First Lieutenant Ehren Watada still refuses Iraq deployment orders, calling the war illegal. A six-year prison term could result. Preliminary hearings are set for Thursday.
First Lt. Ehren Watada, a 28-year-old Hawaii native, is the first commissioned officer in the U.S. to publicly refuse deployment to Iraq. He announced last June his decision not to deploy on the grounds the war is illegal.
Lt. Watada was based at Fort Lewis, Washington, with the Army's 3rd (Stryker) Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division. He has remained on base, thus avoiding charges of desertion.
He does, however, face one count of "missing troop movement" and four counts of "conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman." If convicted, he faces up to six years in prison.
Kevin Sites interviews First Lt. Ehren Watada:
"Sure, I felt, well, in a general sense I felt that when we put our trust in the government, when we put our lives in their hands, that is a huge responsibility. And we also say that "when we put our lives in your hands, we ask that you not abuse that trust; that you not take us to war over flimsy or false reasons; that you take us to war when it is absolutely necessary." Because we have so much to lose, you know - the soldiers, our lives, our limbs, our minds and our families - that the government and the people owe that to us."
This is an excellent, moving, interview. Lt. Watada is both articulate and honest in his reason for standing up and saying “No, I won’t go.” I sometimes wonder if it doesn’t take more guts to take his stand than to sacrifice your life, and the lives of others, for fear of facing the consequences or being called a coward.
My prediction is that the government will make this whole trial go away as quickly and quietly as possible. The last thing they want (or need) is a bigger spotlight showing the illegalities and lies upon which this war was based, especially by one of their own. I see a quiet dishonorable discharge in Lt. Watada’s future, which I also hope he fights.
We’ll be watching…
Read Lt. Watada’s interview here.
(via C&L)
11 comments:
Coming soon. . . .
Office of Public Integrity.
So I wanna know whose been reading my FT newspapers and my NY magazines. Finally.
Bobby Kennedy Revisited.
And there was also Suzanne Swift.
How about the staggering ego and selfishness it takes to make someone else go in your place?
Just asking.
I don’t know, RTO, why don’t we ask the president?
I don’t think this young man is saying he wouldn’t go to war. He’s saying he won’t go to THIS war because it is bogus. You say you all are allowed to question military authority, that you’re all not mindless robots. He’s questioning it and has decided, like the rest of America, that this is Bush’s personal war, that we were tricked into going to war, and that he can no longer trust or believe his commander in chief.
This is no longer about how the soldiers feel, or will it hurt their morale or whatever. It’s become so much bigger than that since Bush’s speech. Lt. Watada is not alone in his opinions. Even military leaders are telling Bush this war is a cluster with no end in sight.
We ARE going to attack Iran and Syria. This is an ESCALATION, not a surge. Bush works for the American people, and the American people have spoken. How long do you think you’d keep your job if you looked your boss in the eyes and told him to f*ck off, that you were going to do whatever you wanted?
With Bush’s speech, he told America to f*ck off, he’s going to do what the hell he wants to do and he’s going to use our sons and daughters, husbands and wives, to do it. And if we don’t like it, well we can just kiss his rosy red ass because he’s the decider.
When we attack Iran/Syria, this turns into a whole new ballgame. This will bring an attack down on America, the likes of which we’ve never seen.
Bush’s escalation puts a bigger bulls-eye on America than we could have ever imagined.
That you may have to fight a war you disagree with is a chance you take when you sign up. If you couldn't do it than you just plain don't sign up. If you didn't consider it, well that doesn't speak well to one's judgment. And this guy's supposed to be an officer. Judgment is his basic job description.
No one has to follow an illegal order. Mobilization and deployment are not, and cannot be, illegal acts. One also cannot simply offer up a legal opinion to justify disobeying. (I've yet to find anyone willing to offer a solid grounds for illegality of the war anyhow. Hard to make a case when the charge itself can't even be articulated.)
At least in the Civil War he'd have had to pay someone $300 to go in his place.
I wasn't tricked. I still believe in it, wholeheartedly. It is not a case of no end in sight. The sad thing I see is that a leader has been forced into the role of politician, aping the opinions of the majority.
I can't come up with a single metric, by which this has not been both the most bloodless and most successful set of military campaigns in history, can you?
The problem, as I see it, are unreasonable expectations. Everyone wants this over faster than it can be done. Only one country ever developed a democratic form of government and the security apparatus to defend it in less than 20 years. The US did it in 19 years (and we went through three different governments, fought a war for independence, two rebellions, a native insurgency, quashed a military coup, and Congress was run out of town by disaffected soldiers in that time--quite a cluster, huh?)
So since you can't forecast success, which is nearly inevitable--only one thing could queer the deal for everyone--I'm not sure I'm going to trust your crystal ball when it comes to attacking Iran or Syria. It could happen. It might not. All kinds of things happen in wars. Not for nothing did Clausewitz describe "the fog of war."
