how do you feel about a soldier refusing to go to war?

Question

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.

full article:http://hotzone.yahoo.com/b/hotzone/blogs19056

i'd encourage you to read the full article before you make a decision either way. regardless of how you feel, he does make some good points. i'd paste it here but it's kind of long.

there are some extremely good answers for both sides of the issue and it's going to be difficult to choose..

vote it up kids, i'm not going to be the one to decide this.

Answer 1

Regardless of how he feels about the war, he made an oath to follow orders from the Commander in Chief George W Bush. He will probably face prison time and then be dishonorably discharged.

Answer 2

This guy makes me really angry. He went to college for four years watching the Global War on Terrorism - if he didn't want to go to Iraq, he shouldn't have gotten a commission in the Army. Why woud you join the military if you think war in general is illegal?? EVERYONE who joined after September 11th knew darn well they were going to go fight somewhere, so there is no excuse for trying to back out of a deployment. My husband enlisted in the Army in 2002, spent 15 months in Iraq in the first 20 months he was in the Army, then came home for about a year and left again and spent another year over there. This summer he'll be gone again. He'll have spent more than 3 years out of 5 in Iraq. No, Iraq is not a picnic (for him or our family), but he KNEW WHEN HE ENLISTED that it was probably going to happen. If he was that against going, he'd have found a different job. People who try to skate out of it after they've already joined the Army make me sick.

If Lt Watada had a legitimate concern about the war and a legitimate excuse for not going, he should have kept it quiet. By bringing the media into the situation, he not only broke other regulations concerning his military service by publicly speaking out against his commanders and the White House, but he also managed to make himself look like a fool. If he had a real reason that could keep him from deploying, the Army would have considered it. He doesn't, and I hope they throw him in jail.

Answer 3

He does bring up some very valid points. He only joined up because he, like a lot of other people, was fooled into believing that Saddam Hussain had weapons of mass destruction and was a supporter of terrorism. He could argue he was recruited under false pretences. On the other hand having joined up he has a duty to obey any lawful order from a senior officer. Just because the war itself may arguably be unlawful the order to deploy at this stage may not be. The troops are there, having been put there they can't just pack up and go home, it's not that simple.

My step son fought in Iraq and thank god came back in one piece. I'm very relieved to say his time was up in the army before he could be sent back there. I can completely understand First Lt. Watada's reasoning. I'm glad I'm not one of the people responsible for deciding if he should go to prison for it, it's a very tough issue.

Answer 4

What in the world????

I would not even walk in the same general direction as this man. He is a disgrace to the uniform of all the worlds military!!!

We joined an ARMY. Soldiers fight, Officer Lead those soldiers.

What was he expecting???

I hope he goes to Jail!!! His life is going to suck eggs for the rest of his life. Because he was a coward. No company should ever hire this SCUM.

He can blow all that illegal crap right up his &*&*. Using his thinking no war America has ever fought in was just except the War of 1812 when britian came back.

Answer 5

When you join a volunteer Military service, you go in knowing you may be asked to go to war. As a LT he is making about 6000.00 a month, with base pay BAH money for food, college defer ed loans or loans paid off depending on his contract. When you join the Service you raise your right hand and swear to defend the constitution of the United States, from all enemies foreign and domestic. So he came in received a great many benefits, and had a understanding that he may be ordered to a combat tour.
He is a soldier, sworn to do his duty. he is not a a body of law, he is not the congress, he is an implement of the US government, just like I am. Why is it fair for me at 40 with a two year old Son to go over there seven times now. While this guy gets to keep his money his commission and doesn't "feel" that he is doing anything wrong by staying here.
The very least he could do, is go over and support, his Brothers and sisters in Arms. There are positions in the Military that do not require you to fight. The basic deal is this. He signed a contract, the contract states you will follow your law full orders or face UCMJ. (Uniform Code of Military Justice). It is not his place to question the President his boss. It is his place to follow law full orders.

