Days go by
I was navigating our convoy through the city today, looking for bombs and trying not to get us lost, and the thought occurred to me. What the hell am I doing here? I know I have a job to do and I do it the best I can. I understand that I have certain responsibilities, to myself, my family, and my fellow Marines, to get us home safe and sound. I can accept those. My issue is with the war itself. I wonder as I sit here, listening to the calls on the radio, why we don’t fight, why we don’t attack. Where is the will to win? Why are the politicians fighting this war? How are we supposed to win this if we can’t even acknowledge that there is a war going on?
Some friends were listening to an interview on MSNBC, and they swear that, in this interview with Condoleezza Rice, she says that this isn’t war. I didn’t hear it myself, but I wonder; what the hell this is? If we are not at war, then what are we doing? Call it a war on terror, call it a police action, call it whatever you want, but if it looks like a dog and it sounds like a dog, then it’s a dog. Our government spends way too much time debating action and trying to appease the Arab populace. Our bases get attacked almost daily, yet nobody does anything about it. Rockets and mortars, small arms fire, snipers, everybody is trying to kill us, and we have to worry about the rules of engagement before we can fight back. General Patton would be spinning in his grave if he saw the war this war was being fought. If you want to win, you have to destroy the enemy, and nobody wants to do that. We spend day and weeks trying to find the enemy and nobody wants to admit that the enemy is everywhere. Here is an example…
Abu Hassan spends his day in his little shop, selling snacks and sodas, food items and bits of stuff to the local people in his area. He is a small man, about 40, with 4 kids and a wife. He works pretty hard, and makes a decent living. He closes his shop at night, goes to prayer, and listens to the Imam talking about killing the infidels, avenging the dead, or becoming a martyr. Abu Hassan goes home; his head full of mystical sayings pulls his AK-47 out of the closet, puts on his night clothes. He goes out to the end of the street, waits for the nearest American convoy, shoots 5 rounds at them, and then ducks back down the alley and out of sight. He meets up with 4 other Shia friends, and the drive three blocks over. The see a bunch of Sunni men sitting in front of a store, and immediately start shooting. He then has his friends take him home, where he puts his rifle back under his bed, kisses his wife and kids good night, then goes to bed.
The enemy is everywhere, and we have seen him day after day. The guy standing on the street corner, counting American patrols. The taxi cab driver, who follows them at a distance to get the spacing between vehicles, The kid selling black market gasoline on the side of the freeway, whose job is to call in large vehicles. The woman tending to her sheep, the local guy who works on the base, the street sweeper, the farmer; all of them. You can’t beat them by appealing to them. You can’t win them over by providing jobs, schools, and goods. You can’t pacify them by creating a democracy, holding elections, and declaring the end of major combat. You can only win by crushing them. You can beat the militia’s, the Hezbollah’s, the Mahdi Army’s, by finishing this war, killing every person who takes up arms against you, and making the survivors understand that might makes right, and we do have the strength to back it up.
In 1944 and 1945, we defeated Germany and Japan by crushing them into submission. We made them surrender, and we killed those who refused to. By doing so, we created a platform to build on, and we helped build those nations into what we see today. Unfortunately, that was the last time we ever beat anybody. Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq I and II. We spent more time trying to win hearts and minds, and not enough ass kicking. We could crush the resistance in this country, and then there would be no more problems. Not only that, but Iran, Syria, Jordan, would think twice before ever raising a hand against us, and that would give this nation a foundation to succeed. But no, we can’t do that, because our politicians think that spending billions of dollars on projects the Iraqi’s themselves destroy, is a much better way to nation build. We fight the war on CNN and Hardcopy, not on the streets of Ramadi or Sadr City.
