The White Feather
By streiff Posted in User Blogs — Comments (35) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Lieutenant Ehren Watada has declined to deploy to Iraq with his unit, 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division.
According to Lieutenant Watada he is refusing to deploy because
"it is my conclusion as an officer of the armed forces that the war in Iraq is not only morally wrong but a horrible breach of American law.
Although I have tried to resign out of protest, I will be forced to participate in a war that is manifestly illegal. As the order to take part in an illegal act is ultimately unlawful as well, I must as an officer of honor and integrity refuse that order."
Read on.
When this guy was first brought to my attention, my initial thought was that his unit is probably much better off for his absence. Serving on a deployment in peacetime is tough enough without putting up with weak sisters, wimps, and snivelers. I can't imagine deploying to a combat zone with this guy in tow.
Regardless on one's feelings on the war and its genesis, one has a high burden to meet to make the case that the war in Iraq is illegal under US law. Congress voted to authorize the use of force and has voted some half-dozen times since then to specifically appropriate funding for the war and an order to deploy with your unit to Iraq must be considered lawful.
No, the issue here is simply one of character.
Unlike Pablo Paredes who enlisted in 2000 and can at least make a colorable claim to have opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning, Watada cannot.
Lieutenant Watada was commissioned in June 2003. Three months after the war had begun. I suppose it is possible that Watada was oblivious to the fact that a war was underway when he accepted his commission. Or that he has undergone some crisis of conscience in the intervening three years.
Rather his objection seems to be tied more closely to being retained on active duty, rather than being allowed to transfer to the Army Reserve, in December 2006 because his unit was preparing to ship out to Iraq. In short, it is very difficult to assign any honorable motive to Watada's actions.
as it sounds do you?
"criticizing our elected leaders is certainly a crime"
I'm pretty sure that criticizing our elected leaders is a protected constitutional right - even for those in the military.
And I hear they take chains of command seriously in the armed forces.
His command should go through the motions of deploying him. If he resists he should be charged with desertion.
At the least his conduct is unbecoming of an officer, and at worst it is an assault on the morale of the men being deployed in his unit. They don't need this BS distraction while they are saying goodbye to their families and getting ready.
I hope someone at JAG considers giving him a new deployment, like to that little resort in KS.
is not a democracy. A soldier cannot criticize his company commander or his battalion commander, why should he be able to criticize his commander in chief? It is inculcated in every soldier in BCT that you are not allowed to publicly criticize your leaders (aside from specific channels for venting grievances) and that you are not allowed to use your grade or position to endorse or decry an official or a policy.
on the one hand his unit will probably be better off without him, but it is hard to attach any kind of honor to his position.
I wonder how he's going to feel facing several years at the US Disciplinary Barracks, Ft. Leavenworth Kansas turning big rocks into small rocks.
And then when he gets out he can try finding a decent job with that little Red Wagon dragging around behind him Maybe CNN will hire him.
When one enters the military one gives up certain rights. It is ironic that those who defend this country give up some rights to do it, but it is to their credit that they do.
The commentor you are replying to is entirely correct. A member of the military does not have the right as a member of the military to critize his chain of command. The Lt. in question knew what he was doing when he articulated that his actions were the actions of an army officer, not as a private citizen.
His statements make him accountable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The code (and the loss of certain rights inherent) are recognized by and upheld by SCOTUS. In fact, SCOTUS has nearly always deflected cases arising from the UCMJ, prefering the military to run its own show on military law matters dealing with military members.
well I'll be your right. It seems that it is particularly restrictive for commisoned rather than enlisted officer (articles 88, 89 ,91 of usmc seem to be the relevant ones for others interested).
Bloggers of both parties should watch out for this, there seems to be some speculation that it could apply to retired commisioned officers as well.
by the profoundly stupid.
That issue was addressed by the courts around the turn of the century.
Not according to Lt. Col. Michael Davidson:
Contemptuous Speech Against the President (See page 4 and note 41)
Is he profoundly stupid? I don't know him personally so I can't vouch either way.
