Lt. Watada is a real deal hero

[slim 1,514]

I don't know this guy, I don't know his intentions, but I do know that when a Lt. is willing to step up and piss people off, he's also willing to take care of his guys. (Albeit it's usually only for a short time because the military has a pretty sure-fire record of dealing with non-conformists.)

if he was willing to take care of his guys, then why would he not deploy with them and lead them. as a real leader would do. sorry slim, he's taking care of number 1 only on this deal.

ps - i found it to be very wise to never follow any lt as they could not read a map. only saw two exceptions to that in my time.

True, he could've better served his guys there in Iraq, but to say "hold on a second, I'm not playing this game" while in CONUS is one thing.... to say it while deployed already is another.

I'll go ahead and open up another can of worms...

Lt. Watada was in a Stryker unit. Does anyone know what a Stryker is? It is a big armored vehicle designed for COMBAT OPERATIONS. (See attached webpage if you don't believe me: http://www.army.mil/features/stryker/default.htm ) If you believe Lt. Watada and his men would deploy to Iraq in these vehicles and spread only "democracy" than you are sadly mistaken.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Guy should never have joined up.

Where does a soldiers loyalty stand? To his country and the laws of the land or with his superiors? Which one trumps?

Ultimately none - because as I said the military is little more than a tool of the state. Can do a lot of good, but also a lot of bad.

That's quite a cynical view of the military. Whether there's truth in that, the important point is what is the true oath of a soldier? People have riddled this thread repeatedly with the notion of 'must follow orders' as if that is the ultimate and only duty a soldier has. I thought the Nuremberg trials demonstrated that simply following orders is NOT necessarily upholding ones oath. The military is not autonomous and does not act outside of the laws of the United States...at least it shouldn't be.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

That's quite a cynical view of the military. Whether there's truth in that, the important point is what is the true oath of a soldier? People have riddled this thread repeatedly with the notion of 'must follow orders' as if that is the ultimate and only duty a soldier has. I thought the Nuremberg trials demonstrated that simply following orders is NOT necessarily upholding ones oath. The military is not autonomous and does not act outside of the laws of the United States...at least it shouldn't be.

As I said the military is not (and has never been) a democratic institution. Once you join up, you do so with the knowledge (or indeed without it) that you cede many of your civilian rights. I don't agree with that - and its primarily for that reason I would never want to join the military.

You can't expect the institution to change simply to suit the individual.

Ultimately I don't understand why this guy is so surprised that the military is not what he thought it was. He shouldn't have joined up - and has Artegal mentioned, as a commissioned officer he had rather more opportunities than your average enlistee.

[Ban Hammer 12,901]

I don't know this guy, I don't know his intentions, but I do know that when a Lt. is willing to step up and piss people off, he's also willing to take care of his guys. (Albeit it's usually only for a short time because the military has a pretty sure-fire record of dealing with non-conformists.)

if he was willing to take care of his guys, then why would he not deploy with them and lead them. as a real leader would do. sorry slim, he's taking care of number 1 only on this deal.

ps - i found it to be very wise to never follow any lt as they could not read a map. only saw two exceptions to that in my time.

True, he could've better served his guys there in Iraq, but to say "hold on a second, I'm not playing this game" while in CONUS is one thing.... to say it while deployed already is another.

I'll go ahead and open up another can of worms...

Lt. Watada was in a Stryker unit. Does anyone know what a Stryker is? It is a big armored vehicle designed for COMBAT OPERATIONS. (See attached webpage if you don't believe me: http://www.army.mil/features/stryker/default.htm ) If you believe Lt. Watada and his men would deploy to Iraq in these vehicles and spread only "democracy" than you are sadly mistaken.

so let's see. first it was the unarmored humvee's that everyone was complaining about, now when they go in a vehicle that gives them far better protection than an armored humvee people still complain. can't win, eh?

[Artegal 1]

That's quite a cynical view of the military. Whether there's truth in that, the important point is what is the true oath of a soldier? People have riddled this thread repeatedly with the notion of 'must follow orders' as if that is the ultimate and only duty a soldier has. I thought the Nuremberg trials demonstrated that simply following orders is NOT necessarily upholding ones oath. The military is not autonomous and does not act outside of the laws of the United States...at least it shouldn't be.

I am a little too young for World War II, but to my knowledge there was not any US Service members brought up on charges in the Nuremberg trials. I don't see how this demonstrates at all the code of conduct of the US Military. I would submit to you that the various Court Martials under the UCMJ of the US Military demonstrate very well that simply following orders is not the oath that US service men and women take. Look at the convictions of all those involved in the Abu Graibe prison deal. Look at the numerous service members convicted of crimes in war time and in Peace. There is a reason that the Military has the following: IG, JAG, CID, MP, Congressional Oversight, chain of command with open door policy, and anonymous whistle-blower hotlines. Incidents such as Abu Graibe and the Recent rape of a 15 year old and murder of her and her family were brought to the attention because a soldier did not simply follow orders but instead contacted an authority. There is not a Nuremberg trial situation with the US Military because the US Military does not have a "Final Solution" or systematic genocide in death camps set up within its framework. There are crimes committed sure--but these are not war crimes on the scale of the German Army in WWII. These are renegade service members that are eventually punished by the appropriate courts.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

As I said the military is not (and has never been) a democratic institution. Once you join up, you do so with the knowledge (or indeed without it) that you cede many of your civilian rights. I don't agree with that - and its primarily for that reason I would never want to join the military.