In Ramadi, Marines are dying every day, because somebody doesn’t want to take control of the city. They would rather the Marines create pockets or protection, then hopefully peace will spread its wings and people will see that fighting is just wrong, drop their weapons, and take up knitting. In another age, we would have carpet bombed Ramadi into pebbles. Newsweek commented that this type of fighting; this”corporate warfare” is the newest type of combat. Fighting not a nation, but terrorists required a whole different type of military might. I would agree with that, but when the terrorists are everywhere, when you know where they are and who they are, you must be able to take the fight to them. If you don’t do that, because you may hit some quasi-innocent women or bystanders, then you surrender the advantage to the enemy, and you give him the ability to decide the outcome of the battle. He can predict your movements, and control them so that he has the upper hand. Sure he is shooting at us, but he is surrounded by a bunch of women, so we can’t shoot back. He is shooting from a mosque. Oh sinner, how could he do that, but we can’t shoot back.
We are not going to win here, as long as our elected officials refuse to win. We are not going to win as long as we play by the modern rules. We are not going to win, as long as we try to make friends before we kill enemies. Americans are going to continue to die in Iraq and Afghanistan and every other place, as long as we allow the politician-general to make the decisions. FDR where are you???
So, as we race down streets filled with people, I look out and wonder which one of the cars on the side of the road is going to explode. My eyes dart from person to person, trying to identify the one who is going to race out into the street and pull the pin on his suicide vest. We turn left, and the street is empty. Bad sign, when nobody is around. I grip my weapon a little closer, waiting for the blast to hit us. We travel down the street quickly, waiting, looking, searching and praying. Shadows behind a wall, a large tire in the middle of the road. Trash burning in the center of the street. Is that the signal to start the ambush? We scan for snipers, check our systems, flip safeties off the weapons. Look left, swerve right, stay away from that debris, I think I see wires. We turn right and its back out into the busy market. I hear sighs of relief, silent prayers, weapon safeties click on, and everybody relaxes a bit.
Why am I here?
Because someone forgot that war is hell, and there was nobody around to remind them…
Thursday, August 17, 2006
My cut on things
I Object
Why do did I post this article, without putting my thoughts on it? Well, I really had to think about it first, to put some thoughts together. Now that I have them, I suppose I should day something.
First off, Lt Watada should be shipped directly into Iraq. If you join the military, you have a pretty good idea why you joined, and what it was going to be all about. It’s no secret that the Army’s main purpose is to defend the country and fight wars. I mean, any kid playing soldier, any student studying WWII, anybody with a TV will have that basic knowledge. The idea that freedom isn’t free is something we understand as a child. Lt Watada is probably a good guy, and a good officer, but that oath that you take as an officer, as a soldier, directs you to follow orders given to you by your superiors, not follow orders as you see fit. By refusing to go to Iraq, Lt Watada has let down his entire platoon and all of his men that would serve with him. He has proven that he will allow his beliefs, political or otherwise, cloud his judgment and make him ineffective when his men need him the most. To say I won’t go, after all of his men are going, is like a baseball player taking his 12 million a year, and refusing to play. The problem is that this is not a game, and I feel sorry for the men that Mr. Watada decided he is too good to serve with. I know this may sound callous, but that’s too bad. Lt Watada is a coward, not for saying what he believes, but for abandoning the people who need him the most.
What I find equally distasteful, is that Mr. Watada chose to use the press as his platform to get his beliefs out. Maybe, by getting his side of the story into the papers and on TV, he can arouse sympathy from people like Mrs. Sheehan or others, to fight for his cause and make such a noise that the Army will have no choice but to discharge him, or face the wrath of hundreds of anti-war supporters. So, he lets the press get the story first, makes them comfortable, shows how effective he is, and generally makes him look good. The picture in the paper, which I did not include, show Mr. Watada sitting in his living room, in regular clothes, seemingly in despair over his choice. What they should show and comment on are pictures and comments from the men at the front. The ones Mr. Watada chose to abandon. The soldiers in full gear, living and fighting. Maybe they should interview one of two of Mr. Watada’s platoon members, and see what they think. Maybe then, Mr. Watada would understand that having the courage to do the right thing sometimes has a cost, and that cost is not borne by Mr. Watada alone.