My Dad was a retired Army Major and always felt that the rules applied to him, retired or not. He always felt some of the retired general "talking heads" ought to be recalled and face court martial --- and he died before Iraq and General Zinni et al. Had he lived he would have had apoplexy over the recent goings on. He rests in Arlington today and is probably spinning in his grave fast enough to change the local DC magnetic field :-)
reading the article it doesn't look like he is but it seems that you might be.
However, let's look at some facts. In 1964, Barry Goldwater-- a officer in the Air National Guard -- ran for president and said some unkind things about the Commander in Chief.
Lindsay Graham is a colonel in the Army Reserve and he made some pretty bad things about his Commander in Chief.
Enough is enough. You've been making these sorts of comments ever since you registered. Go away.
about that rule (not criticizing the President) sounds dangerously close to something you'd expect in a dictatorship. At the least as long as they are not in uniform (or giving the impression that they are speaking officially) soldiers should have the same political rights as all citizens when it comes to disagreeing with elected officials. During the Civil War Lincoln was routinely criticized by the Union troops (and davis by the CSA forces). I don't see any harm in it as long as they are speaking as individuals not as soldiers.
Did you know that soldiers also don't get to choose where they live?
My word, it's like a Trail of Tears every day in some parts of the military...
of the pathetic state of education in America.
They voluntarily cede this right in the name of good order and discipline. A soldier need follow all legal orders regardless of the man inhabiting the White House. The tradition of the citizen-soldier is a long an fruitful one, and has staved off any potential Caesars. The attempts by serving or recently retired soldiers to enter politics have frequently been problematic, namely in the case of McClellan and MacArthur. There is a reason George Marshall didn't vote. Besides, there exist ample channels to report problems with a soldier's chain of command.
that it is punishable under the UCMJ your point of view makes sense. When you consider that your point of view constitutes a felony, then maybe it doesn't make a lot of sense.
with regard to elected officials. The exact wording of Article 88 of the UCMJ says: "contemptous words" used against the President, Vice-president and a list of other public officials.
It is not illegal to criticize those officials, in fact the right to do so in a political discussion is specifically protected by Article 88:
"If not personally contemptuous, ad-verse criticism of one of the officials or legislatures named in the article in the course of a political discussion, even though emphatically expressed, may not be charged as a violation of the article.
Similarly, expressions of opinion made in a purely private conversation should not ordinarily be charged.
Public political activities for members of the US military are also restricted. The short version is: generally do not be in uniform at a political gathering or use your affiliation with the US military to further a political movement.
As for this young Lt - I agree with the post. Wait for him to miss movement and then put him in prison. For conscientious objectors in general: make them medics or corpsmen. Those are non-combatants, so their collective consciences can rest easy - but they still have to go to combat.
I searched for him in the Grad database and he wasn't there. If he was a West Pointer I can assure you that General Robert E. Lee himself would come down from heaven to smite this coward. He's still an Army officer nonetheless.
Duty. Honor. Country. I can't see how this guy upheld any of those three.
Cindy and Lieutenant Wasabi will fall in love, and have little coward babies, and perhaps move to the Left Bank of Paris. One of the children will be named Damien, and will grow to become Senator of Massachussetts.
from the linked article:
"Watada, who turns 28 today, did not tell his mother he had joined the Army until after he signed enlistment papers in March 2003 just before he graduated from Hawaii Pacific University. He reported for boot camp in June."
If his name ended up on any unit trophies, there probably filing them off as we speak...
someone had said OCS. If so I'm curious how he only had a little over three years before he could REFRAD. I thought the standard for ROTC and West Point was four, is it different for OCS because the Army didn't pay for his school?
Yes and no.
Your point is that they go to combat. The Lt. in question has no qualms about combat, just combat that seems illegal to him. This wouldn't solve the problem in his case.
I was a medic when I was still enlisted. The "heal" (or treatment) side of the equation is on the same level as the need to "protect" one's patient.
My desire to heal my patients was on par with my dedication to kill any sob who threatened them. While I technicaly didn't aggress the enemy in offensive operations, I don't think a pacifist would have been helpful to my patients during extractions under fire.
