Other Than Honorable
Today, quite a few news outlets and blogs are discussing the case of Army 1st. Lt. Ehren Watada, an officer in the 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division based in Fort Lewis, Washington, who has stated the intention to refuse deployment to Iraq with the rest of his unit this month. His stated reason?
If Watada follows through with his stated intentions, he will likely be the first military officer to refuse deployment to Iraq. Further in the article, Watada's father explains his son's reasoning:
"I feel that we have been lied to and betrayed by this administration," Watada said Tuesday in a telephone interview from Fort Lewis. "It is the duty, the obligation of every soldier, and specifically the officers, to evaluate the legality, the truth behind every order — including the order to go to war."
So Watada's basic argument is this: he joined the U.S. Army several months after the invasion of Iraq in March of 2003, because he believed that Iraq under Saddam Hussein possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs). For reasons not clearly stated, Watada then determined that in his mind, "that we have been lied to and betrayed by this administration," and that he didn't have to deploy in what he regarded as an "illegal" and "immoral" war. Watada's stance has garnered the support of many on the far left, presumably from the very same web sites and blogs where he "read up on the war" and became convinced that "there was 'intentional manipulation of intelligence' by the Bush administration." I might have some sympathy for Lt. Watada's position if he had formally stated his opposition to the war to his superiors in his nearly three years of continuous military service until this point. Instead, he withheld these sentiments until his deployment orders were issued. Watada's newly-pronounced idealism reeks of an attempt to cover for other mortal flaws in his own character, shows a profound lack of loyalty to his men, and betrays an absence of any true and binding morality. Soldiers do not get to pick and choose their wars, yet hundreds of thousands of American soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, Guardsmen, and Reserves have cycled into an out of Iraqi in the past three years of war, and while many perhaps felt that this war was not one they would chose, they followed their lawful orders to deploy. They do not do this because they love combat, nor death, nor deprivation. They give up families, stability and even their lives, because of honor, duty and loyalty. They do this because of bonds between soldiers that civilians such as you or I will never truly understand. Ehren Watada has betrayed the men in his command. He has shown that his fear of dying, and flailing political sensibilities are stronger than is sense of duty and loyalty to his men, and be betrayed his oath and his commitment to this nation. Based upon the previous convinctions of other soldiers and sailors, Watada will likely be court-martialed and demoted, perhaps sentenced to prison, and when he is finally excreted from the military criminal justice system, it will be with with a Other-Than-Honorable (OTH) discharge, with which he will be able to continue to live out an other-than-honorable life. Update: Kim Priestap at Wizbang and Michelle Malkin have more.
His father — Robert Watada, a retired Hawaii state official — was opposed to the war in Vietnam, and was able to do alternative service in the Peace Corps in Peru. And Robert Watada said he laid out the "pros and cons" of military service as his son considered joining the service in the spring of 2003 as the invasion of Iraq was launched. "He knew very well of my decision not to go to Vietnam, and he had to make his own decision to join the Army," Robert Watada said. "It was very noble. He felt like he wanted to do his part for his country." After the younger Watada enlisted, he was sent to officer-training school in Georgia. Watada said he supported the war at that time because he believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. "I had my doubts," he said. "But I felt like the president is our leader, and he won't betray our trust, and he would know what he was talking about, and let's give him the benefit of the doubt." Over the past year, his feeling changed as he read up on the war and became convinced that there was "intentional manipulation of intelligence" by the Bush administration. In January, Watada told his commanders that he believed that the war was unlawful, and therefore, so were his deployment orders. He did not, however, consider himself a conscientious objector, since he was willing to fight in wars that were justified, legal and in defense of the nation.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:29 PM
Comments
1
Get rid of him, the Military doesn't need the likes of him. He used the system to get what he wanted but when it was time to give back, he is trying to bail.
We, as military professionals, don't pick and choose what war is or isn't lied about, we go where the Commander and Chief tells us to go. (This one had Congressional blessing).
We, as military professionals, don't pick and choose what war is or isn't lied about, we go where the Commander and Chief tells us to go. (This one had Congressional blessing).
Posted by: Retired Navy at June 07, 2006 01:35 PM (JYeBJ)
2
I feel sorry for the men who have trained under his command. His statements are a betrayal of their trust in him, whether he goes through with this or not. There are things that once spoken cannot be unsaid.
Posted by: Joan at June 07, 2006 02:26 PM (y6n8O)
3
Treat him just like Eddie Slovik. Give him what he deserves!!
Posted by: lip at June 07, 2006 03:33 PM (EJHD4)
4
Right or Wrong, he's got some huge balls.