Answer 6

I think it is important that the military does not become the mindless tool of the government but still maintains willingness to face penalties for civil disobediance. This type of civil disobedience can serve as a check on any govenment that would use the military to repress its people. With that in mind Watada was free to make the choice he did and he did it in a way that was not as cowardly. I do however think he is wrong. He will face the consequences for his actions. This is not a case of him being asked to shoot american citizens or some other unconstitutional action. He is making political judgements based on incomplete information that is not appropriate for him to make.

Answer 7

So are you saying that people who join the military lose their right to freedom of speech under the very United States Constitution that they swear to uphold and defend? That they become yes-men and yes-women for not only their superior officers, but also their President, no matter how morally or ethically wrong their orders are? If the President orders them to jump off a high building do they have to do it?

Sounds like somebody's idea of hell to me.

Answer 8

He both signed a contract and gave his oath to follow orders of his commander in chief. It does not matter if he agrees or disagrees, because of his promises made. His opinion on the matter is utterly irrelevant, when he gave he word it was without any conditions.

Now, because he is an oath breaker he is going to suffer the consequences. In the short term a court martial is most likely and possibly prison. In the long term he is going to hit other snags. I, as a manager and business owner, would not hire him because I do not believe he is able to keep his word. I would not trust him and many others will feel the same way. He should not have joined the military if he was unwilling to follow orders.

Answer 9

I do not have to read the article. When he signed his name on the dotted line he knew that this was a possiblilty. When he raised his right hand and swore on oath he knew this was a possibility. He was more than happy to reap the benefits of military service (housing stipends, paid educations, ect ,ect ,ect) and now that he has been called on to go in support of an action that both his Commander-in-Cheif AND Congress have signed off on, he thinks he can change his mind...

At the very least he deserves an dishonorable discharge as well as repay the government for his education and whatnot, and really should spend some time in the stockade.

Answer 10

He should be presented his white feather then stood against the wall and shot! He is no heroe. He is a coward.
Congress voted for the war, the President authorized. So he has no grounds to claim it is illegal. His oath of enlistment "obey lawful orders" well it is lawful on all levels.
If this were 1918 he would have been shot months ago.

Answer 11

ok, enable's research your question. the way the U. S. conducts wars merely going to a warfare you may want to disagree with can in no way be linked with "warfare Crimes". warfare crimes are particular, merely scuffling with an unpopular warfare isn't a warfare crime, inspite of the indisputable fact that as an celebration burning a civilian village not housing adverse warring parties can be a warfare crime, inspite of the indisputable fact that it would want to also be a contravention of the Uniform Code of protection stress habit. Any officer who issued such an order might want to be eligible for courts martial, infantrymen in strong moral experience might want to not and does not oftentimes stick with such an order. merely placed there is actual no challenge that a member of the protection stress can declare they don't look to be deploying because they don't favor to commit a warfare crime. as a thanks to commit a warfare crime you should do something in the course of the deployment that violates the guidelines of warfare. the U. S. is at the moment prosecuting each soldier with even a contact of a chance of wondering about violating the guidelines of warfare. It merely would not logically stand as even a achievable excuse for refusing deployment. As a warfare veteran i'm of the opinion that if someone is contained in the protection stress and would not favor to do their duty and serve in a warfare zone that they ought to easily refuse and make no excuses. the protection stress will courts martial, dishonorably discharge them and probably supply them penitentiary time yet it truly is the alternative they're making and those are the consequences of that decision. a minimum of those few infantrymen who do not have it interior of them to do their duty might want to locate the moral braveness to be honest and easily say what they recommend and pay the fee as all of us do in existence with our judgements. for a definition: American historic previous New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, third version - Cite This source warfare crimes Acts dedicated by infantrymen or authorities officials, both contained in the approach a warfare or in bringing on a warfare, that violate the customs of conflict. Examples of warfare crimes include atrocities dedicated hostile to civilians (see My Lai bloodbath) and the mistreatment of prisoners of warfare. After global warfare II, twenty-2 Nazi leaders were tried at Nuremberg by the efficient Allies, and twelve were sentenced to lack of life for warfare crimes. (See Nuremberg trials.)