In fact, medics stopped openly wearing the armbands a long time ago, and started carrying the M-16 over a side arm. The medic corps is non-combatant, but not for pacifists anymore (unless they are stateside in a MEDAC facility) imho.
that medics were carrying arms. I receive regular Law of Armed Conflict training and we are always briefed that medical personnel are non-combatants.
If medics are, in fact, carrying rifles and not wearing the identifying armbands then they are combatants and will lose the special protection provided to them under the Geneva Conventions. In the GWOT I can see the utility of this, particularly since the enemy are entirely unlawful combatants themselves. However, if we return to "traditional" warfare vs. say: China or North Korea I would be opposed to this policy.
I'm also curious: are we no longer painting the red cross on helicopters and field ambulances? Or, if we are utilizing red-cross marked vehicles to transport combatants then aren't we in violation of the Geneva Conventions for doing so? Even if we are not violating the conventions, transporting combatants on a red-cross marked vehicle will make that vehicle a legitimate military target. Not a good practice IMHO.
I'll have to research the conventions (they are extensive) but I'll make a follow-up post when I find the answer.
for some time.
medical personnel are, in fact, allowed to carry weapons for self defense per article 22 of the Conventions.
Art. 22. The following conditions shall not be considered as depriving a medical unit or establishment of the protection guaranteed by Article 19: (1) That the personnel of the unit or establishment are armed, and that they use the arms in their own defence, or in that of the wounded and sick in their charge.
However, the wear of the armband does appear to be proscribed by the conventions in article 40
Art. 40. The personnel designated in Article 24[medical personnel] and in Articles 26 and 27 shall wear, affixed to the left arm, a water-resistant armlet bearing the distinctive emblem [of the red cross], issued and stamped by the military authority.
Of course, the US military in general does not comply with some portions of the conventions by the "letter of the law." For instance, the Conventions require POW's to provide their unit as a form of identification while the Code of Conduct does not. The US doesn't recognize this because all military personnel can be identified from their service# and the unit designation is not required.
I don't understand why we aren't complying with the armband requirement, but failing to do so will not deprive you of your rights under the conventions as medical personnel. I suppose it will increase the risk (in conventional combat against a law abiding enemy) of being accidentally shot by the enemy, particularly if the medic is also armed. However, medics already take tremendous risk to rescue the wounded and I have nothing but respect for all medics and corpsmen.
In any case, I stand corrected and apologize for making an uneducated post. I also agree with your assessment of the young LT in question, which I didn't mention in the above post.
Good points all. Here is my read on it all. (By the way, after my commission I provided lectures on rules of war as they pertained to medical concerns. Your understanding of the rules of warfare are correct, but I'd like to add context).
I can only speak on the U.S. Army as that was my service.
Medics have indeed given up protection by not wearing armbands. As you point out, it is because we are not engaging enemies with western values anymore (like Germany for example). A red cross on a soldier fit in nicely with the Soviet / Warsaw Pact doctrine of aggressing support troops and leaders over and above combat troops. It made our medics targets.
I disagree with you about China and N. Korea. In fact it was China and N. Korea that started us down the road of withdrawing the armband "protection" sentiment. Vietnam cemented it.
As to ambulances and medevac, you might note (if you look closely) that ambulances (dating from the 1010s and 886s to the modern humvees) have red cross panels that can be open or closed depending on the situation. They are now opened more to identify themselves to friendly forces, and closed to protect them from being targets of opportunity in the face of the enemy.
Like you I am a purist. I proudly wore my armband because I felt it did two things. One, it identified me to those who might need my help. Two, because I was took good care of my guys and was willing to take risks it brought me the kind of attention that gets you cover fire when you need it. A caveat though. When I deployed I didn't wear it. The white square was bad for concealment purposes and could give away our position. Two, I didn't trust the enemy in the types of places I deployed to. (I was wearing my armband in St. Croix after Hurricane Hugo and was shot at twice: Once trying to reach a food poisoning victim and once while being taken through a small town to treat the local water). I was shot in Panama. Other places I deployed to I wasn't shot at, but was in a position to be scared anyway.