Posted by: cdb at June 07, 2006 03:46 PM (uPLKw)
5
cdb - I disagree with you. If he agrees to court martial and takes what comes, then maybe I would agree with you, but you know he is going to fight the right of the Army to even try him and he'll try to cut some cushy deal. Doesn't takes balls to be inconvinenced for a little while.
Posted by: SouthernRoots at June 07, 2006 03:54 PM (jHBWL)
6
His team is already fighting it in the press. They don't realize that the Military Courts could care less about how the press will respond, at least I hope they still don't care. It would be a shame if the bent over for the liberal news media just because they may be afraid of some bad publicity.
Posted by: Retired Navy at June 07, 2006 07:40 PM (QOQy9)
7
The Army places a great deal of trust and authority in the officer coprs. I fully expect this little twerp will get maximum punishment IAW the UCMJ. With a General Courts Marshal he could get hard time and/or a bad conduct discharge or even a dishonorable discharge. In view of the fact that his unit is on orders to a combat zone, he could end up with a dishonorable. I'm confident the Army will not be swayed by the liberal left nor the media (same thing).
Posted by: Old Soldier at June 07, 2006 08:00 PM (owAN1)
8
Surely there must be some snow drifts of vital national security interest up in Attu or Shemya islands that would warrant being guarded personally by this fellow?
Posted by: Purple Avenger at June 07, 2006 09:07 PM (gf5iT)
9
What he's doing seems pretty brave to me. I disagree with it, but he would be in little danger as a Lt. in Iraq (don't they all hang out in the green zone?), but he's (hopefully) facing jail time for his stand. I think it's despicable what he's doing, but it's probably not fair to call him a coward or anything.
Not even close to the bravery needed to actually patrol the streets of Iraq of course.
Not even close to the bravery needed to actually patrol the streets of Iraq of course.
Posted by: Kevin at June 07, 2006 09:26 PM (+hkUo)
10
I can't say for sure but what it seems to me is this.
He got his free educations courtsy of the U.S.Army, He gets as much leadership training/experience (3 years isn't much) as he can and when things don't go his way, he starts to cry 'Lies-Lies-Lies'. Add to that the defense team he hired started playing to the Liberal media and blogs right away to gather support. Now that looks like (to me) he is hoping to sway enough of the courts decision to get either an "Other than Honorable" or even "Dishonorable" discharge. Either way he wins, he gets to go to his Liberal home and get a job from one of his Liberal connections that don't care about what kind of discharge people get anymore. The only gamble he is taking is possible jail time, that hasn't really happened in a long time for refusing orders, people just get booted out.
He's not brave by any stretch, he's just using the system to get what he wants. I hope he does get some jail time, though it's unlikely.
He got his free educations courtsy of the U.S.Army, He gets as much leadership training/experience (3 years isn't much) as he can and when things don't go his way, he starts to cry 'Lies-Lies-Lies'. Add to that the defense team he hired started playing to the Liberal media and blogs right away to gather support. Now that looks like (to me) he is hoping to sway enough of the courts decision to get either an "Other than Honorable" or even "Dishonorable" discharge. Either way he wins, he gets to go to his Liberal home and get a job from one of his Liberal connections that don't care about what kind of discharge people get anymore. The only gamble he is taking is possible jail time, that hasn't really happened in a long time for refusing orders, people just get booted out.
He's not brave by any stretch, he's just using the system to get what he wants. I hope he does get some jail time, though it's unlikely.
Posted by: Retired Navy at June 08, 2006 05:09 AM (nFSnk)
11
I will defer to the veterans here on this topic, but this statement of "It is the duty, the obligation of every soldier, and specifically the officers, to evaluate the legality, the truth behind every order — including the order to go to war" is news to me. I would think that would create lots of problems, especially in a combat zone.
Colonel: "You men take that hill!"
Lt: "I'll have to consult my lawyer or perhaps the UN before I can do that, sir."
Colonel: "You men take that hill!"
Lt: "I'll have to consult my lawyer or perhaps the UN before I can do that, sir."
Posted by: Rob at June 08, 2006 07:05 AM (BFtAQ)
12
It is the duty of every soldier/sailor to "OBEY the orders of those appointed over them" (Quotes are part of the oath taken when swearing it), the regulations state 'all LAWFUL orders are to be followed' and when given by higher ranking officers 'all DIRECT orders are to be followed'.
He disobeyed all of that.
Like I said, he is trying for the court of public opinion hoping the military will quickly shove this under the rug.
He disobeyed all of that.
Like I said, he is trying for the court of public opinion hoping the military will quickly shove this under the rug.
