Plenty of former officers have criticized the Iraq War, but there's only been one active duty career soldier who's not only come out against the War but also refused to go and fight in it. (He said he would go to Afghanistan instead, but that the Iraq war is "illegal"). That soldier is Lt. Ehren Watada, 30, a junior Army officer from Hawaii who's become a poster child for the anti-war movement. He's also become persona non grata within the military and is facing a possible sentence of six years in prison.
Our friend Tara McKelvey is the first journalist who has gotten close to him in more than a year. She's written an amazing story for The American Prospect about Watada, who's now in legal limbo and being subtly punished at a desk job.
Watada's critique of the Iraq War's legality is boosted by the recent release of the Senate Intelligence Committee's report on prewar Iraq intel. And his commitment to doing what he thinks is right is impressive. He told McKelvey:
"I realized we had been lied to. I was standing out in the middle of the desert, and I had a deep sense of betrayal. I had joined an army, and I thought it was noble. And to think we had engaged in something that had caused so much carnage and destruction and then to find out it was unnecessary. There I was in uniform, and I felt ashamed of what I was being asked to do. I think there's no bigger crime than taking your country into a war based on lies."
At the same time, someone else is just going to go in his place, and so members of the military are understandably angry at him for refusing to get on the plane. (They're even madder about his very public statements opposing the War.) Paul D. Eaton, a retired Army major general who was one of the retired generals who in 2006 called for Rumsfeld's resignation said, "Watada is an active-duty soldier, and he has failed to obey the orders of the officers over him. He does not have the right."
Read the article here. What do you think, is Watada a hero or a criminal?
Reader Comments ( Page 4 of 7)
46. Robin, I believe you are correct. Bush and company will screw around with Watada, not releasing him prior to the election. Then--then, it may be a Democrat who will take care of it, and also take the blame. While our economy is strained do to the oil crisis, Bush offers poisoned candy--let's get rid of the oil tax for the summer--but the bad, bad, Democrats will not agree. Might the government cease to function, and troops in harm's way not get what they need? Yes, but not til after the election. Problems with troops spread too far? Oh, we have enough, says Bush. Let it be the Democrats who have to reinstate the draft--after I'm out.
Maybe Hugo Chavez was right when he blessed himself after referring to Bush as the Devil. Ok, maybe just a minion.
Thomas Shoener at 9:33PM on Jun 11th 2008
47. He has no right and should be stripped of all his benefits and put in prison. He has brought discredit and shame upon the Armed Forces, and the good men who have fought over there. Soldiers died fighting in the same uniform he wears, does he have no honor?
Jw0352 at 10:14PM on Jun 11th 2008
48. Isn't the whole idea of military based on unquestioning obedience? The primary duty of our armed forces is to NOT ASK QUESTIONS. If the Commander-in-Chief tolerated or condoned a soldier's "right" to disagree with policy then America would have no military. There are NO loopholes. This is understood implicitly and backed up by threat of court martial: soldiers have zero rights.They are to do as ordered and if they die then that is what obedience demands. To flip over this monolithe to examine the reverse gives all sentient human beings, nationalists, patriots included, to rethink and reexamine the ideal of military conformity. Do soldier's forfeit the right to question the legality, the morals and ethics of their superiors? And, if so, how should they go about voicing their opinion(s)?! The legality or illegality of war is not for soldiers to decided. If their commanders tell them to kill innocent people and discount thtem as "collateral" damage, then so be it. Should you make a "mistake" and kill the wrong person in the execution of orders, then it's not a problem but fate. Soldiers do not have to have consciences. And if they do, than they are an impedimet risking the lives of their fellows and the outcome of any operation. Look back on every grotesque act committed by "obedient" soldiers "just doing" his job. That mindset has historically resulted in pograms, mass murders, wholesale slavery, rape, plunder, pillage, holocausts, genocides. It's been a boon for legitimizing the crimes of tyrants, dictators,kings,even presidents. So where do we go from here? Allow dissent among the troops without punishment? They are, afterall, fighting and dying to secure the inviolate-the inalienable rights of their country. Should they not, therefore, be included, counted as equals to their countrymen? The bottom line is clearly defined: when is it a soldier's moral duty to disobey orders? Manchuria and Nanking were invaded by the Japanese in 1937. In Manchuria, an estimated 38 million people were murdered, enslaved, tortured,utilized as human guinea pigs, raped, buried and burned alive, inviscerated. All this carnage, the scale of this carnage (20thousand boys, teens and men murdered in ONE day by troops for being suspected Chinese soldiers) could not have been accomplished without the absolute obdience of the invading soldiers. Winning is THE only "morality" given when war is waged. And "morality" depends on which side you're on.