I really wish people would quit wringing their hands over us. It sounds saccharine and insincere, whether it is or not, and it negates the choices that we made to be here. I decided to do this. And he only thing that will make me regret it is if we decide to give up.
But with all due respect, this war isn’t about you anymore. Maybe it never should have been. I agree that the hand-wringing probably sounds contrite, even though I believe that the needless death of our military personnel is and always has been a sincere concern for the Americans who weigh in on the subject.
And the illegitimacy of this war is laid out in the Keith Olbermann video posted above the Bush speech post. You don’t have to lie to wage a legitimate war. You don’t have to instill fear and propaganda every time you open your mouth to wage a legitimate war. And if this war isn’t happening fast enough for America then you need look no further than Rumsfeld, who stated that “this war would take a few weeks, perhaps a few months”. Another lie to get the American public’s support.
But let’s take the soldiers out of the equation. You’re right, you all signed up for it. Granted, you were lied to too, but whatever. This war IS going to spill over in to Iran and Syria. I don’t need a crystal ball to know it, Bush said it.
"To succeed in Iraq begins with addressing Iran and Syria. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."
That was Bush’s way of letting America know that this war is about to move beyond Iraq’s borders. And nobody needs a crystal ball to know what a Pandora’s box this will be. Bush just escalated the war, when all of America, and all of the wisdom surrounding the president, said this is a bad idea and it is not what America wants.
The bottom line is, America doesn’t want this war. Your president wants this war. That makes this war your president’s war. You are now fighting for him, not the American people. Whether you agree or disagree with the reasons doesn’t really matter. The bottom line is, you are now risking your life for one man. Not for America. Not for our safety. Not for our freedom. You are fighting for the special interests of one man. And while America stands behind the people fighting, we can’t use this as an excuse to let a maniacal leader run rampant over our rights and the Constitution.
America no longer supports what the president is making you do. So you see the conundrum. If we sound contrite it’s because it’s very difficult to oppose the war, and the man waging the war, but not the people fighting the war. We don’t want this. We spoke loud and clear in November. And yet we are being ignored and lied to by the very people we employ.
You cannot expect America to support this man and his grandiose war plans any longer. And that includes not being able to support anyone who is in like-thinking with him. If that includes some of the people fighting the war, then so be it.
I would like to know why you’re fighting. Why do you lay your lives on the line, and what you hope to accomplish?
I'd disagree that it ever was about us. If history is any guide it certainly won't be, especially after we eventually do come home.
You've got a concept of "needless" that is clearly at odds with my own. How about the (far greater number) of truly needless deaths on our nation's highway's each year?
Fear is part of politics. There isn't a one of them that doesn't use it. The reason is psychology. Humans are naturally conservative (little c) in that they tend not to act until something is perceived as a "crisis" so we blow all kinds of things out of proportion just to get other people to see it as important as we do ourselves. You disagree that Al Gore is "playing on our fears" with the global warming stuff?
"Illegitimate." Is this a legal charge? I thought we were talking about illegality. Illegitimacy is an opinion and may be honestly held on either hand. Illegality can be proven in a court. So I'd ask again what the charge is. Without stipulation, I'd also point out that lying, in the manner alledged, is not a crime.
Rumsfeld: But he was right. It only took three weeks. Comes down to definitions again, see? We don't count the occupations of Germany and Japan in the time frame of WWII. If we did, we'd still have a multiple choice as to the end of that conflict, ranging from 1948 to 1986. Could even concatenate the Cold War with it as it was a direct consequence. The word "war," like the word "love" is often thrown about carelessly and with out due regard to context is often mistaken, else how might we interpret your statement regarding "loving cows." Yes it's semantics. Politics is rhetoric, which is semantics.
Escalation: This war (see I just did it too) is likely to escalate, surge or surge, stay or leave. I can guarantee an escalation if we leave. The difference being that we won't be part of it. How the guarantee? Saudi Arabia has already declared their intent to move into Iraq if we leave. They intend to defend their Sunni Arab brethren. Then it'll be SA vs. Iran inside Iraq. $5 a gallon gas and how about the relative safety of the average Iraqi in this case?
Not to mention that it'll also mean abandoning the Afghans about 12 months after that happens.
The President isn't making me do anything. I know a handful of troops that are politically opposed to the war. They are here, though because they signed up knowing they may have to go fight a war they didn't agree with. How's that for actual courage, in addition to devotion to duty and to their fellow soldiers. Watada, in my estimation, and in that of many of these guys, wouldn't recognize those last two values if he met them in his soup.
Why I fight: You've been to my blog and we've been talking about this topic for , what amonth? And you don't know? Or is this like "Why do you want to be President?" Do we all need to be able to articulate it in order to be seen as credible?
1979. RTO is 10 years old. Iranian students storm the US Embassy in Iran. Hold the embassy staff hostage for 444 days while an ineffective President makes one feeble and poorly vetted attempt to appear to be doing something about it (which, if we're being consistent, amounted to an illegal invasion of Iran).