I hope that Mr. Watada’s men come safely. I wouldn’t be able to handle the guilt if one of my men got killed doing something that I was supposed to do, because I was too afraid to do it myself. But then, Maybe Mr. Watada doesn’t care at all. So ship him to the front line, let him object all he wants, but he can do it behind a rifle. Then, Mr. Watada can get out of the Army, and write a book about how he was treated, sell it to a movie studio, and laugh about it all the way to the bank. But until then, move out soldier…
Why do did I post this article, without putting my thoughts on it? Well, I really had to think about it first, to put some thoughts together. Now that I have them, I suppose I should day something.
First off, Lt Watada should be shipped directly into Iraq. If you join the military, you have a pretty good idea why you joined, and what it was going to be all about. It’s no secret that the Army’s main purpose is to defend the country and fight wars. I mean, any kid playing soldier, any student studying WWII, anybody with a TV will have that basic knowledge. The idea that freedom isn’t free is something we understand as a child. Lt Watada is probably a good guy, and a good officer, but that oath that you take as an officer, as a soldier, directs you to follow orders given to you by your superiors, not follow orders as you see fit. By refusing to go to Iraq, Lt Watada has let down his entire platoon and all of his men that would serve with him. He has proven that he will allow his beliefs, political or otherwise, cloud his judgment and make him ineffective when his men need him the most. To say I won’t go, after all of his men are going, is like a baseball player taking his 12 million a year, and refusing to play. The problem is that this is not a game, and I feel sorry for the men that Mr. Watada decided he is too good to serve with. I know this may sound callous, but that’s too bad. Lt Watada is a coward, not for saying what he believes, but for abandoning the people who need him the most.
What I find equally distasteful, is that Mr. Watada chose to use the press as his platform to get his beliefs out. Maybe, by getting his side of the story into the papers and on TV, he can arouse sympathy from people like Mrs. Sheehan or others, to fight for his cause and make such a noise that the Army will have no choice but to discharge him, or face the wrath of hundreds of anti-war supporters. So, he lets the press get the story first, makes them comfortable, shows how effective he is, and generally makes him look good. The picture in the paper, which I did not include, show Mr. Watada sitting in his living room, in regular clothes, seemingly in despair over his choice. What they should show and comment on are pictures and comments from the men at the front. The ones Mr. Watada chose to abandon. The soldiers in full gear, living and fighting. Maybe they should interview one of two of Mr. Watada’s platoon members, and see what they think. Maybe then, Mr. Watada would understand that having the courage to do the right thing sometimes has a cost, and that cost is not borne by Mr. Watada alone.
I hope that Mr. Watada’s men come safely. I wouldn’t be able to handle the guilt if one of my men got killed doing something that I was supposed to do, because I was too afraid to do it myself. But then, Maybe Mr. Watada doesn’t care at all. So ship him to the front line, let him object all he wants, but he can do it behind a rifle. Then, Mr. Watada can get out of the Army, and write a book about how he was treated, sell it to a movie studio, and laugh about it all the way to the bank. But until then, move out soldier…
Saturday, August 05, 2006
An Insult to Our Men and Women
Officer Faces Court-Martial for Refusing to Deploy to Iraq
By JOHN KIFNER and TIMOTHY EGAN
Published: July 23, 2006
SEATTLE — When First Lt. Ehren K. Watada of the Army shipped out for a tour of duty in South Korea two years ago, he was a promising young officer rated among the best by his superiors. Like many young men after Sept. 11, he had volunteered “out of a desire to protect our country,” he said, even paying $800 for a medical test to prove he qualified despite childhood asthma.
Now Lieutenant Watada, 28, is working behind a desk at Fort Lewis just south of Seattle, one of only a handful of Army officers who have refused to serve in Iraq, an Army spokesman said, and apparently the first facing the prospect of a court-martial for doing so.
“I was still willing to go until I started reading,” Lieutenant Watada said in an interview one recent evening.
A long and deliberate buildup led to Lieutenant Watada’s decision to refuse deployment to Iraq. He reached out to antiwar groups, and they, in turn, embraced his cause, raising money for his legal defense, selling posters and T-shirts, and circulating a petition on his behalf.
Critics say the lieutenant’s move is an orchestrated act of defiance that will cause chaos in the military if repeated by others. But Lieutenant Watada said he arrived at his decision after much soul-searching and research.