You can't expect the institution to change simply to suit the individual.

Ultimately I don't understand why this guy is so surprised that the military is not what he thought it was. He shouldn't have joined up - and has Artegal mentioned, as a commissioned officer he had rather more opportunities than your average enlistee.

While our military may not be a democratic institution, it exists to protect and uphold our democracy. I'm lost on why you can't logically understand that in this particular officer's view, obeying his orders would mean breaking his oath to this country and it's laws. Whether you agree with his argument or not, why can't you at least understand that premise?

[Artegal 1]

While our military may not be a democratic institution, it exists to protect and uphold our democracy. I'm lost on why you can't logically understand that in this particular officer's view, obeying his orders would mean breaking his oath to this country and it's laws. Whether you agree with his argument or not, why can't you at least understand that premise?

Steven...

Its because you are confusing politics with legality. It is not an illegal act to be deployed to Iraq. It would be illegal to go outside the rules of engagements and shoot and kill innocent people or otherwise loot, rape, and destroy things that have not any military purpose.

If you submit that this guy finds the Iraq war illegal--then all wars and deployments are also illegal, and in that case he should not have even joined the military in the first place.

[tmma 467]

I would gladly follow Lt. Watada into battle any day.

Any man with the willingness to sit in jail for 7 years for his beliefs would get less men killed in the sandbox than those willing to dive head-first into an ill-advised military campaign.

Going to be hard to follow someone into battle who won't go.

Slim, did you serve in the military?

What example do you think he is setting for other officers? As has been said before in this thread, he should have expressed those beliefs long before this, or he shouldn't have taken a commision.

Lt. Watada related that he would go into battle.... just not in Iraq.

I was in the military. (7 years USAF.... with one year in the "sandbox")

I'll stick with my point. I would gladly follow him into battle, in Afghanistan, or even Korea for that matter. I too do not want to go to war in Iraq, that's part of why I'm no longer in the military.

He's setting the example for other officers that he will not take part in something that he feels is morally unjust. That's an excellent example to set. If more and more officers would take a stand like that, maybe policy would start to change. I doubt it, because there will always be enough Lieutenants (who want to make Captain) that will set aside their personal beliefs to accomplish a mission, regardless of the morality.

Just for the record... Lieutenants aren't the best people to "follow" into battle! So when one who is willing to take a stand for something steps up, it's easy to realize that he's the one that's going to tell the Capt. to "F' off" when the Capt says "take the hill" and would therefore be the best Lt. to follow, if you did actually have to follow one. (I'm not arguing that the hill shouldn't be taken, I'm arguing that the hill doesn't need to be taken ASAP when all we've gotta do is sit tight, get on the horn, and call in air support. Why should 5 guys charge the machine gun nest when we've got a bunch of planes that could bomb it?) Lieutenants like Watada would more than likely save your @$$ by calling in air support, but when the Captain got back on the radio and said "sorry, no air support today, you've gotta do it" he would probably also be the one "leading" his troops.

I don't know this guy, I don't know his intentions, but I do know that when a Lt. is willing to step up and piss people off, he's also willing to take care of his guys. (Albeit it's usually only for a short time because the military has a pretty sure-fire record of dealing with non-conformists.)

Hmmmm....Curious statement there.

You have been in the military, no? Deployed no doubt. So you ( like me ) know exactly what it's like waiting for your replacement to come in from CONUS so you can finally go home. Only some guy in Iraq right now is not getting a replacement sent ( at least not on-time anyway). He "takes care of his people".

Not only has he let his own unit down ( they will all be flying out of McChord without him and the "benefit of his education and training as an INFANTRY OFFICER" in the deployed field), he has let the receiving unit down too!

Yeh he takes care of his people!

I do not think he is taking care of anyone but HIMSELF....He probably should not have joined the military at all.

He has stated that he will bear the consequences of his actions-and that's all dandy-but he is NOT the only one paying the price for his sudden attack of conscience!

To me, that's selfish....

edit-selfish also to leave his objections unstated until HE got orders to go! Why not voice it sooner? Why not volunteer for a year remote in Korea or something? Why " go under the radar" like someone said. That's NOT honorable!

Edited July 11, 2006 by tmma

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

While our military may not be a democratic institution, it exists to protect and uphold our democracy. I'm lost on why you can't logically understand that in this particular officer's view, obeying his orders would mean breaking his oath to this country and it's laws. Whether you agree with his argument or not, why can't you at least understand that premise?

Steven...

Its because you are confusing politics with legality. It is not an illegal act to be deployed to Iraq. It would be illegal to go outside the rules of engagements and shoot and kill innocent people or otherwise loot, rape, and destroy things that have not any military purpose.

