at what point will rank-and-file soldiers refuse to be cannon fodder for a madman?

[villager]

just wonderin'....

[Oleladylib]

1. I have wondered the same myself..what's wrong with a rank

and file-all out boycott of this self slaughter?

[villager]

4. would certainly wind down the war machine right quick...

n/t

[Homer Wells]

46. Suppose they gave a war and Nobody came??

That old gem from the Sixties is apropos to the moment, isn't it??

:hippie:

[saigon68]

2. deleted

[TahitiNut]

47. ditto

[northofdenali]

3. Although I've heard a lot of grumbling in my neighborhood -

many just recently returned and are totally anti-Bush/anti-Iraq, most of the soldiers I've spoken with will remain loyal to their oaths. It has more to do with loyalty to each other and their brigade, their immediate commanding officers (who are quite professional and highly trained) than to the so-called Chimperor in Chief.

It'll be up to Congress to bring them home, along with major pressure from all of us.

[sanskritwarrior]

6. have to agree

This is my take on the boys I am in charge of and myself for that matter. We grumble but we do not get to decide what is right or wrong. Unfortunately this is why LT watada will go to jail. He will argue brilliantly and he will be morally right, but as far as UCMJ is concerned his views on the war do not excuse him for missing movement. He will win the moral battle but still go to Leavenworth.

[atreides1]

27. "...will remain loyal to their oaths."

Maybe you should point out that they are not remaining loyal to their oaths! I took that oath several times while I was serving on active duty, I seem to remember giving my allegiance to the
Constitution of the United States, not to the office of the President.

When the Patriot Act passed, not just once but twice, and the military failed to support and defend
the Constitution, they were no longer loyal to the oaths that they took. They became the loyal soldiers of the Empire that Bush wants to build, and now they are paying for that loyalty with their
limbs and their lives.

Here are the words that every member of the US Military is required to take

In the Armed Forces EXCEPT the National Guard (Army or Air)

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

In the National Guard (Army or Air)

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the State of (STATE NAME) against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the Governor of (STATE NAME) and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to law and regulations. So help me God.

So the next time, that a soldier tells you that he/she will remain loyal to their oaths, ask them when were they required to swear allegiance to Bush?

By the way I have asked some and instead of a quick answer, I get the "deer in the headlights" look,
it's very disconcerting

[Ravenseye]

41. Agreed. They'll never stop.

Not to take away from their loyalty, but studies have shown that most people will go to pretty extreme lengths if told to do so by an authority figure. Something like 70% of people, if told to do something by an authority figure who takes responsibility for it, will pretty much do whatever they're told to do. If they are in the same boat, ie they're in a unit getting orders, they're even more likely to follow those orders.

Hence the familiar refrain "I was only following orders".

Anyone expecting the military to start booking independent flights home from Iraq needs to wake up. They might disagree with it, but they'll do what they're told.

[sanskritwarrior]

5. I am a rank and

file soldier. My opinion is never. Most of my boys and myself have our personal feelings about this war and where the Prez can shove it, but we have also taken an oath and that means we don't get to disobey the man in charge. I have stated before love or hate, he is the leader of this country. I will feel a lot better in 08 when he is gone and perhaps Gen. clark is saving the military as our President. That being said I have a duty and it supercedes my personal feelings, Iam a grunt, they tell me to go somewhere I go. I believe most soldiers would do the same.

[shadowknows69]

7. With all due respect

Your oath is to the Constitution my friend, not the President. Bush IS the "domestic enemies" in your oath. He cares nothing for your well being.

<edit to add> that being said I agree with you. Waiting or hoping for a military uprising against Bush is folly.

[sanskritwarrior]

9. I had this same discussion the other day

This is the oath


I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.



Now no matter what a person's personal beliefs are about Bush until he is arrested, charged and/or convicted he has committed no crime as far as the law is concerned. I have my personal views and they are close to what you said, but until such time as he is removed, arrested or charged, he has broken no laws. That doesn't make me a freeper or a anything else, it means I am mindful of what I took an oath to defend and what I took an oath to obey. As of now no matter how much I wanted John F. Kerry as my president this is what I am stuck with for 2 more years. I served honorably under Clinton and I will serve honorably under Bush. My personal feelings are irrelevant no matter what I wish was reality. In the end if Bush is charged I am free to disregard any order he makes as he will then be considered a criminal. As of today Jan 3 2007 that is not reality.