On Jan. 25, “with deep regret,” he delivered a passionate two-page letter to his brigade commander, Col. Stephen J. Townsend, asking to resign his commission. “Simply put, I am wholeheartedly opposed to the continued war in Iraq, the deception used to wage this war, and the lawlessness that has pervaded every aspect of our civilian leadership,” Lieutenant Watada wrote.
At 2:30 a.m. on June 22, when the Third Stryker Brigade of the Second Infantry Division set off for Iraq, Lieutenant Watada was not on the plane. He has since been charged under the Uniform Code of Military Justice with one count of missing movement, for not deploying, two counts of contempt toward officials and three counts of conduct unbecoming an officer.
Lieutenant Watada’s about-face came as a shock to his parents, his fellow soldiers and his superiors. In retrospect, though, there may have been one ominous note in the praise heaped on him in his various military fitness reports: he was cited as having an “insatiable appetite for knowledge.”
Lieutenant Watada said that when he reported to Fort Lewis in June 2005, in preparation for deployment to Iraq, he was beginning to have doubts. “I was still prepared to go, still willing to go to Iraq,” he said. “I thought it was my responsibility to learn about the present situation. At that time, I never conceived our government would deceive the Army or deceive the people.”
He was not asking for leave as a conscientious objector, Lieutenant Watada said, a status assigned to those who oppose all military service because of moral objections to war. It was only the Iraq war that he said he opposed.
Military historians say it is rare in the era of the all-voluntary Army for officers to do what Lieutenant Watada has done.
“Certainly it’s far from unusual in the annals of war for this to happen,” said Michael E. O’Hanlon, a senior fellow in military affairs at the Brookings Institution. “But it is pretty obscure since the draft ended.”
Mr. O’Hanlon said that if other officers followed suit, it would be nearly impossible to run the military. “The idea that any individual officer can decide which war to fight doesn’t really pass the common-sense test,” he said.
Lieutenant Watada conceded that the military could not function if individual members decided which war was just. But, he wrote to Colonel Townsend, he owed his allegiance to a “higher power” — the Constitution — based on the values the Army had taught him: “loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity and personal courage.”
“Please allow me to leave the Army with honor and dignity,” he concluded.
Lieutenant Watada said he began his self-tutorial about the Iraq war with James Bamford’s book “A Pretext for War,” which argues that the war in Iraq was driven by a small group of neoconservative civilians in the Pentagon and their allies in policy institutes. The book suggests that intelligence was twisted to justify the toppling of Saddam Hussein, with the goal of fundamentally changing the Middle East to the benefit of Israel.
Next was “Chain of Command,” by Seymour M. Hersh, about the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. After that, Lieutenant Watada moved on to other publications on war-related themes, including selections on the treatment of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and the so-called Downing Street memo, in which the British chief of intelligence told Prime Minister Tony Blair in July 2002 that the Americans saw war in Iraq as “inevitable” and that “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”
Lieutenant Watada said he also talked to soldiers returning to Fort Lewis from Iraq, including a staff sergeant who told him that he and his men had probably committed war crimes.
“When I learned the awful truth that we had been deceived — I was shocked and disgusted,” he wrote in the letter to his brigade commander.
There were efforts to work things out, Lieutenant Watada said. The Army offered him a staff job in Iraq that would have kept him out of combat; but combat was not the point, he said.
Lieutenant Watada said he had volunteered to serve in Afghanistan, which he regarded as an unambiguous war linked to the Sept. 11 attacks. The request was denied.
In public statements, Army officials warned Lieutenant Watada that he was facing “adverse action” in the days leading up to his decision to refuse to go to Iraq. Charges were filed only after he showed insubordination, they said; his insubordination included giving interviews.
“This was a call of his commander, after he decided that Lieutenant Watada’s action required these charges,” said Joe Hitt, a Fort Lewis spokesman.
When Lieutenant Watada’s mother, Carolyn Ho, learned of his decision, she was caught off guard, she said. Her son, an Eagle Scout who grew up in Hawaii, had always admired the Army.
“I tried to talk him out of it,” Ms. Ho said. “I just saw his career going down the drain. It took me awhile to get through this.”
