On Conscience
To anti-war critics, pro-war hawks and anyone else who is engaged actively in the Iraq War debate, I tip my hat. At this point, it’s a difficult situation and anyone willing to intellectually tackle such a quagmire respectfully and honestly earns at least my begrudging respect. And I have nothing but acrimonious scorn for the Bush Administration’s conduct in both the run-up to the war, and the occupation itself. My sympathies lie halfway between the anti-war movement’s denunciation of the needless loss of human life, and the McCain-esque arguments against withdrawal because of the responsibilities we have. I have less sympathy for those who have enlisted in the military and now refuse to deploy on principle. Yahoo!’s globetrotting Kevin Sites sat down for an interview with one of these young men, a commissioned officer named Ehren Watada, facing charges for refusing his deployment orders.
Watada joined the military voluntarily, and was trained, but slowly came to the realization that the American people were duped by a politically incompetent and overly hasty administration, if not outright deceived. September 2005 was a turning point for this young man and he refused to deploy in Iraq on the grounds that the war was illegal.
While Watada is an eloquent young man, and one who could have led a successful career in politics or journalism, his position is unfortunately flawed. As a solider, especially an officer, he should realize that it is not his responsibility to judge the conduct of higher powers, nor is it within his duty or jurisdiction to determine the legitimacy or illegality of a particular military engagement. Rather, it is his duty to obey the chain of command, and avoid entering the political fray as a martyr for the anti-war movement, or as a symbolic protest. It is Congress’s duty to check the Executive, not the military.
When asked if President Bush should be criminally charged, Watada replied “That's not something for me to determine. I think it's for the newly-elected congress to determine during the investigations that they should hold over this war, and pre-war intelligence.” However, it is equally not-up Watada to violate the chain of command and refuse deployment orders because of his nebulous understanding of complex international law and constitutional theory. I refuse to take the position of Thoreau in this matter, and I find myself on the side of Socrates before his death – one has a duty to obey the laws of the nation, upon voluntary consent. This is not necessarily to say that Conscientious objector status should not exist, but we as a nation are not under any general conscription – we are currently an all-voluntary military and those who have taken an oath to the constitution are pledging their loyalty to the chain of command and the government structure put in place by the constitution. This does not give them license to interpret the Constitution, or pass judgement upon higher ups in the chain-of-command.
Watada’s points are valid, but his duties as a military officer under voluntary enlistment supercede the largely symbolic objection he is making. If proven guilty by a jury of his peers, a six-year prison term would not be unjustified.
Watada joined the military voluntarily, and was trained, but slowly came to the realization that the American people were duped by a politically incompetent and overly hasty administration, if not outright deceived. September 2005 was a turning point for this young man and he refused to deploy in Iraq on the grounds that the war was illegal.
While Watada is an eloquent young man, and one who could have led a successful career in politics or journalism, his position is unfortunately flawed. As a solider, especially an officer, he should realize that it is not his responsibility to judge the conduct of higher powers, nor is it within his duty or jurisdiction to determine the legitimacy or illegality of a particular military engagement. Rather, it is his duty to obey the chain of command, and avoid entering the political fray as a martyr for the anti-war movement, or as a symbolic protest. It is Congress’s duty to check the Executive, not the military.
When asked if President Bush should be criminally charged, Watada replied “That's not something for me to determine. I think it's for the newly-elected congress to determine during the investigations that they should hold over this war, and pre-war intelligence.” However, it is equally not-up Watada to violate the chain of command and refuse deployment orders because of his nebulous understanding of complex international law and constitutional theory. I refuse to take the position of Thoreau in this matter, and I find myself on the side of Socrates before his death – one has a duty to obey the laws of the nation, upon voluntary consent. This is not necessarily to say that Conscientious objector status should not exist, but we as a nation are not under any general conscription – we are currently an all-voluntary military and those who have taken an oath to the constitution are pledging their loyalty to the chain of command and the government structure put in place by the constitution. This does not give them license to interpret the Constitution, or pass judgement upon higher ups in the chain-of-command.
Watada’s points are valid, but his duties as a military officer under voluntary enlistment supercede the largely symbolic objection he is making. If proven guilty by a jury of his peers, a six-year prison term would not be unjustified.
