previous post next post  

Lieutenant Watada...

By The Armorer on August 30, 2006 | | Comments (9)

Got the following comment to my post at Milblogs.

Rick (coming in from a [bogus] Yahoo Germany email address) left this:

The trial is certainly a show, but because that's the only way to wake up some Americans from their materialistic comas. You don't see much coverage in the media about this guy, but you certainly see how people complain about waiting 6 hours for fuel standing next to their gas-guzzling, ozone corroding SUV.

And you people always find it so easy to find some hidden agenda to attribute such actions. What about good old fashion patriotism? The kind this great country was founded upon. I don't see you people questions Bushy boy’s hidden agenda. Where are the WMDs?? Where is Bin Laden? LOL you people...

My reponse? This:


Rick - I was born in Germany and lived there over 15 years. Spare me the "materialistic" jibes. You germans like your creature comforts and toys, too. Just because you tax yourself to a level where you can't have as many... well, that's more making a virtue of a vice than true virtue.

As for the rest of your comments - guess who doesn't read too many milblogs.

I thought it was bad, from a leftist dialectic perspective, to engage in "you people" lumping into categories? I guess not - as long as the people in question aren't... your people.

Moving along -

If Lieutenant Watada wishes to self-destruct, he has that right. But he doesn't get to support one campaign, Afghanistan, and refuse to fight in another, Iraq. Like it or not, it's the same war, in both general and technical senses.

If you'd like to bring up an example from German history, it would be like a German officer agreeing to fight in Russia, but refusing to go fight in, say, Cyrenaica, because, well, he didn't think the fight in Africa was right, and what the heck, the British hadn't done anything to him, he was from Pomerania and the threat there was from the East.

Or, better yet, a US officer refusing to fight Germany in WWII, because, well, only the Japanese bombed the US, so he'll only fight in the Pacific.

Soldiers don't get to choose their fights in that regard. It's all or nothing. And setting the precedent that they can is lunacy, and the road to a Banana Republic.

If Watada was both principled *and* smart, he would have deployed, and then waited for orders to attack an Iraqi target - and *then* refuse. He could have possibly forced a trial about the legality of the Iraq campaign at that point.

But he's not very savvy, his lawyers less so - except for the purpose of establishing Kerry-esque credentials - in that he chose to not obey a deployment order - allowing the government to set the the terms of the trial over missing movement, and failure to obey a perfectly valid and legal order - which is where he screwed up from the perspective you seem to espouse.

The "hidden agenda" is simply watching what Lieutenant Watada and his camp are doing, and drawing all the inferences from that we need.

Patriotism? Perhaps. And if so, a version that is as dangerous as blind, unthinking support - moreso, since it sets the terms that the soldiery get to choose, not their civilian masters. At least in the blind, unthinking support version, they're doing what they're told, and that can, in the event, be modified by electoral outcomes - not the decisions of people in uniforms with guns.

Would you support Lieutenant Watada if he had refused an order to deploy to Kosovo? Another "optional war" fought without UN sanction?

Do you *really* want me deciding where I'll fight? Remember - a popular bumpersticker among military personnel in 2003 was "Iraq first, then France." Nothing to stop us from rolling into Germany a third time in 100 years, eh?

Yet - you don't really fear that, and you don't fear it based not on people like Lieutenant Watada, eh?

Share This Article:

Share |

Categories:

9 Comments

By hdw on August 30, 2006 9:28 AM
At least in the blind, unthinking support version, they're doing what their told, and that can, in the event, be modified by electoral outcomes - not the decisions of people in uniforms with guns.
Very well put.
 
By John of Argghhh! on August 30, 2006 9:53 AM
Thenkew - even with the now-corrected typo!
 
By fdcol63 on August 30, 2006 10:07 AM
If this is the model of progressive, European/German socialism, I'll pass: Germans Leave in Record Numbers, Fleeing Unemployment http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aaiYvU1EuM2A&refer=news As more and more native Germans flee, Germany will of course have to rely more and more on Muslim immigrants to prop up their failing economy. Mark Steyne is right about the changing demographics ...... if something is not done to correct this, Germany and the rest of Europe will be less European and more Islamic. Just as America will be increasingly Hispanic. Without full assimilation into their new cultures, both of these immigrant groups will change their host cultures .... for the worse, I'm afraid.
 