Posted by: Retired Navy at June 08, 2006 07:48 AM (lNB+R)
13
Well, the oath part is for enlisteds, I guess Officers don't have the Obey part in theirs. That makes you wonder there dosen't it.
Posted by: Retired Navy at June 08, 2006 07:52 AM (elhVA)
14
This man has no courage and no honor.
Someone will be assigned to replace him and that person will be at risk in Iraq. Pray for that soldier.
Someone will be assigned to replace him and that person will be at risk in Iraq. Pray for that soldier.
Posted by: SouthernRoots at June 08, 2006 08:21 AM (jHBWL)
15
Retired Navy,
Thats the enlisted oath, the Officer one is slightly different in that part.
The easy thing to due would be to not say anything. Taking a stand would be the hard thing to do.
Thats the enlisted oath, the Officer one is slightly different in that part.
The easy thing to due would be to not say anything. Taking a stand would be the hard thing to do.
Posted by: CDB at June 08, 2006 08:59 AM (uPLKw)
16
CDB
I know they take a different oath, but they are under the same UCMJ.
I also believe he is taking the easy way, not the hard way. To live up to one's promise/word even when it includes going to Iraq, is harder than bailing out on your troops that were looking to you for guidance. I am sure he is looking for an easy discharge and dosen't see jailtime because that is the line he is being fed by those that are "supporting" him.
I know they take a different oath, but they are under the same UCMJ.
I also believe he is taking the easy way, not the hard way. To live up to one's promise/word even when it includes going to Iraq, is harder than bailing out on your troops that were looking to you for guidance. I am sure he is looking for an easy discharge and dosen't see jailtime because that is the line he is being fed by those that are "supporting" him.
Posted by: Retired Navy at June 08, 2006 11:10 AM (Mv/2X)
17
As I see it according to this individual. The war was just as illegal yesterday, last week, last year or when we liberated IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN. Also when he was getting a free education paid for by our tax dollars. Now when it is time for him to meet his obligatons under his appointment he suddenly has a conscience concerning this illegal and unjust war. Whoever says this guy has ball is full of crap. He is a gutless coward that used the system and does not deserve the right to wear the uniform of this country and should be incarcerated and DD for his refusal to obey a lawful order. And must pay back all of the costs incurred by the Govt for his housing and education that he recieved. The lefties love this crap and the anti-war crowd is beating the drum. Hopefully they will have to bake him a cake. (With a file in it.) 
Posted by: Faithful Patriot at June 08, 2006 11:40 AM (JYeBJ)
18
If, God forbid, Watada's replacement is wounded or even killed in Iraq, will Watada have the "balls" to apologize to that man's family? What will he do to comfort them?
How did he end up in a Stryker Brigade? Did he volunteer? Did he have opportunities to go into "non-combat" roles, but instead choose roles that could put him in combat? Has this been planned?
How did he end up in a Stryker Brigade? Did he volunteer? Did he have opportunities to go into "non-combat" roles, but instead choose roles that could put him in combat? Has this been planned?
Posted by: SouthernRoots at June 08, 2006 12:26 PM (jHBWL)
19
I come from Hawaii and share the same last name as Ehren. This is the first time in my life that I am ashamed of my name. This guy put me through hell yesterday with all the people coming up to me and asking me if I was related to this guy. I was so ashamed. Thank god, I'm not related to him. Ehren, to put it simply you are a disgrace to the Asian race and the people of Hawaii. You are nothing more than a coward...plain and simple. You enlisted in the military...what the hell were you thinking when you joined to begin with? You have no right to be living in the United States. I can't believe your father supports your decision. If you were my son, you'd be disowned by now. Do the right thing, and show your patriotism.
Posted by: In Hawaii at June 08, 2006 02:36 PM (rEqqI)
20
Its not you nor your name that is a disgrace, just him.
Posted by: Retired Navy at June 08, 2006 06:33 PM (QOQy9)
21
Should've just got his education then let them know he is gay.
Posted by: Robert at June 09, 2006 02:54 PM (VTtVl)
22
Unlike the oxymoron title of your website, you are simply a moron.
Posted by: uracoward at June 16, 2006 01:14 PM (pTLZZ)
23
Well, I am an 8-year Army veteran and former US Army CID agent who understands the duty of a soldier to disobey unlawful orders and I totally support Lt. Watada.
Posted by: Debbie Clark at July 01, 2006 11:00 PM (tiYGN)
Processing 0.0, elapsed 0.0126 seconds.
18 queries taking 0.0085 seconds, 31 records returned.
Page size 19 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.