[shadowknows69]

13. Nitpicking I suppose but

correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the UCMJ state that you have the right to disobey an immoral order? And by that logic if you accept that the war itself is illegal then all subsequent orders should be considered the same. This is the question our soldiers should be asking themselves. Is the conflict itself an immoral order?

[sanskritwarrior]

14. What's morality?

And who am I to decide?? I am an enlisted grunt. I have a free will, but I also have a duty.........

[shadowknows69]

15. Invading a nation that was no threat to us is immoral

or at least illegal, preemptive war was ruled illegal at the nuremburg trials. When the lie of WMD's was exposed this conflict became an illegal invasion and occupation, it was in my opinion any way as inspections and diplomacy were NOT given their full course. Civilized people shouldn't continue pointless conflicts on nebulous concepts like "duty" and "vanity" because that's what we're practicing when we say "we can't leave now or they all died in vain", national vanity. We refuse allow ourselves to believe the fact that our soldiers might be dying for nothing or worse for the military industrial complex and that is what allows the war machine to keep rolling and extinguishing the lives of promising young people like yourself. Our politicians seem to be on board for the idea of the "endless war". You guys may be the only way to stop it someday. The alternative may be a career of killing and dying for all of our troops. I can't believe that's how you guys really want to live.

[Selatius]

18. You must mean "immoral" as "illegal"

If sanskritwarrior were ordered to drop white phosphorus on people even though international law specifically forbids the use of phosphorus as a weapon outside of simple illumination of the night, then he would be obligated by law to disobey that order or risk being brought up on war crimes charges himself.

The problem with the invasion of Iraq is that no authority has come out and explicitly decided the invasion of Iraq was, in fact, illegal. Nobody has specifically brought a case forward to test the hypothesis that the very invasion itself was illegal. Now, I am sure some in the legal profession would like to bring such a case forward, but foreign governments and the Hague can't do anything until the US government itself decides whether it was illegal, and there is no evidence the US court system is in the mood to hear such a case.

To their credit, Benjamin Ferencz, a chief prosecutor at Nuremberg who put away several nazi officers for war crimes and crimes against humanity, weighed in on the issue and stated bluntly that both Saddam and Bush should've stood trial for high crimes. (Yes, Ferencz is still alive)

[sanskritwarrior]

20. Bravo

this is exactly why I cannot disobey an order.........And you are also right on the Willy Pete order, I could refuse that one.........

[sanskritwarrior]

19. Good points all around

However, this war has not been ruled illegal by any substantative American body of law. Granted I am no expert and am quite naive on how the law works in this regard. I do know that lots of people say the war is illegal but so far I have seen no documentation by an authoratative body that backs up this assertion with the force of law behind it. If it was illegal why has its funding been approved year after year. I don't mean to dispute this with you, just ask a simple question. If Congress keeps voting money for it, how could it possibly be illegal?

Believe me I don't look forward to my deployments, but it is my job. I believe people in Iraq have died in vain, but it's not my decision whether we stay or not. Congress must debate those issues and if they say we stay, then we stay and fight and try not to die, if they say come home, then we come and try to heal from our experiences in Iraq. I do not want to be the one to stop "endless war." If my officers gave me an order to overthrow the govt. whether it is Bush or Kerry, or Clinton or even David Duke, I would turn my weapon on my officers. THAT IS AN ILLEGAL ORDER. Ordering us to fight in war that Congress voted on is not illegal, immoral maybe but immoral is not illegal. It might be wrong however, but it is not wrong as far as the law is concerned.

As for the alternative, no one wants a career of fighting, killing or dying except the mentally unhinged. A soldier can leave the Army after a few years service or reenlist. Certain critical MOS's can be stop lossed for an additional year to eighteen months, but even then people can leave. I choose to stay because good or bad I believe in my country. When times are bad, people willing to do their duty for the country are needed even more than normal. We want to live where we are trained for war but live in peace, we want to have good leadership, and we want to not be misused. However we have a duty to perform, no matter how bad the President is, we still have to listen, at least until he is impeached or arrested or asks us to truly break the law, such as firing on American citizens. Asking us to deploy to a war zone which Congress has authorized and which Congress has funded is not only legal it is a serious breach of UCMJ for us to deny that order. Ultimately that is why Lt. Ehren Watada will lose his case. He will argue eloquently and morally that the war was wrong, the Courts Martial panel will say the following "that's nice but the order to deploy was legal, now you go to jail." I sympathize with the LT as he sounds like a good man, but I think he knows he is going to jail as the Courts Martial doesn't care whether the war is legal or not, they care why he didn't get on the plane.