Now, she said, “I honor and respect his decision.”
Two officers who served with Lieutenant Watada in South Korea also voiced support for him in telephone interviews arranged by Lieutenant Watada, though they made it clear they did not share his views on Iraq.
“He was a good officer, always very professional,” said one of the officers, Capt. Scott Hulin. “I personally disagree with his opinion and his stance against the war. But I personally support his stand as a man, to be able to do what his heart is telling him.”
A former roommate of Lieutenant Watada, First Lt. Bernard West, offered similar remarks.
Lieutenant Watada had two assignments in South Korea. One was as the executive officer of the headquarters battery, the other as a platoon leader of a unit of multiple-launch rockets. His evaluations were glowing.
“Exemplary,” said his executive officer fitness report, which Lieutenant Watada provided to a reporter. “Tremendous potential for positions of increased responsibility. He has the potential to command with distinction. Promote ahead of his peers.”
His evaluation as a platoon leader also called him “exemplary” and said he had “unlimited potential.”
Under the military system, the charges against Lieutenant Watada will be reviewed in an Article 32 hearing, the rough equivalent of a grand jury hearing. If there is a court-martial hearing, it will probably come in the fall; the maximum penalty would be a dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of pay and seven years in prison, according to a news release from Fort Lewis.
A spokesman for the Army, Paul Boyce, said that as far as he knew, Lieutenant Watada would be the first Army officer to be court-martialed for refusing to go to Iraq.
By JOHN KIFNER and TIMOTHY EGAN
Published: July 23, 2006
SEATTLE — When First Lt. Ehren K. Watada of the Army shipped out for a tour of duty in South Korea two years ago, he was a promising young officer rated among the best by his superiors. Like many young men after Sept. 11, he had volunteered “out of a desire to protect our country,” he said, even paying $800 for a medical test to prove he qualified despite childhood asthma.
Now Lieutenant Watada, 28, is working behind a desk at Fort Lewis just south of Seattle, one of only a handful of Army officers who have refused to serve in Iraq, an Army spokesman said, and apparently the first facing the prospect of a court-martial for doing so.
“I was still willing to go until I started reading,” Lieutenant Watada said in an interview one recent evening.
A long and deliberate buildup led to Lieutenant Watada’s decision to refuse deployment to Iraq. He reached out to antiwar groups, and they, in turn, embraced his cause, raising money for his legal defense, selling posters and T-shirts, and circulating a petition on his behalf.
Critics say the lieutenant’s move is an orchestrated act of defiance that will cause chaos in the military if repeated by others. But Lieutenant Watada said he arrived at his decision after much soul-searching and research.
On Jan. 25, “with deep regret,” he delivered a passionate two-page letter to his brigade commander, Col. Stephen J. Townsend, asking to resign his commission. “Simply put, I am wholeheartedly opposed to the continued war in Iraq, the deception used to wage this war, and the lawlessness that has pervaded every aspect of our civilian leadership,” Lieutenant Watada wrote.
At 2:30 a.m. on June 22, when the Third Stryker Brigade of the Second Infantry Division set off for Iraq, Lieutenant Watada was not on the plane. He has since been charged under the Uniform Code of Military Justice with one count of missing movement, for not deploying, two counts of contempt toward officials and three counts of conduct unbecoming an officer.
Lieutenant Watada’s about-face came as a shock to his parents, his fellow soldiers and his superiors. In retrospect, though, there may have been one ominous note in the praise heaped on him in his various military fitness reports: he was cited as having an “insatiable appetite for knowledge.”
Lieutenant Watada said that when he reported to Fort Lewis in June 2005, in preparation for deployment to Iraq, he was beginning to have doubts. “I was still prepared to go, still willing to go to Iraq,” he said. “I thought it was my responsibility to learn about the present situation. At that time, I never conceived our government would deceive the Army or deceive the people.”
He was not asking for leave as a conscientious objector, Lieutenant Watada said, a status assigned to those who oppose all military service because of moral objections to war. It was only the Iraq war that he said he opposed.
Military historians say it is rare in the era of the all-voluntary Army for officers to do what Lieutenant Watada has done.
