf]

Doing a bit of research on this.



1) The Lt. volunteered to serve in Afghanistan upon receiving his orders. The place we were actually fighting Terrorist and their supports.

2) He joined in 2003, The Iraq invasion was in March 2003 but we don't know when his service began exactly (I wasn't able to find it at least).

3) In doing this he claims that he was refusing to follow and unlawful order because the war in Iraq was unlawful.

4) When he refused to deploy, he admitted that if the Army decided to punish him for standing up for his principles he was willing to serve the time.

That doesn't sound like a coward to me. He didn't flee to Canada as some "deserters" have done when their time was up but they were ordered to redeploy despite their wishes to rejoin their lives. (We don't have an "All Volunteer Army" at the moment. We have an "All Volunteer Entry Army".) He stayed at his command and faced the music.

I'm just glad that when I served, I didn't have to make a decision like the Lt. had to. If I was still in the service my job wouldn't have put me into his situation either as my job was Russian Intel. But if I were put in that spot, I think I would have made the same move as the Lt. did. It wouldn't be the only time I had a run in with the chain of command for using my brain first.

[Slik Geek]

...because the war in Iraq was unlawful.

I'm really not trying to stir things up... but several posts have zeroed in on the claim that the war in Iraq was unlawful. Based upon what? If you consult the documentation (in this context the U.N. cease fire agreement from the Desert Storm operation), it appears that the action taken for the second invasion was allowed under that agreement signed by Iraq, and hence doesn't appear "unlawful" (if I'm understanding the assertion properly).

Given this background, you would have to believe that Desert Storm was unlawful in order to conclude that the follow-up war was unlawful.

[crokett]

Be careful guys. This thread is sliding towards a political discussion. Whether or not the Iraq war was/is unlawful is best left to another forum, or you can argue it in one of the social groups. The important point is the lieutenant says it was and therefore refused to deploy. The Army saw it differently and court-martialed him.

[Black wallnut]

I agree with Crokett! Please move along. If you feel like discussing this here take it to a social group please.