[villager]

28. isn't that part of post-Nuremburg law, too?

n/t

[frogcycle]

8. Not the way you put it

I would never expect to see wholesale desertion or mutiny. Our guys are too disciplined for that. I do wonder, though, whether some top brass - and I mean really top - might weigh their obligation to the constitution and the thousands of lives dependent on them against a career-threatening "hell, no, we won't go" type response. I think we are headed for a constitutional crisis (as if we weren't already there!) Bottom line is the constitution does not provide for the eventuality of a PAIR of sociopaths in the #1 and #2 spots. So there is no constitutional remedy for the commander-in-chief ordering 40,000 troops to "ride on into the valley of death" against ALL advice, just to fulfill his fantasy. Something outside the proscribed constitutional remedy has to happen. I'm not sure what it is, but from the sounds coming from Abizaid, Casey, Powell... ok, not outright mutiny yet, but for career military folks pretty doggoned insubordinate... maybe the rank and file won't have to make the choice... I think if the dems apply sufficient pressure, bush will go postal, issue an order they can refuse, and we'll have to see how to sort it all out.

[donheld]

42. Is it disciplined or brainwashed?

:shrug: Honest question. It might happen if you get entire groups to start doing it, but one here and one there only gets them prosecuted.

[MoseyWalker]

10. Never

they signed up. They do their jobs. They are stuck.

[leftofthedial]

11. a few already have

but it does seem the ranks are getting more and more restless


I fear that one of the likeliest outcomes of king george's reign is an overt military coup.

[sanskritwarrior]

12. I do not believe that will ever happen

There will never be a coup as the military takes orders, it does not give them.

[shadowknows69]

16. Youcould demand that your commanders and commander in chief

make sound decisions. You deserve no less.

[sanskritwarrior]

17. I am not in a

position to demand anything. I demanded nothing of Bill Clinton (not that there was anything to demand he rocked) and I will demand nothing of George W. Bush. I am not in a place to demand anything, the American government however can demand anything of me as I volunteered for this duty and have reenlisted 4 times now, twice since 9/11 and once in Iraq. I am here because I love my job and I love my country. Of course I am a free thinker and not a robot, but I do not have the right to demand anything from my government. Not in uniform..........Again this is my personal opinion, I deserve a government that looks out for me, but I can't shirk my duty if that govt. lets me down. I don't get to treat them badly if they screw me or my troops over. If that was the way it was, nothing would ever get done. Discipline in the military exists so that soldiers can do their duty whether they have good leaders or bad leaders. Our duty is above our personal feelings, our duty is above those we voted for or didn't vote for and our duty matters most when people are telling us to shirk it. Just my .02 cents......... :D

Edit: that should read twice since 9/11 with one of those 2 times being in Iraq.

[Karenina]

23. You are a very clear and concise writer

and make your points well. Your posts have helped me understand the "military mindset" a bit better. I am very interested in your thoughts about the Appeal for Redress.

[Marrah_G]

21. Because they took an oath

There are a few very good reasons they do not.

The first is that you do NOT want a country with the military making decisions meant to be made by the 3 branches of our government. Sure it sounds great when they are disobeying orders for a cause you support, but what about one you don't support? Think about that.

Secondly, these people have families and responsibilities to others. I hate this war, I hate this president and I also have a brother leaving for the middle east on Sunday. He is 41 years old, has a wife and 5 children and a very good job. He is also a retired Navy Commander. Retired for 10 years. In the last couple years he was recalled a couple times for a month or two, leaving his wife and children and his job behind. Now he is being pulled back in service for a year. That is difficult enough for his family. How bad would it be if he spent the next ten years in jail, ruining the lives of children he loves and a wife he adores.

And then there is this. If all the good men refuse to serve the ones left are less compitant and likely to make even worse decision, thereby causing more death on both sides. I would rather the men and women of the military fight from the inside to change things.

