Wednesday, June 07, 2006

Theirs is not to reason why...

Well, the anti-war crowd has just gotten their latest useful idiot.

Leftenant Ehren Watada serving with the 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division - Stryker Brigade Combat Team in Ft. Lewis has publically stated his refusal to deploy with his men to Iraq.

The reasons given have varied a bit over the last few days: the war is illegal; the war is a violation of American law; the war is a violation of international law; he has "reservations" about the war; he doesn't want to be responsible for the breaking up of soldiers families and the death of soldiers.

Couple of things notable here: Watada (voluntarily) joined the Army in June of 2003. The current phase of the Iraq war started in March of 2003 -- three months before Watada joined up. This means he joined knowing that there was a war going on.

Watada has refused conscientious objector status, because, he says, he doesn't object to war, just to this war.

I can't even get angry here. I'm just terribly disappointed and a bit disgusted.

First, Watada volunteered to join the Army, during a war. And he volunteered to be Infantry. Then he volunteered to be an Infantry Officer. All during war-time.

The anti-war crowd is trumpeting his 'bravery', 'courage' and 'honor'.

His men are still going to Iraq. Only, now they'll be deployed with an officer who has neither trained them, nor trained with them, nor knows their strengths and weaknesses.

There is no 'bravery' in exposing what would have been his command to additional unnecessary dangers.

Every combat leader worth his salt that I've known, or served under, thought of the men as his lads. They were his responsibility, and By God no one else was good enough to lead them.

Obviously Leftenant Watada doesn't feel that way, and I see no 'honor' in him dropping his responsibilities -- and his lads -- like a inconvenient used Kleenex.

Is there 'courage' to be found?

Of a sort.

Leftenant Watada volunteered for a whole bunch of things, and was granted the awesome responsibility of men's lives.

He turned his back on all of that. He will probably face a court-martial, and he will most probably be found Guilty.

He can take the punishment for what he has brought upon himself without whining, without snivelling and like the ideal he turned his back on.

This is the only 'courage' left to him.

We'll see.

LawDog

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

I'd start with "coward", myownself.

Art

Jon said...

At least he quit before he ran screaming like a little girl in his first battle.

308Mike said...

Hopefully he'll carry a felony conviction so this little turd won't even be able to own a gun - after being an Army officer.

Anonymous said...

This dogshit has big time political connections in Howarya so prolly has the "suck" to get clean away with this. If not now then wait for the next dem pres for a complete pardon. Be nice if he was 'bout 85 when that happened.

John

gmcraff said...

There's no way the military can let this pass without throwing the whole book at him.

If he had just done the thing quietly, he could have left quietly. There's a certain amount of tolerance for stupidity in the military, and they'll resort to the lesser punishments if you don't make it politically impossible for them to do so.

Holding a press conference can only be seen, however, as an attempt to encouragez les autres. Even if he doesn't speak, by willingly lending his active duty commissioned identity to a anti-war, frag-your-officers-and-desert organization, he's being a "leader" of a kind the military and the nation cannot tolerate.

To put it in other words, what do we call it when an officer, by his actions, encourages others to desert? I would call it a solicitation (Article 82) to commit the offense of desertion (Article 85). In this case, as many counts as there are military people who see or hear of his actions.

The punishment for desertion in the time of war is death, or "as a courts martial directs" in times other than war. The punishment for solicitation is the same as the punishment for the offense being to be committed (if attempted) or accomplished) or "as a courts martial directs" if not attempted.

The kid is going to be very, very lucky if he doesn't find out what federal death row is like.

Anonymous said...

He should be found guilty for dereliction of duty during a time of war and executed on the spot.

Jenna said...

Read this to my dad tonight and all he could say was to wistfully remark "we use to be able to hang traitors like that".

Can't say I really disagree with dear old dad on this. So many good people are over there right now... they need all the help and support they can get, and instead? Twits like this hungry for publicity making a hard life harder.

Anonymous said...

If you dont like fish, dont work on a fishing boat.
If you dont like dogs, dont be a groomer.
If you dont like war, dont take an oath to follow the presidents orders.
I guess all he wanted was a regular paycheck, a uniform, and all the benefits.
It's a bilateral contract: you get all the above goodies, just show up with the pair you were born with and serve your country, otherwise go hide behind momma's skirts and do the pee-pee dance.

Anonymous said...

As I never had the privilige to serve, what, exactly is the penalty for desertion, incitement to mutiny, dereliction of duty, refusal to follow a standing order, articles 88,90,92,94, and such?

A long stretch of making little rocks out of big rocks at Leavenworth, or something involving a bullet?

Regards,
Rabbit.

Jon said...

This link has information on military law.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/awc-law.htm

BTW, speaking of shooting people. I think blog spammers should be shot in the computer.

texasboy said...

Execute the creep for mutiny.

Kristopher said...

He will serve time until a democrat gets elected and pardons him.

Which is probably what he planned. And then he will run for office.

Flo said...

Did I miss something? I have read several articles and a few editorials about this “officer.” The articles mention the moral support of his parents and anti-war groups, his attorney gives his legal justifications, and the Army issues a typical statement. Didn’t ANY of those reporters happen to speak to even ONE soldier that would have served under this “officer?” If so, what was the response—why wasn’t it reported? If not, WHY not? Seems those soldiers are the ones immediately affected by this “officer’s” actions, and a response from them is more than justified and called for.

In the article at http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2006/Jun/08/ln/FP606080342.html, the “officer” states: "I believe so strongly in this cause that I would sit in prison or die for that belief," he said in the Jan. 25 letter, also provided yesterday. "I will not subvert the Army, but I will not go along with the opinion that what we are doing (in Iraq) is right or that I am fulfilling my duty. Would the executioners of Auschwitz have been any more justified at Nuremburg?"

He will not subvert the Army??? What does he think he’s doing with all this media exposure? “Would the executioners of Auschwitz have been any more justified at Nuremburg?" What kind of comparison is that—does this “officer” plan to go to Iraq and execute innocent people?

Torture in prisons or the killing of innocent Iraqis is NOT justified, and those involved should be punished. But that is NOT the purpose of the military presence in Iraq and should not be used as an excuse by anti-war protestors for the U.S. to pull out of Iraq. Nor should it be used as one of the several justifications for refusing to deploy.

Oh please, choose me to be his judge, jury, and executioner.

Anonymous said...

I often think that for the strident lefties, courage is what they call what it takes to break your given word. That's all. For them, all it takes to break your word is courage. And that's all courage is for. Breaking your word.

How do they rationalize that?