“Certainly it’s far from unusual in the annals of war for this to happen,” said Michael E. O’Hanlon, a senior fellow in military affairs at the Brookings Institution. “But it is pretty obscure since the draft ended.”
Mr. O’Hanlon said that if other officers followed suit, it would be nearly impossible to run the military. “The idea that any individual officer can decide which war to fight doesn’t really pass the common-sense test,” he said.
Lieutenant Watada conceded that the military could not function if individual members decided which war was just. But, he wrote to Colonel Townsend, he owed his allegiance to a “higher power” — the Constitution — based on the values the Army had taught him: “loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity and personal courage.”
“Please allow me to leave the Army with honor and dignity,” he concluded.
Lieutenant Watada said he began his self-tutorial about the Iraq war with James Bamford’s book “A Pretext for War,” which argues that the war in Iraq was driven by a small group of neoconservative civilians in the Pentagon and their allies in policy institutes. The book suggests that intelligence was twisted to justify the toppling of Saddam Hussein, with the goal of fundamentally changing the Middle East to the benefit of Israel.
Next was “Chain of Command,” by Seymour M. Hersh, about the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. After that, Lieutenant Watada moved on to other publications on war-related themes, including selections on the treatment of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and the so-called Downing Street memo, in which the British chief of intelligence told Prime Minister Tony Blair in July 2002 that the Americans saw war in Iraq as “inevitable” and that “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”
Lieutenant Watada said he also talked to soldiers returning to Fort Lewis from Iraq, including a staff sergeant who told him that he and his men had probably committed war crimes.
“When I learned the awful truth that we had been deceived — I was shocked and disgusted,” he wrote in the letter to his brigade commander.
There were efforts to work things out, Lieutenant Watada said. The Army offered him a staff job in Iraq that would have kept him out of combat; but combat was not the point, he said.
Lieutenant Watada said he had volunteered to serve in Afghanistan, which he regarded as an unambiguous war linked to the Sept. 11 attacks. The request was denied.
In public statements, Army officials warned Lieutenant Watada that he was facing “adverse action” in the days leading up to his decision to refuse to go to Iraq. Charges were filed only after he showed insubordination, they said; his insubordination included giving interviews.
“This was a call of his commander, after he decided that Lieutenant Watada’s action required these charges,” said Joe Hitt, a Fort Lewis spokesman.
When Lieutenant Watada’s mother, Carolyn Ho, learned of his decision, she was caught off guard, she said. Her son, an Eagle Scout who grew up in Hawaii, had always admired the Army.
“I tried to talk him out of it,” Ms. Ho said. “I just saw his career going down the drain. It took me awhile to get through this.”
Now, she said, “I honor and respect his decision.”
Two officers who served with Lieutenant Watada in South Korea also voiced support for him in telephone interviews arranged by Lieutenant Watada, though they made it clear they did not share his views on Iraq.
“He was a good officer, always very professional,” said one of the officers, Capt. Scott Hulin. “I personally disagree with his opinion and his stance against the war. But I personally support his stand as a man, to be able to do what his heart is telling him.”
A former roommate of Lieutenant Watada, First Lt. Bernard West, offered similar remarks.
Lieutenant Watada had two assignments in South Korea. One was as the executive officer of the headquarters battery, the other as a platoon leader of a unit of multiple-launch rockets. His evaluations were glowing.
“Exemplary,” said his executive officer fitness report, which Lieutenant Watada provided to a reporter. “Tremendous potential for positions of increased responsibility. He has the potential to command with distinction. Promote ahead of his peers.”
His evaluation as a platoon leader also called him “exemplary” and said he had “unlimited potential.”
Under the military system, the charges against Lieutenant Watada will be reviewed in an Article 32 hearing, the rough equivalent of a grand jury hearing. If there is a court-martial hearing, it will probably come in the fall; the maximum penalty would be a dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of pay and seven years in prison, according to a news release from Fort Lewis.
A spokesman for the Army, Paul Boyce, said that as far as he knew, Lieutenant Watada would be the first Army officer to be court-martialed for refusing to go to Iraq.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)