Yes I am is screaming inside, knowing I may never see him again. Hating that he is going into that awful situation. But he goes knowing he fulfilling an obligation he made to his country. Choosing where and when to fight is the job of the President and the congress. The answers to this need to come from them.

It is easy to say "they should just refuse to fight" unless you are actually in thier position.

[michaz]

22. I have often wondered how many of the soldiers in Iraq

have written letters home or called home and complained about what is happening over there. How many actually believe that we have no business there. These are the men and women that can prove that we have made it worse. They see it! I would love to see all those letters compiled together, thousands of them. No one could argue with those.

[shadowknows69]

24. You might find some interesting insight in my journal michaz

If I may be so bold to plug my own writing.

[Karenina]

25. Shadowknows69's journal is a "must read."

I'll flack for him unashamedly ANY DAY OF THE WEEK, ANY TIME OF THE DAY.

[genie_weenie]

26. As soon as Americans give a shit?

When it comes down to it, most Americans will not want to get involved and will not help troops who resist deploying for this illegal war. It’s that simple.

But, of course, it gets worse. Many soldiers have reservations about the war but realize their situation. An endless stream of authority figures have instilled and ensured that the individual soldier knows he is powerless. Alone he can be destroyed or ignored. And he knows fear, fear of the system and its power:

Fear of being court-martialed or going to prison.
Fear of being called a coward or a traitor.
Fear of a dishonorable discharge.
Fear of being ridiculed back home.
Fear of reprisals from others in the military.
Fear of being labeled as un-American or anti-American.
Fear of being called an anti-war pussy by some washed-up, has-been, pompous ass.

It's not that people don't care but it's a combination of many things. Fear of Government plays a big part for the average American and a rightful concern over their own lives and families or, worse, concern over trivia (Football, who is Paris Hilton screwing, Dancing with the Stars). And that's what the troops KNOW. Fear, apathy, and other priorities will consume America’s attention. Any soldier who stands up against the system knows he will stand alone. America does not care.

[Karenina]

29. What you say is proved true

by the level of interest in Monkeyman's posts, which all too often drop like stones, Appeal for Redress, Lt. Watada or any of the brave few who have put their necks on the line. If the troops were truly being supported, rather than hand-wringing posts about loved ones being dumped into the meat grinder, we'd have THOUSANDS of CIVILIANS preventing them from being shipped ANYWHERE.

[genie_weenie]

43. It's unfortunate.

It's incorrect to say the Regime learned nothing from Vietnam. By keeping the carnage out of the public's eye, and while asking for nothing (except the tax dollars which people are conditioned to give over) they have ensured most people's attention will not be on the terrible toll.

And waiting for deliverance from above from the Dems is going to prove a bitter pill to swallow, if it doesn't happen. The only way I can see of ending this thing, is formenting a huge tax resistance, and I'm talking a million plus who stop paying money into the pockets of the Masters of War.

Thoreau rightly pointed out, "The soldier is applauded who refuses to serve in an unjust war by those who do not refuse to sustain the unjust government which makes the war." (emphasis mine)

Until people are willing to face this monstorous thing and exercise control over what BILLIONS of dollars are being spent upon, expect more and more wars and more and more contracts for new-improved HMMWVs...

[Greeby]

32. You forgot one

Fear of being shot in the back by your own and then they would blame it on the enemy.

Even if like me, you're not enlisted. You'd have to be naive to think it hasn't happened before, or that it won't again

[sanskritwarrior]

33. I am enlisted

and can tell you you are more likely to be struck by lightning while a great white shark ganws your arm off in the middle of a desert.

In the draftee army maybe. The two cases of that happening since Iraq started involved

A. A man who had radical islam sympathies

B. A man who stole Army equipment and got caught.

I have been in the Army since 1995 and there have been enough cases of what you say that I can count them on one hand. Soldiers don't shoot each other for disagreeing about the war, soldiers would not follow an order to shoot a fellow soldier. Shooting Iraqis is one thing, shooting your brothers or sisters in arms is quite another.

Note: I am in no way condoning the barbaric crime of shooting an Iraqi civilian, I am just stating that it is far easier to get a soldier to do that then to shoot a fellow American in uniform.

[genie_weenie]

44. There is still much about the Pat Tillman case

which has me disturbed.

After all as The Goddess Ann Coulter pointed out, to paraphrase, he was a macho man and she couldn't believe he would be against the war.

