A "Mercenary" Perspective

Yup, that's pretty much the way I see it too, Lightning.

When you have this warped "living constitution" mentality, the constitution can be shaped to fit pretty much any ideology you care to support.

Arkin wasn't saying troops shouldn't be allowed to speak; he was saying that they should get no deference on matters of policy. Strip away the rhetoric, and that's just common sense.

No, that's not what he was saying. Reread Arkin's posts, please.

Actually, the bit about the First Amendment was directed towards the writer from Daily Kos, not necessarily Arkin.

Huzzah!

I'm copying and saving this post to my notes file.

This is the best counter-commentary to Arkin's peice(s) and the associated commentary on Kos that I've seen yet!

Absolutely spot-on, factually correct, historically accurate, skillfull countering of what seems obviously intended to have been insulting commentary (especially Arkin's response to criticism of his original peice on the subject), while deftly avoiding the natural impulse to sink to the same level and respond in kind. Who can seriously deny any of what was said in this post?

Heartfelt kudos to Lightning for demonstrating the highest order of discipline and respect one can and should expect from our modern military. This is exactly why I hold this blog high above most others in my esteem (and why I've been such a hard-ass for civility). Though we may disagree on many subjects, you have my deepest admiration and respect, sir!

Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 02/05/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention.

I don't see it that way.
There comes a time when a soldier, a US soldier, should step out of rank when an order goes contrary to his conscience. “I was only following orders" was rejected as a defense at Nierenberg, and rightfully so.
(Careful - I don’t want to shift the debate to “Is Bush a Nazi?”, which would only enflame the rabid dogs on both sides of this question.)
The point is, if Watada, who was up to that point a good soldier, after study & reflection felt he could not in good conscience as an American by following orders, participate in a war he felt was illegal, then I think we ought to at least listen to the guy.
An American soldier should, IMHO, have the right at some point to put his responsibility as a citizen over his duty as a soldier. The principal of putting the military under civilian leadership shows that the founding fathers understood the conflict, and to me that suggests that they put civil responsibility over military duty.

There's a process for objectors, and Watada didn't follow it. To say nothing of the fact that the good LT signed up after the 2003 invasion.

He received orders and simply said "I'm not following them."

UCMJ is pretty clear on disobeying orders, dude.

Of course they want it both ways. For cryin' out loud, they're liberals, that's the way they "think"!

Good post. I still think it's as simple as them wanting Bush to lose more than caring about whether America loses--or whoever comes next if he/she is a Republican who continues the policy. I also think Arkin is the vanguard of where they go next, attacking the troops themselves, undermining them at every opportunity, because if they could cut into recruiting, or re-enlisting, they'd have a new chance to undo the policy. They miss the draft so bad because it would spawn large numbers of defectors (certainly more than now) within the ranks who they then could champion as the only proper troops.

I cannot, in good conscience, participate in a 4 mile formation run.

Where's my freakin' "Thank You AL" website?

Gentlemen - the responses so seem to say that every order should be followed. So there is no line for conscience? That's rabid, "good German" thinking. Let's agree that the US military should have a different standard.
For those (if any) readers with a sincere interest, rather than just venting machismo, where is the Nierenberg line? If an officer discovers (what difference when he joined up?) that his orders are corrupt, does he have the right, even obligation, to stand up?

Yo, jebuff:

First off, it is NUREMBURG, not nierenberg. Perhaps you should actually READ some history instead of showing off your imbecility.

Second, from what I can recall I swore to obey all LAWFUL orders - to apply my individual interpretation of what is or isn't "corrupt" wasn't part of that oath.

Even someone with your IQ would be able to differentiate between a lawful and an unlawful order, and since most military members are more educated than you obviously are I don't think they'd have any problem.

I can see it now: "Sir, I can't take that hill... to do so would require me to possibly kill someone, and that's a corrupt thing to do", -OR- "Your orders are corrupt because you represent the United States Government, and they are all corrupt. Nothing you order me to do can be obeyed".

