The services aren't normally into allowing a menu-selection when orders are given. If New and Watada should have been given the choice, why not anyone who just happens to be having a bout of colic with an assignment?
NW Ponderer similarly belittled Lt. Watada's objections with his post about "it's too hot today, so I think I'll sit this one out" post.
Looking beyond the disparagement, however, there is a legitimate question here: by what standards should military personnel be excused from a given type of service on moral or intellectual grounds? At one time, let us not forget, as recently as World War One, draftees in the US were not excused even on spiritual grounds from serving in the military, and were instead imprisoned and often mistreated. The bar is still high for attaining CO status after entering the military. But in the case of a moral (Lt. Watada) or intellectual (SPC New) objection to a
specific conflict, the bar is nonexistent.
If a soldier becomes convinced, through concerted study and reflection, that s/he will essentially become either a murderer or an accessory to murder by serving in a combat zone, why should that soldier be punished? Except, of course, the obvious reason: allowing the soldier a "necessity" defense is tantamount to admitting the
possibility that the conflict is illegitimate.