[Jed Dilligan]

30. I've never understood how anyone can be a soldier.

If I was holding a gun and someone told me what to do, I would shoot them and kill them. Wouldn't matter what the order was or what the consequences. It would be as automatic as closing my eyes when I sneeze. Person telling me what to do, gun, problem solved. I don't understand how anyone can take orders.

[sanskritwarrior]

31. So.......

if somebody said shoot that man before he rapes a little girl, you would shoot the guy in charge of you?

I don't understand someone who could never take an order. Orders are given so that the organization can acheive an objective or accomplish a mission. It can as simple as cut the grass and paint the rocks outside Battalion HQ or as complex as storm a house pf insurgents in Ramadi and shoot anyone who has a weapon aimed at you.

[Karenina]

37. Have you any thoughts you are willing to share

on the Appeal for Redress?

[sanskritwarrior]

38. I am a Senior NCO

it is not in my best interest to share my feelings on this subject. However it is not illegal and I totally support anyone that signs it, it just is not for me.

Edit: If it was a violation of UCMJ then yes I would have a whole hell of a lot to say.

[Jed Dilligan]

48. If someone tells, rather than asks, me to do something,

I want them dead, end of story. I can't understand how anyone could feel differently.

[B Calm]

34. I'm certain there is a lot of dissent in the military that's not being reported

[sanskritwarrior]

35. Not to disagree

but based on what? There is dissent, there is always dissent, I can't say there is more or less now than at any other time.

[B Calm]

36. Haven't you heard, there are soldiers running to Canada?

[sanskritwarrior]

40. I have been in the Army

for 12 years soldiers have been running to Canada since before then and probably will be 20 years from now. War or no war Canada is pretty popular for serious AWOL cases. AWOL cases are higher now than in the years 2000-2002 but lower than 1998-2000. I don't know why the cases are lower or higher for a given period, I do know that in 1999 a lot of 1st AD soldiers went AWOL because they didn't want to go to KOSOVO. We as soldiers don't get to pick and choose what legal orders we follow or don't follow. Clinton legally sent us to Kosovo, Bush legally sent us to Iraq and Afghanistan. Like I said the other day, the second American judicial system or the Congress declares Bush a war criminal that sent us to Iraq illegally I would gladly arrest him. Until then he has committed no crime recognized under US laws. Until then I have my duty to perform with him as President no matter my personal feelings. We can say he illegally invaded Iraq all we want, but without legal precedent we are just saying things, not embracing the current situation. If and when Congress impeaches, when and if the judiciary declares Iraq illegal then I have no problem executing my duties as outline by the Constitution. Until such time I serve my country and count the days until we have better leadership.

[B Calm]

49. Have you heard about the officer being court martialed for his

refusal to go to Iraq because it's an illegal war?

[sanskritwarrior]

50. Yes

I am quite familiar with 1LT Ehren Watada's case. I have stted in previous threads that I feel sorry for him due to his going to spend 6 years in Fort Leavenworth. Look the military court system is not like the civilian one, Watada is going to go to jail because the Army does not think this war is illegal. No national level judicial or legislative body in America has ruled this war is illegal, therefore under UCMJ Watada is guilty. His court martial starts on 5 February, here is how it will go.......

Watada: This war is illegal and due to my oath to the Constitution I am unable to deploy and support an illegal war of aggression.

Courts Martial officers: Exactly what American govt. entity has ruled this war illegal?

Watada: At this time sir, no body has ruled it illegal.

Courts Martial: Ok, then you go to jail.

Look I believe Watada will speak eloquently and passionately about this issue, but he has nothing to back it up. It's the same reason I get a little perturbed when I see people all talking about the Illegal Iraq War. You can say it all you want but if you have nothing to back it up, then it simply is not true. It's the same reason I will deploy to Iraq again next year, I took an oath and as of today that oath requires me to follow legal orders to go to Iraq. Now if Congress invetigates and proves in a court that this is an illegal war then Watada is not guilty and I don't have to go back. I don't see either really happening anytime soon.

[donheld]

39. Oh villager, I've been asking myself that for a long time

It seems to me mutiny is in order. Let the chickenhawks fight and the rest walk out.

[jrandom421]

45. Probably not until

they suffer the same kind of casualties the French and British did in 1917, the last known incident of mass mutiny.