What do you think about the Army Officer who is going on trial for refusing to serve in Iraq?

Question

You cannot pick and choose what deployment you want Mr RoadWarrior.

Answer 1

When he became an Army officer, he agreed that he would obey the orders of the President of the United States and the officers appointed over him. His actions are hypocritical -- he expects to receive the pay and other benefits that he is normally entitled to as a military member, but he has decided all by himself that he doesn't have to honor the contract that he made with the U.S. Government. His actions have dishonored himself, his unit, and the Army as a whole. He is NOT a hero. He is NOT a free-thinker. He is a coward who thinks he can wear the uniform of the U.S. Armed Forces, but only when it's convenient for him. He has renegged on his promise and deserves to spend several years rotting in Leavenworth.

Answer 2

I had just asked that question not too long ago.My opinion,Watada is a disgrace and a coward.This is a voluntary military.You dont chose who you fight or which battle you fight in.You are obligated to defend this country both foreign and domestic,it is the job of the military.If the little wimp didnt want to fight in a war,he should never have enlisted.He has a right to change his mind.But to publically side with the anti war movement,he is spitting in the face of this brothers fighting this war.You dont act in antiwar activity while wearing an Armed Forces Uniform.

Answer 3

I was an army officer in the Second World War. A real officer or soldier goes cheerfully and gladly wherever he's told to go. Soldiers are trained to fight. The right kind of soldier is anxious to put his training to use and to the test. I personally looked foreward to a good fight ( I was in the infantry ), and was disappointed if left out.
This " officer " should be locked up in a dark cage for many many years. Back one hundred years ago, it called for the firing squad. He volunteered for the service, he accepted a commission but he wants to sit out all that he was trained for.
Traitor and coward would not fit him. He's way below that.

Answer 4

If he was against the war and found it unconstitutional they why did he join the ARMY? Its unfortunate that because he is on the army he longer has the right to make that decision but again its a volunteer army and going in you know there is the possibility of war and that you will be forced to go. He deserves his punishment, at least this way he serves his three months and gets discharged. Now he doesn't have to go to war.

Answer 5

What I think is immaterial... the Court will decide if he is guilty of the charges of a) Missing Movement and b) Conduct Unbecoming of an Officer.

From what I've read, he's guilty of those charges, and he should do the punishment (4-10 years confinement)

There's no treason, no cowardice on his behalf... just stupidity and failure to follow his oath.

I think the Army should have just accepted his resignation... he's an OFFICER and doesn't have a minimum contract that I'm aware of. And from what I've read, he didn't go thru ROTC so he doesn't owe the Army for college.

Now onto those chimps who committed rape and murder are the ones who get lined up against the wall.

Answer 6

I'm sorry, but it is because he is an Army officer that his 'anti-war statements' really bother me, especially since he enlisted AFTER Iraq was first invaded. I don't care whether he 'believes them' or not ... he 'swore an oath' when he entered the service, and by 'refusing to serve in Iraq' he has violated that oath, and he deserves to go to prison and get a 'dishonorable discharge' ... which means that he won't ever be allowed to 'vote' or to hold a U.S. passport. I too am 'against the war' ... but even though I was raised as an 'Air Force Brat' I had the 'good sense' to know that I could never serve 'in the military' because that 'oath' requires them to 'follow orders' whether they be good ones or bad, and I believe that 'keeping one's promises' (oaths) is far more important to everyone than not 'wanting to fight' for whatever the 'real reason' is.

Answer 7

I agree the conquest of Iraq was unjustified. So were the conquests of Panama and Grenada. Leaders lie and leaders send soldiers off to fight unjust wars and leaders use military force recklessly. Anyone who's read a history book knows that. If your expectation is that you'll only be sent when and where you agree to go, then volunteer to sell Girl Scout cookies, but don't join the Army. He has to go to prison. It can't go down any other way. And if he's doing this to protest the war, then he should be prepared to accept the consequences with stoicism. But if he whines that he's legally justified and shouldn't be punished, then I won't be sending any cookies to his cell.

Answer 8

Before you hand your "fair" and "just" judgement on the guy, I suggest that you read the full story of the issue first. Know all of the facts before calling him a traitor who deserved to be shot or thrown to rot in jail.

He volunteered in the service at the time when the reasons for going to war in Iraq were clear and without question. After more than a year of the Iraqi invasion, the government admitted that there were no WMDs found in Iraq nor Iraq had anything to do with 9/11, which were the reasons given at the very beginning on why the war in Iraq was necessary. Then recently, he was called up. The guy felt that he had been deceived and lied to by the government. He indeed know the consequences if he refused to deploy to Iraq. So, he requested to be deployed to Afghanistan instead. This is the fact that most people don't know about. To flatly say that the guy refused to deploy is incorrect. He never evaded his responsiblity to deploy. He simply considered that it is morally correct to fight in Afghanistan rather than Iraq.

Answer 9

The UCMJ is very clear. His decision to make this public will force the Court to give him the maximum sentence as an example.

Our involvement in Iraq was ordered by the Commander in Chief of the military and approved by a vote in Congress. There is nothing "illegal" about it.

Answer 10

I think he should have chosen another line of work (or career), it is no different than a police offer refusing to go to the scene of a shoot out (like the one in LA), or an EMT refusing to go on a call to render medical help........ If you aren't going to do the job, & have reservations, fears, etc. that you can't overcome, ...you should be doing something else...especially when speaking of the military or police or fire , b/c your comrades count on you, and if you aren't "committed" you not only put yourself at risk - but you risk the lives of those counting on you. He should be a baker or something.