If you submit that this guy finds the Iraq war illegal--then all wars and deployments are also illegal, and in that case he should not have even joined the military in the first place.

Absolutely. Strikes me that if this is the reasoning behind Watada's decision, he clearly doesn't know much about how the armed forces work. Another reason he should not have joined up.

[Fandango 1,439]

For all you say 'oh he stands by his beliefs even when he knew what he'd be facing'....read the article again. He did not know they'd throw the book at him the way they are...so it wasn't don't in some heroic 'I'll stand for my beliefs even though I'll go to jail for 7 years' he did what he wanted...I'll agree with one thing...FLYING UNDER THE RADAR like a lil rat & when this war that he disagreed with so much...this war where he was in charge of his Stryker unit which will GO into Iraq...he gets a case of 'conscience'

Anyone who can say that's heroic is kidding themselves & using this for fodder to promote the 'antiIraq' wah wah routine & is clutching at straws.

[*Robert* 2]

While our military may not be a democratic institution, it exists to protect and uphold our democracy. I'm lost on why you can't logically understand that in this particular officer's view, obeying his orders would mean breaking his oath to this country and it's laws. Whether you agree with his argument or not, why can't you at least understand that premise?

You totally lost me on that one Steven. Our country is over in Iraq fighting a war, despite whether you think it is right or wrong.

Since our government suports the involvement of US troops there, it is therefor legal for our troops to be there, making his actions not to go... illegal!!!

It doesn't get any simpler than that!

[slim 1,514]

Can anyone on here give me a reference to where the UN Security Council voted AGAINST the war in Afghanistan?

Because I CAN give you a reference to where they voted AGAINST the war in Iraq.

Right now, if the UN Security Council voted against allowing Japan to make a pre-emptive strike on North Korea in response to the recent test launches, do you think they'd go ahead and do it anyway? And if they did, would the US condemn them or join the coalition?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

While our military may not be a democratic institution, it exists to protect and uphold our democracy. I'm lost on why you can't logically understand that in this particular officer's view, obeying his orders would mean breaking his oath to this country and it's laws. Whether you agree with his argument or not, why can't you at least understand that premise?

You totally lost me on that one Steven. Our country is over in Iraq fighting a war, despite whether you think it is right or wrong.

Since our government suports the involvement of US troops there, it is therefor legal for our troops to be there, making his actions not to go... illegal!!!

It doesn't get any simpler than that!

I think Artegal makes a valid point. What I'm understanding is that simply being deployed to Iraq is nothing a soldier could qualify as illegal, only at the point in which that soldier is involved in carrying out an order could he then have an argument in refusing to do something illegal. I have never served in the military so I'll admit I don't fully understand all the processes, but I was defending his decision not to go on principal. He obviously thought this one through and according to him consulted with military experts as to what his options would be. I understand that many keep saying he should have objected at an earlier point but from what I read, he wouldn't qualify as a conscientious objector since he doesn't object to war in general. He was supportive of the war in Iraq prior to joining and said that it wasn't until later that after reading and researching on the war that he drew the conclusion of it being illegal. So I guess my question would be - how does a soldier in his position (if we are to assume all of that to be true) to do? If a soldier feels so strongly that serving in Iraq would be morally wrong, what should he do? He tried to resign (I believe his service was up in December and it was June when he received his deployment papers to Iraq). I don't want to be hardheaded about this. I'm just trying to understand why this soldier would go through all this trouble. Regardless of whether he is in the wrong, this was gutsy of him to do. I think Artegal called him a martyr earlier. Perhaps that's a more accurate word than hero, but in any case I can at least respect his line of thinking.

[*Robert* 2]

So I guess my question would be - how does a soldier in his position (if we are to assume all of that to be true) to do? If a soldier feels so strongly that serving in Iraq would be morally wrong, what should he do?

The thing he should not have done, was to speak out against the Commander in Chief. That is a major no no that anyone who has ever served in the military is well aware of. Does George S. Patton ring a bell? Douglas MacArthur ? Thoes guys ended up getting canned because of their views, but due to their service records, they were cut some slack.

After reading the latest reports, I don't think our young Lt. truly knew what is was getting himself into, otherwise I think he would have thought a little harder about making that sort of decision.

He should of just waited it out, resigned his commision at the earliest possible moment, then he could of done or said anything he wanted.

[Artegal 1]

Can anyone on here give me a reference to where the UN Security Council voted AGAINST the war in Afghanistan?

Because I CAN give you a reference to where they voted AGAINST the war in Iraq.

Right now, if the UN Security Council voted against allowing Japan to make a pre-emptive strike on North Korea in response to the recent test launches, do you think they'd go ahead and do it anyway? And if they did, would the US condemn them or join the coalition?

US Law, Military Regulations and the Geneva Convention govern US Military personnel, with the exception when US Military personnel are on specific UN Peace Keeping missions. Since the invasion of Iraq is not a UN mission--then what the vote was in the UN security council really doesn't apply in this case.

And did the UN Security Council really vote against the United States--are you sure because with the USA being a permanent member of the Council and holding Veto power I wouldn't think our Ambassador would let that vote slide.