boredwell at 10:30PM on Jun 11th 2008
49. I am truly amazed by the sheep mentality being displayed by the soldiers who have responded to this post as well as the pure ignorance involved. First, to be perfectly blunt, there are NO Heroes in this war. Why do people think that getting yourself killed in a war without purpose makes you a hero? In reality, all it makes you is dead for no really good reason. I have been an active duty American Soldier for 15 years now. I have served in operations in Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kuwait, Egypt, AND Iraq, and let me tell you something. I am sick and tired of civilians using phrases such as "soldiers defending us...", "fighting for our freedom.." yada yada. Soldiers use these phrases as well, of course, in order to justify their blind obedience, to feel as though their service in the United States Military is actually in defense of America, but that very idea is little more than a pipe dream. When is the last time an American Soldier actually fought for America? The Revolutionary War perhaps? Sure, WWI and WWII were necesary wars, and one could feel honored having served in those conflicts, but since then, lets face it, America's army has done little more than act on behalf of OTHER countries. We have become an army for rent, and that is NOT what many signed on the dotted line for, or pledged, if necesary to sacrifice their lives for. I raised my right hand to God and pledged to defend my nation from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Excuse me, for assuming that those words actually meant DEFEND MY NATION. Is our nation really threatened by the happenings in the middle east? Not one bit. And before those of you who jump on the bandwagon of terrorism get a chance, you can't fight terrorism. Its not an army to be destroyed, it is ideal that at any time anyone can adopt. Your neighbor right this moment could be strapping a bomb to his chest and you would have no idea, and there would be no way to defend against that because there would be no way to know until it was too late.
So, needless to say, as soldiers, we are not heroe's, we are not defending the rights of Americans, or protecting America in any way at all. We are mercenaries who do no reap the benefits. Somebody does, but it definately isn't us, try looking at the Whitehouse, I suppose they are the ones getting paid.
Joe at 11:06PM on Jun 11th 2008
50. "He has no right and should be stripped of all his benefits and put in prison. He has brought discredit and shame upon the Armed Forces, and the good men who have fought over there. Soldiers died fighting in the same uniform he wears, does he have no honor?"
The military procedure is COURT MARTIAL. He WAS court martialed. Have you too not read anything that is written here to the facts of Ehren's case or military law? Ehren's COURT MARTIAL ended in a botched mistrial which was AGAINST his will. Fortunately for Ehren, or at least I do hope you think the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, he is entitled to appeal (temporary injunction pending the military submitting their own case that to retry him is not double jeopardy) which he won in Federal Court. He is now in limbo due to the MILITARY dragging their feet. Realize this, the court martial was Feb. 5-7, 2007. Judge Head wanted to retry him March 19th. It was then Ehren's RIGHT to appeal on double jeopardy! Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but Ehren is entitled to his CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
"Winning is THE only "morality" given when war is waged. And "morality" depends on which side you're on."
Gee, if I didn't know better I would say you are kin to Macheavelli who fortunately for humanity did NOT write international law. Furthermore, all of your above conjecture is 100% false. It absolutely amazes me that so few people know the Nuremberg Principles and that we ARE bound to them by treaty. http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1020-27.htm
Yet again folks, Ehren's case is NOW a case of double jeopardy, like it or not, that IS a fact.
It is also a FACT that he was denied his justice at the first court martial due to the MILITARY'S manipulation of the trial. There were several thousand people outside Fort Lewis that week supporting Ehren. All major media was there. Heck, on the white board in the office just inside the gates was written, "Watada Circus Coming to Town" as was written in an article in the Fort Lewis newspaper. Ehren did NOT request the mistrial! He wanted to testify and take whatever came to him in the verdict. Can't anyone here but a few understand that? You call that a coward? Sorry, but Ehren is absolutely NO coward. He was WILLING and ready to go to prison for up to six years. Now there has been NO resolution to this matter as it drags on. If none of you think the military should have RULES and that the Constitution should be scrapped then I have nothing to counter that with.
Robin at 11:26PM on Jun 11th 2008
51. It is not the duty of american soliders to
openly, publicly question national policy or get involved in political disputes.you do not get to chose what you will or wont do, so long as the deployment was lawful. HE is not in the position to make or interpret policy.its a war. what did this guy think it was - camping expidition with the Boy Scouts? this officer has clearly violated the UCMJ.he is a VERY POOR example of one too.he should have resigned his commision.
jerry at 11:44PM on Jun 11th 2008
52. james Buchcanan?? -- lazy coward who did nothing.our country would have been split and decimated -future changed forever.thats why LINCOLIN is the real hero- flaws & all. if you have no guts to stand up for freedom then you dont belong- in the military- or this country.this officer is lucky he isnt HANGED like he should be.
jerry at 11:54PM on Jun 11th 2008
53.
