US soldier refuses deployment to Iraq on grounds that the war is illegal

What the guy did was wrong. Reading this I can't help thinking of Pat Tillman, who hated the war and went anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

Again, this is neglecting that he was induced to making a choice based on fraudulent information, therefore he cannot be reasonably "held" to a choice like that.

---

Navaros you need to look at what is required to become a commissioned officer in the United States Army. Then look at when the individual accepted his commission into the Army. From his own reported statement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by orginal article

Sure. I think that in March of 2003 when I joined up, I, like many Americans, believed the administration when they said the threat from Iraq was imminent — that there were weapons of mass destruction all throughout Iraq; that there were stockpiles of it; and because of Saddam Hussein's ties to al-Qaeda and the 9/11 terrorist acts, the threat was imminent and we needed to invade that country immediately in order to neutralize that threat.

---

Okay that was March 2003. He has had amble opporunity to resign his commission if he believed he was lied to by the government as part of his acceptance of a commission into the United States Army. However he chose to maintain his commission. Futhermore in his own words he did not actual research any of the relative information until he was tasked to deploy to Iraq. So in June 2005 he begins to inform himself and decides that it was an illegal war. A little late on that task to claim foul on his acceptance of a commission. So your going to have to stick with what his arguement is.

He will have to attempt a defense based upon an illegal war. This is where he will run into difficultity in the Courts Martial - the Courts Martial will only review his actions based upon the UCMJ which he will find himself in a bit trouble at the level of Courts Martial he will be initially facing. He is going to have to wait until after his conviction in the Courts Martial and the subsequent appeal process through the Military Court system into the Federal Court of Appeals after all Military appeals are through. The link to SPC New's Court Martial will provide a samble of how long that process will take.

And futhermore a certain Colonel did resign her commission in protest, before the Invasion was conducted. Which negates your particuler tack here.

Tennyson put it best in "Charge of the Light Brigade"
'Their's not to reason why, theirs but to do and die.' That is 19th Century. When people believe their government knew what it was doing. After Crimea, WW1, WW2, Vietnam, Bosnia, Croatia etc showed that sometimes to obey orders is not good enough as reasons to slaughter and massacre.
In Vietnam, a French general said something similar, if not as much talented tha Tennyson lines: "Legionnaires, you are here to die. I sent you where you will die"
Now, in this case, yes, he could have resigned… We had same kind of case in France during the 1st Gulf War. Helicopters’ pilot who refused to be deployed saying they didn’t join the army “for that”, meaning going to war. They wanted to get the training, the money but not to do the job…
Well, they were not shot dead, even if the war was legal, voted by the French Parliament. They just had to find another job, and are barred to any official job.

This may be related to the issue:

Link

It´s about a German officer who refused to work on the development of computer software which was meant to somehow support the coalition forces in Iraq.

To me it sounds like only one thing! There is a woman involved!

He is illogically trying to impress someone, knowing full well that he is going to get smashed. He is not going to make himself a political career by doing this so he must be thinking with something other than his brain.

So, the question is; who is she?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

That argument has been applied to specific actions, never to deployments.

---

True but I can't see why it couldn't be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Was this soldier asked to serve in a concentration camp? No. Was this soldier asked to shoot down a civilian? No. Was he ordered to behead kittens? Nope. Did his C.O. tell him to rape someone? Nuh-uh. He was merely deployed, which is a pretty low standard for an illegal order.

---

I never said that I agree with him. I just refuted the comment that essentially went "once you are in the army, you lose any right to free thought".


---

I can see both sides to be honest here. To operate a volunteer army there must be some implicit understanding between both sides. On the one hand the volunteers say I will risk my life to follow your orders. On the other, there's a demand that those orders are reasonable orders, for a reasonable cause that will acheive something for the ideals which the soldier serves, to not throw away those lives. That the command structure will behave with dignity and measure, that it not be willfully obtuse in the face of realities. There are all things that are required in exchange for a volunteer risking their life.

If one side of this understanding/compact is starting to degrade, it's not surprising that the other side starts to degrade as well.

I tend to agree that it's not a soldiers role to make these calls and if it was it would be hopelessly chaotic to run an armed force, but I can see how a soldier could challenge that they are fighting for what they signed up for.

At the lowest end of the Army, you don't want soldiers questioning what the General is asking of them. Discussion amongst peers, and orders go down, not up.
A soldier is supposed to reason locally. How to get that house, how to cover his buddy across the street. How to get from Point A to Point B.
Theirs not to reason why, their but to do and die. Ironic how ancient ideas like flanking have gone through the years with very little change, so why can't Tennysons immortal words not be as applicable as flanking or concentrated fire?

If a soldier starts spouting strategic orders, with no idea about any other variables, then your either going to get very lucky, or very dead.
This lieutenant, as a citizen has a right to protest this war. Using his comission and marching orders for Iraq to protest this war as "Illegal" isn't the way to do it. It'll get media attention, but the end result will be his court-martial.

We aren't discussing the legality of the war, we are discussing whether he should be resolved because his beliefs out-weigh his need to fight as per his contract, or whether he should be court-martialed for such outrageous behavior.
I throw my vote in with the court-martial because the OP clearly favors the lieutenant, we probably won't change that, and unfortunately, what everyone agrees on isn't always right.

:2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshal Murat

Theirs not to reason why, their but to do and die. Ironic how ancient ideas like flanking have gone through the years with very little change, so why can't Tennysons immortal words not be as applicable as flanking or concentrated fire?

---

WW2 changed our ideas of what soldiers are supposed to be and do in relation to their states. Theoretically at least, soldiers are supposed to ponder individual orders and question their ethics. That said, I don't see anything unethical about bare deployment, though I still think he should have been given what he wanted and sent to Afghanistan. British and American soldiers who've served in both unanimously agree Iraq is R&R compared to Afghanistan, much like how Kafirchobee felt his transfer to Vietnam was pleasant and relaxing after the time he spent in Korea. So let him have his ethical protest, and let him take his chances against the notoriously bloodthirsty Pashtoun. Ask the Brits to give him one of their ludicrously dangerous missions, and if he survives, give him a medal as he'll have earned it, and if he doesn't, small loss.