Medics have carried rifles for as long as I was in (mid to late eighties until the mid 90's). As a conventional (medic) soldier I received training on the M-16 and .45 Colt. Later I was moved to a different kind of unit because of an uncommon civilian vocational skill I had. At that point I was armed with a weapon of my choice that could be small enough to carry with my other equiptment. Not having a special ops background I chose what I knew, the .45 (but a civilian model with double action). The guys on my team trained me on it. They also provided my protection, so my puny little pistol was only going to get fired if they went down and the enemy was so close that things had gone to hell.
So you are right. We do give up the legal protection. It was done because the bad guys stopped recognizing the law a long time ago. Like you I think it is unfortunate. It's the only way to do it today though.
I think the guy should be allowed to say what he did. I also believe that he fully understands the consequences of his actions. As such, he said his piece, take him out and shoot him and let's get on with the balance of the day.
One point I failed to mention was the distinction between a pistol (a defensive weapon with limited range) and a rifle.
Army medics carry rifles because, though they are technicaly offensive weapons, modern combat lethality ranges make a rifle more useful for protection. Medics are still supposed to perform in offensive actions as combat support, and not as active combatants. To preserve their patients (and themselves) they often have to make the decision to fire. (This is not different from the WW2 story of the chaplain that manned a machine gun to protect his unit that was being overrun. It can be a fine line between combatant and defensive combat support).
Medics also still follow many other honorable and "traditional" codes. We treat the enmy soldier medicaly as if he is our own. We also help to ensure that POWS and detainees are receiving proper care.
Some even follow the greatest and non-practical code of all. Dying with or being captured with a patient rather than leave him. Two great men in Somalia did that for their patient (even though they weren't medics). Their sacrifice embodies what a medic is, and in my mind they are honorary medics, if they would accept that humble offer next to the already more than elite titles they already have.
The modern "combat lifesaver" is an infantry soldier with some basic medic training (IVs for example) who is a great medical force multiplier for our medics today.
I guess my protection is worthless from an armband. It only protects me by having the potential to legaly punish someone who has already shot me (and it isn't likely we're getting the guys anyway). I relied on the protection of those around me. They knew I was competant and cared about them, and knew I would take any risk to get them home alive. No soldier will let a good medic run out to no man's land without the best cover fire if they know he would save their but someday. In fact, soldiers sometimes have had to restrain a medic from getting to his patient because the fire was too intense.
Was this part of his statement:
The war in Iraq violates our democratic system of checks and balances. It usurps international treaties and conventions that by virtue of the Constitution become American law. The wholesale slaughter and mistreatment of the Iraqi people with only limited accountability is not only a terrible moral injustice, but a contradiction to the Army's own Law of Land Warfare. My participation would make me party to war crimes. Watada
There are so many fallacious assertions, I do not know where to start. What violates our democratic system, the joint resolution of Congress? Which international treaties and conventions became law by virtue of our Constitution? Sorry I missed that in the thousands of times I read it. What about the 300,000 people killed by Saddam, was that not wholesale slaughter? Finally, how is this a "contradiction" to the Army's law of land warfare?
The only thing criminal here is his conduct.
See you at the Army's Kansas Geologist Training Institute.
I have always felt that medics, corpsmen were among the most courageous of our servicemen. I also have great respect for chaplains and pararescuemen (PJ's and their sister-service equivalents) since their primary job is to preserve the lives of others (to include the enemy) and they do so at great risk to their own lives.
I will never slight any of those folks - or allow them to buy their own beer either, if I know who they are.
I also realize that current combat operations are being fought against an enemy that has no respect for any law of any kind. I know that the armband will not protect anyone from criminals.
In the context of conventional war, however I wonder how a soldier will be able to tell the difference between an enemy solider with a rifle and an enemy medic with a rifle. It may not make a difference, since many of the nations we have fought haven't honored the red cross even when it was worn.
So, I suppose in balance - we have decided that the ability to protect yourself and the patient vs. an enemy who won't honor the protections of the red-cross outweighs the importance of clearly identifying medical personnel. It probably will end up being the right choice.
Thanks for your service.
to see where this man went to school. If it is the USMA they should be able to get their money back (not sure how it works for ROTC) when they discharge him. Additionally, the article said that until he misses movement he has committed no crime. Lending your name, rank and position to a political position is a no-no and criticizing our elected leaders is certainly a crime.