Sam, you're a moron. Go to Iraq, then give us a report on whether the war is over. If you make it back.
Anon at 6:52AM on Jun 12th 2008
54. When you get your Commission as an officer in the US armed forces you
swear an oath to defend and uphold against all enemies foreign and
domestic. YOU DO NOT get to choose which ones of those you happen to
agree or disagree with. You signed on for the JOB - - - DO IT! - - Or
get out of the Army!- - Real easy--It is the LT's right onece he is
again a civilian (which I hope happens REAL SOON) to write, protest
and slam whatever policies he does not believ in , but, as an officer
it is his job to serve as ordered- - NOTHING ELSE WILL DO! US
ARMY-(23 years) Viet-Nam through Desert Storm.
CPT-D at 9:00AM on Jun 12th 2008
55. so, all the soldiers on here hollerin' about how it's not a soldier's right to question his/her orders- then does that mean that there should have been no war crime charges against the soldiers who worked for Hitler? They were, after all, JUST following orders....
burley thomas at 9:19AM on Jun 12th 2008
56. If I remember correctly from Squadron Officer School, the United Code of Military Justice says that it is a military officer's RESPONSIBILITY to to follow all LEGAL orders given by his superiors. An officer who follows an ILLEGAL order can be, and often has been, prosecuted for doing so. There is no excuse that falls under the heading "I was just following orders, Sir." (For some reason, Lt. Col. North and Lt. Carey of the Vietnam era come to mind.) The problem is that the war in Iraq just may be illegal (and I believe it is), but until it is determined to be so, Lt. Watada is in a UCMJ gray area. He will most probably spend some time in prison because of his audacity to question the authority and legitimacy of the order he has been given. But, I admire him for sticking to what he believes is the right thing to do. He is, as far as I'm concerned, fulfilling his commission in the noblest way possible. He is serving his country with true honor.
virginia cody at 10:05AM on Jun 12th 2008
57. This man is sure NOT any hero. The heros are the people that have went and served their country. As a soldier--you do not question--hmm, do I want to go fight?--You call this war illegal--once the Pres issued the order--it became legal. Its not a soldiers right to question where he will go--grow up people.
usaproud at 2:21PM on Jun 12th 2008
58. Yea i know how that feels i was in the marines for four years and was deployed to iraq 3 times. i know the sense of shame he felt i felt it. only i didnt have the liberty to refuse to go it woulda been jail time no questions asked.
Jordan at 10:29AM on Jun 12th 2008
59. An officer or an enlisted person is required to follow all orders resulting from decisions of the Commander-in-Chief. He is not supposed to question whether the Commander-in-Chief and Congress in their decision making.
But an officer or an enlisted person can question an order, if it is illegal under the various military codes. But those codes do not deal with whether the civilians that control the military has deployed the military illegally.
I'm not sure I would want Lt. Watada under my command. I wouldn't want my officers to be a bunch of George Pattons, but I want them to be willing to lead their troops into battle and try to make points with me for their reviews and promotion recommendations.
As for the question of whether President Bush lied to us, the answer is no. Remember that Saddam was trying to make the Iranians think that he had WMDs. So, the whole process of interfering with the U.N. inspectors was a ruse to make the Iranians think that he was trying pull a fast one on the U.N.
When George Bush turned up the heat, then Saddam had to create phony documents showing that he had disposed of WMDs that he never had. That boxed Saddam into a serious situation. Admit that he never had WMDs, which would push Iranian hawks into starting another war, or keep up the charade and face the U.S. and its allies.
Saddam bet that the U.S. would either accept the phony documents or back off due lack of support at home and from our allies.
The rest is history. But it does show that the CIA lost its ability to cultivate human sources of information from within unfriendly governments, which it did so well during the Cold War.
Kent at 10:44AM on Jun 12th 2008
60. Speaking out against the war is the right of all Americans, but a soldier does not have the right to refuse an order unless it is illegal. And s/he doesn't get to decide whether it is legal or not. We are a nation of laws and those laws are created by our legislatures and their legitimacy ruled on by our courts -- not by individuals, regardless of how deeply felt their convictions.
Lt Ehren voluntarily joined the Army. In exchange for the benefits and training he has received he committed to following orders, which include fighting in combat if called upon. What happens to our Nation's security if we allow every soldier to decide which orders to follow and which to ignore?
Cal at 5:38PM on Jun 12th 2008