To answer your question, genius: all those in uniform have an OBLIGATION to report UNLAWFUL orders, as outlined in the UCMJ.

Your equation of following LAWFUL orders to being a nazi is bull****, and only works in your little "kos-kids" world where life is beautiful all the time.

Give me a freakin' break.

GregS - You're right about the spelling of Nuremburg, of course. Mea Culpa. However, given the insulting tone of your post, you should consider yourself excluded from the group of "Gentlemen" to whom my post was addressed. Let me answer you in words that fit your mentality... I'd rather be guilty of poor spelling than of being a rabid douche-bag.
How come so often the guys that saw the least amount of action are always the ones who want to appear the most "blood 'n guts"?
If anybody else would like to discuss this... German soldiers were just following orders that were "lawful" in Germany at the time, so that particular argument isn't as easy as it looks. I return to my previous question, how does a good officer resolve a conflict such as Watada's? Is there no place in the Military for individual conscience when it conflicts with an order in this kind of context? If not, then we were wrong at NUREMBURG?

jebuff,

The central point was made that there is a process which Lt Watada didn't follow to protest his "unlawful orders." The rest of the arguments are distractions.

Apparently David Arkin is an Army Vet.
Perhaps we should take away all of those GI benefits this hypocrite undoubtedly uses since he thinks that the military is coddled and should be thanking us.

The thread's getting a little old, so I don't know how many are still checking back.

I've been following jebuff's comments and the responses to them. I don't have anything to add, but I do have a question: Could somebody please elaborate on the "process which Lt Watada didn't follow to protest his 'unlawful orders'." What is the correct process to follow? Does it have a name? Can I find details on the web?

Thanks!

Freeman, being a zoomie....I'm going to send you the link to the air force's process for CO status...

http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/pubfiles/af/36/afi36-3204/afi36-3204.pdf

Thanks John, I appreciate it. Just wanted to satisfy my own curiosity - always wanting to learn new things so I have a better idea what I'm talking about before I shoot off my mouth (or keyboard).

Though I've always been a civilian, I've worked with LOTS of zoomies. (I do test equipment calibration, specializing in RF/microwave/avionics - most people in this field get their training at PMEL schools). There's one who comes to mind that I've often wondered lately what he's been up to (it's been about 10 years since I've seen him). He was in active Air National Guard Reserves then, and he was deployed in Kuwait during Desert Storm before I worked with him. I'll bet anything he would have eagerly signed up for this one too. Anyone here know a Phil Brennaman? (I can't remember his rank at the time I worked with him).

John,

I finally got a chance to look at the CO status document you linked to - thanks again.

However, it appears to me that this document is completely irrelevant in Lt. Watada's case. I got no further than Chapter 1 section 1.1, where the last entry of the bullet list states: "The applicant opposes participation in war in any form or the bearing of arms". This appears to be an "and", rather than "or" list of requirements necessary for CO status.

Unless I misunderstand his refusal to obey deployment orders, he is objecting not to "participation in war in any form or the bearing of arms", but rather challenges the legality of the order as applied to this particular conflict. Am I missing something here? (I hear he is at Leavenworth - it's a reasonable drive from where I live, I wonder if they'd let me speak with him so I could find out for myself from the "horses mouth"?)

Now, I've long worked with military procedures as a participant in the GIDEP program, so I'm at least familiar with military procedures as they apply to the calibration of test equipment. It is my impression that they seem to have a detailed procedure for EVERYTHING. Can you help me find a document for the proper procedure for challenging the legality of an order?

Thanks

This is a note to Freeman. I am not sure how to contact you, but I know Phil Brennaman. Phil

Great Post! I work in the same field as a Security Consultant / Contractor. People in our field with the skill sets that we have, are going to be in need more so now then in past history. The U.S. and other countries do not want to send sons and daughters into harms way. It will take our skills to assit. To some it is a career field that pays the bills like any other job.