I think I want to address a couple of specific points.

First, the Army put a great deal of money and effort into training these individuals, in particular 1LT Watada. In his case, simply resigning was never a viable option (which he was well aware of at the time) because he had what is called a "Mandatory Service Obligation" and a commitment for at least 5 more years of service.

Second, I would be greatly disturbed if it became de rigueur for individual service members to "choose" whether they would deploy with their unit of assignment. Like it or not (and I DON'T like it), we are engaged in hostilities. At times like those accommodating particular desires of individual service members is neither practical nor desirable. Just today the Army Chief of Staff noted that the Army is broken and we don't have enough troops as it is. How could we possibly limit our options by allowing fully trained and qualified Soldiers to simply choose which operation they wanted to be involved in? I've volunteered twice for deployment, and I'm still here because that's where the Army needs me. If it were the other way around, I could accept that too.

A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.

Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich