Capitol Hill Blue Forums Hot Topics & Breaking News News Lieutenant faces court martial for opposing Iraq war

Again, it's helpful to know more about the facts of the case. When he enlisted, he like many other Americans was working under the assumption that the Administration was largely telling the truth about Saddam. By the time of his deployment, the Duelfer Report had come out, and he had spent months studying on his own the history of Iraq and our relations with it.

You know, though, Steve, that is a risk we all take. But, I have to also say that, for all the reasons I stated previously, it just doesn't matter.

Between your latest reply to me, and the one immediately following it, I believe I understand, and agree.

From this I gather that one of the most important things to keep in mind, is the differences between the "reason for war" and the "conduct of war". National command decisions should be held accountable for the reasons of going to war, and whether they are legal or not. Every soldier at every level, once in the war, is responsible for their "conduct of war", regardless of whether the war itself is illegal or not.

In other words, in every war, illegal or not, there are combatants and non-combatants. To carry out normal soldier duties against combatants, even to the extent of causing collateral damage (as minimally as practical) to noncombatants, is legal, even in an illegal war. At the same time, to cause harm beyond what is called for in normal military duties (as one example, failure to take reasonable care to minimize collateral damage to noncombatants) is exactly as illegal in a legal war, as it would be in an illegal war.

Have I got that about right?

Furthermore, to either permit or require soldiers to make command-level judgments, likely without sufficient information, is not only impractical and undesirable (how can you have an army where everyone is a general?), but in fact unconscionable, to ask them to make decisions they have not been trained sufficiently and properly to make.

Exactly so, and much more succinctly explained than mine!

I had what my wife would call an "epiphanette" this morning. Stereoman has pointed out, on a number of occasions, my low opinion of 1LT Watada on a personal level, which I do not deny. I do not find him at all honorable. I realized this morning why I have such a visceral dislike of him.

The Army is a unique organization because it is, in its essence, all about others. You join the military because you want to serve your country. You find in it a group of like-minded individuals and you find a camaraderie both socially and ethically. Soldiers are routinely asked to sacrifice, not for themselves, but for others. Heroes are those that have done for others, and Soldiers that have been in combat will routinely say that they did what they did for their fellow Soldiers - not duty, glory, or country. Among the values that the institution seeks to instill are "selfless service," putting others before yourself, "duty," and "loyalty."

At his core, 1LT Watada is only thinking about himself. His conscience, his interests, his actions, his beliefs, his opinions. He may dress his actions in the clothing of "serving others" by making the point, but the reality is, it is all about him. Him, him, him. And that is the aspect of his quest that I find so repugnant. It is selfish in the extreme, and that is entirely inconsistent not only with his oath but with the fundamental values of Soldiery. That is why I find his actions so dishonorable.

Well said, friend Ponderer. I understand where you are coming from. If everyone were to act like him, what kind of army would we have?

Indeed, what kind of armies, would anyone have?