1983: VBIEDS are used to bomb, first the US and French Embassies in Beiruit. A few months later hundreds of Marines are killed by a similar attack on thier barracks. A US President elects impotence in order to avoid stirring up regional problems. Some how grows a set a few years later in response to a Discotheque bombing in Spain, but that target was North Africa, and who cares about Africa....
1985: Robert Stetham, a US Navy diver is shot and dumped from the hjacked plane he'd been a passenger on because he "looked jewish." No action is taken.
1993: Task Force Ranger has to fight it's way out of a massive 28 hour long ambush in Mogadishu, Somalia. 18 dead servicemen and pictures of one of them being dragged through the streets behind a pickup truck (which only matters if the draggee is a gay Texan I guess) are not enough to elicit a response. (RTO Trainer, despite having been opposed to he intervention in Somalia, observed to his college classmates, "Perhaps we'll get serious about this now," and could not have been more wrong.)
2000: The USS Cole is attacked in an overt act of war. 16 Sailors are killed. Ludicrously the President elects to refer the matter to the FBI. (RTO trainer wonders openly how big the body count has to be before anyone takes this seriously.)
Why do I fight? Because we've been under attack for over 30 years and have done nothing about it until 2001. It is and has been and remains the right thing to do.
For a little extra context, I enlisted in 1994. I had just finished my BA in history. I turned 24 in Basic Training. Bill Clinton was President and I had concluded before this point that he was a dirtbag and wasn't likely to employ the US military in a way I'd probably agree with. I decided I could do my job anyway and enlisted.
Despite 18 Active Duty deployments over the following 6 years, I was not personally called up. I recall a lot of rhetoric in the press during this time about "broken force, stretched too thin, unable to meet commitments, not enough equipment, wrong equipment..." during this time too, so nothing's changed.
I agree that Gore may be using fear, but then again global warming is a real threat. Iraq wasn’t.
Lying may not be a crime, depending on what you’re lying about and to whom. The Reps. certainly considered it a crime when Clinton lied about a blowjob. They wanted to impeach Clinton because he lied. I want to return the favor.
I don’t understand what you think only took three weeks.
Saudi Arabia is in our bed. I doubt very seriously that we care if Saudi Arabia moves into Iraq. If SA were to pull all of it’s money out of the US, our economy would collapse. SA has much control in the US and in this administration.
I remember each and every incident of attack that you mentioned. And yes, both Rep. And Dem. Presidents did nothing by way of retaliation. So, in 2001, we finally decide to retaliate, except we go after a country that had absolutely nothing to do with the attack. You joined because it was the right thing to do. It would be an even better thing to do to go after the people who were actually responsible. This is not your fault, it’s the fault of your leaders.
I admire your convictions, I honestly do. I think you absolutely did the right thing. I just wish the president would utilize you in a more genuine manner.
I'll leave Global Warming as threat alone. Not enough space here.
Clinton lied in court after swearing to tell the truth. That's perjury which is a crime. They did impeach Clinton because he lied under oath. Arkansas also disbarred him because of it.
It only took three weeks to achieve every one of our military goals in Iraq.
If Saudi Arabia pulled all it's money out of the US, their economy would collapse. I think you overestimate the percentages they have invested. Not saying it wouldn't hurt. And you have the influence relationship between Saudi Arabia and the US backward. The history goes back to 1953, you should check into it.
Prior to 1989, there was at least one plausible excuse. In fact it was the one overriding fact of life from 1945 to that point. Since 1998, however, we've been having Cold War withdrawal, trying to behave as though the policies of that period should be still just as valid today. Stability as a policy end, Weinberger Doctrine, Containment; these things lead to such results as supporting dictators, not finishing conflicts (Korea and Gulf War as the prime examples, abandoning allies (like South Vietnam), and all the really nasty stuff that came with it. Funny thing too, is that the same people who once excoriated policy makers for the nastiness and abuses, today call themselves "realists" and want to continue the polices that lead to those results.
In addition, it's somehow become a bad thing to realize that a mistake has been made and to try then to correct it? I agree with my leaders, so you'd better start handing over my share of any "blame" (though I'll call it a badge). The war was never described as the war on 9/11 perpetrators, the war on bin Laden, the war on al Qaeda, or the war on selected bad guys. Its the war on terror. Terror has, and had, more sources than just the people who knocked down the Trade Towers. That's why we are also fighting in the Philippines, Colombia, the Horn of Africa, Indonesia.... Those battles just aren't making any headlines.
Else, when then are we going to pull out of (or maybe more the point, when will the American public demand that we pull out of) Bosnia, Korea, Egypt, Japan...? What makes the difference? Are these not about helping other nations toward a democratic and allied society? Why not out of Afghanistan? Are there not enough people shooting at us here, or just not enough doing so successfully?
I just wish you could at least perceive the genuineness of this, or even only the genuiness of the convictions, even if you still didn't agree with the how's when's and why's.
Post a Comment