By Cricket on August 30, 2006 10:25 AM
I doubt this guy is even from Germany. I have a gas guzzling SUV and it took me only 30 seconds to pull in to the pump at the local QT. I like to buy American mined and refined fuel. Just doing my part to fund the GWOT for OUR SIDE. I NEVER waited six hours for gas, even when Katrina struck, and during those first weeks after, the longest I waited for fuel was ten minutes. Lt. Watada is not a patriot. If his conscience is so offended at this war, then he can doff the uniform and sell his services to the highest bidder in order to feel better about it.
 
By J-P on August 30, 2006 10:29 PM
I hadn't ever thought necessity of a soldier's accountability to a civilian government, but I've seen it plenty in other places. Does anyone remember what happens when this refusal to follow orders and be accountable is translated into other professions? When teachers did this, we ended up with a whole generation of students who could barely do basic math (like myself) or spell (like most of my peers). When cops ignore laws in favor of their own opinions, we end up with things like the L.A.P.D. Rampart fiasco. When elected officials do this, we call them liars and self-serving (and sometimes criminals). I just can't understand why people who pushed for teaching standards, police oversight and election reform wail and moan when that same accountability is applied to our soldiers.
 
By OD on August 31, 2006 2:02 PM
'If Lieutenant Watada wishes to self-destruct, he has that right. But he doesn't get to support one campaign, Afghanistan, and refuse to fight in another, Iraq. Like it or not, it's the same war, in both general and technical senses.' I strongly disagree John. I'd say Watada closely observed US military principles and even the UCMJ, which says not only that soldiers must obey all legal orders but also that: 'Members of the military have an obligation to disobey unlawful orders.' America was attacked from Afghanistan. Therefore under UN Charter Article 51, America had the legal right to respond in kind, with no need to seek UN permission. So the Afghan war was legal and no-one even suggested that the US seek a resolution permitting it. But America was not attacked from Iraq. The war was therefore illegal under article 2, since the US failed to get permission under chapter 7. Watada obeyed the legal order and disobeyed the illegal one, following to the letter the conduct expected of an American officer. 'it would be like a German officer agreeing to fight in Russia, but refusing to go fight in, say, Cyrenaica, because, well, he didn't think the fight in Africa was right, and what the heck, the British hadn't done anything to him, he was from Pomerania and the threat there was from the East.' I think it would be like a German officer who fought willingly in France 1940, since that was a straightforward military campaign, but refused to serve in Russia, because of the Commissar Order and other orders given which were illegal under the laws of the day. Indeed, German officers who obeyed illegal orders were often hanged for it by the Allies. And it was the American prosecutors at Nuremburg who most strenuously insisted that blindly following orders should be no excuse - that even Germans in WW2 had a duty to disobey illegal orders. By the way, cheers for linking to me the other day. I'm flattered!
 
By John of Argghhh! on August 31, 2006 2:15 PM
All of those arguments are, at best, germane after Pelosi and crowd impeach Bush and send him to The Hague for trial. But wait - they voted to support the war (almost all of them) so... *they* are war criminals, too. Until then, under military law - the legislative branch authorizing the expenditure of funds makes it legal under the law. And absent something stunning, that's how it's going to run in court, too, Owen. If we follow your logic to it's fullest conclusion, as well, *all soldiers who served in Iraq* will have to be convicted as a class as felons. Because under this argument - if Watada is correct, then they are all war criminals and should be sanctioned as such - and the entire US military pretty much dismantled and put in prison. Which you know is a ludicrous proposition. And it simply isn't going to happen, and you know it.
 
By OD on August 31, 2006 2:55 PM
Yup, but it seems a shame for Watada, if he's the one legally in the right, that he should get charged because there are too many people who went the other way. I'm sure it will run that way in court. I doubt very much they'll even admit debate about legality of the war. Nobody would propose charging American soldiers for going to Iraq. I'm merely saying it's wrong to charge this guy for refusing.
 
By John of Argghhh! on August 31, 2006 3:11 PM
They carefully charged him with things that would ensure that defense won't be allowed. As I noted, if he'd been smart - he should have deployed, and then refused to engage in combat operations over there. Then he could have brought forth the order. That said, Owen - d'you really think we should set ourselves up to where the troops get to decide where they go?