Lt. Watada is a real deal hero

[Ban Hammer 13,335]

I would gladly follow Lt. Watada into battle any day.

Any man with the willingness to sit in jail for 7 years for his beliefs would get less men killed in the sandbox than those willing to dive head-first into an ill-advised military campaign.

that day will be a long day in coming, as he's demonstrated his desire to lead........

[*Robert* 2]

I would gladly follow Lt. Watada into battle any day.

You can go join him at the USDB and let him lead you on a latrine detail!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I would gladly follow Lt. Watada into battle any day.

Any man with the willingness to sit in jail for 7 years for his beliefs would get less men killed in the sandbox than those willing to dive head-first into an ill-advised military campaign.

Going to be hard to follow someone into battle who won't go.

Slim, did you serve in the military?

What example do you think he is setting for other officers? As has been said before in this thread, he should have expressed those beliefs long before this, or he shouldn't have taken a commision.

An open letter from Lt. Watada's mother

Carolyn Ho, Lt. Watada's mom wrote this open letter.

June 22, 2006

Dear Fellow Americans,

I am the mother of Lt. Ehren Watada, an officer stationed at Ft. Lewis.

He is part of a Stryker brigade unit that deployed today to Iraq. Despite an unflinching commitment to his men and to democratic ideals, he chose not to accompany his men.

His decision came through much soul-searching and

through research and consultation with experts across disciplines, inside and outside of the military and the government.

After weighing the evidence, he came to the conclusion that he could no longer be silent while atrocities were committed in the name of democracy.

He could no longer be a tool of an administration that used deception and lies to make the case for pre-emptive war. As a member of the armed forces, sworn to uphold the US Constitution, he refuses to blindly participate in a war of aggression, an illegal war that undermines who we are as a nation and violates international law.

Implicit in his oath as an officer is the duty to disobey all unlawful

orders for; to carry out these orders renders him an accomplice to a

criminal act.

Furthermore, to order his men to participate in a war of

aggression multiplies his guilt a thousand fold. His conscience will not permit him to do so. He believes that he can best serve them by taking a stand against the war.

In so doing, he demonstrates that one does not

relinquish the freedom to choose what is right, even in the military, and that the freedom to choose what is right transcends the allegiance to man and institutions.

As a mother, I have evolved from fearing for his safety and for his future to the realization that there is a higher purpose to all that has

transpired.

My son no longer stands at the crossroads. He has chosen

“the road less travelled.”

Come what may, he is committed to staying the

course.

[*Robert* 2]

An open letter from Lt. Watada's mother

That's sweet... a note from his "mommy"!!! :lol:

God, I remember getting those... like back in elementary school!!!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Guy should never have joined up.

[almaty 19]

Guy should never have joined up.

agreed, was a major life error on his part

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Guy should never have joined up.

agreed, was a major life error on his part

You don't have to be a genius to know that the military has ALWAYS been a tool of the state.

[Artegal 1]

I guess my problem with comparing PFC Lynch with LT Watada are such:

1) PFC Lynch enlisted, LT Watada is commissioned. A PFC is not a leader, a LT leads platoons of PFCs and SGTs.

2) PFC Lynch enlisted because she came from a modest background in West Virginia and wanted the Army GI Bill in order to get the money for college and eventually become a school teacher.

3) LT Watada from a well-to-do family and a Graduate of Hawaii Pacific University, decided to take a commission in the Army after the war in Iraq began. He was politically supportive of the War on Terror. He later reversed himself when it came apparent that he would actually serve in Iraq.

I do concur that PFC Lynch may not have deserved a silver star--however as a POW, its kind of a given that POW's will receive silver stars. But I guess in the PFC Lynch--LT Watada comparison it was convenient to leave out that she served time in an Iraqi prison for serving her country while LT Watada will serve time in an American prison for not serving his country. But I have little sympathy for LT Watada with his background he had more intellect and opportunity to think about his career choice. I guess 7 years will be plenty of time to rethink his decisions again.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Guy should never have joined up.

Where does a soldiers loyalty stand? To his country and the laws of the land or with his superiors? Which one trumps?

[slim 1,525]

I would gladly follow Lt. Watada into battle any day.

Any man with the willingness to sit in jail for 7 years for his beliefs would get less men killed in the sandbox than those willing to dive head-first into an ill-advised military campaign.

Going to be hard to follow someone into battle who won't go.

Slim, did you serve in the military?

What example do you think he is setting for other officers? As has been said before in this thread, he should have expressed those beliefs long before this, or he shouldn't have taken a commision.

Lt. Watada related that he would go into battle.... just not in Iraq.

I was in the military. (7 years USAF.... with one year in the "sandbox")

I'll stick with my point. I would gladly follow him into battle, in Afghanistan, or even Korea for that matter. I too do not want to go to war in Iraq, that's part of why I'm no longer in the military.

He's setting the example for other officers that he will not take part in something that he feels is morally unjust. That's an excellent example to set. If more and more officers would take a stand like that, maybe policy would start to change. I doubt it, because there will always be enough Lieutenants (who want to make Captain) that will set aside their personal beliefs to accomplish a mission, regardless of the morality.

Just for the record... Lieutenants aren't the best people to "follow" into battle! So when one who is willing to take a stand for something steps up, it's easy to realize that he's the one that's going to tell the Capt. to "F' off" when the Capt says "take the hill" and would therefore be the best Lt. to follow, if you did actually have to follow one. (I'm not arguing that the hill shouldn't be taken, I'm arguing that the hill doesn't need to be taken ASAP when all we've gotta do is sit tight, get on the horn, and call in air support. Why should 5 guys charge the machine gun nest when we've got a bunch of planes that could bomb it?) Lieutenants like Watada would more than likely save your @$$ by calling in air support, but when the Captain got back on the radio and said "sorry, no air support today, you've gotta do it" he would probably also be the one "leading" his troops.

I don't know this guy, I don't know his intentions, but I do know that when a Lt. is willing to step up and piss people off, he's also willing to take care of his guys. (Albeit it's usually only for a short time because the military has a pretty sure-fire record of dealing with non-conformists.)

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Guy should never have joined up.

Where does a soldiers loyalty stand? To his country and the laws of the land or with his superiors? Which one trumps?

Ultimately none - because as I said the military is little more than a tool of the state. Can do a lot of good, but also a lot of bad. Most armed forces discourage individuality (in a broad sense), doesn't basic training drill everyone to be psychologically the same. Nothing exists outside the conformity of the service.

Edited July 11, 2006 by Fishdude

[Ban Hammer 13,335]

I don't know this guy, I don't know his intentions, but I do know that when a Lt. is willing to step up and piss people off, he's also willing to take care of his guys. (Albeit it's usually only for a short time because the military has a pretty sure-fire record of dealing with non-conformists.)

if he was willing to take care of his guys, then why would he not deploy with them and lead them. as a real leader would do. sorry slim, he's taking care of number 1 only on this deal.

ps - i found it to be very wise to never follow any lt as they could not read a map. only saw two exceptions to that in my time.

[Artegal 1]

Guy should never have joined up.

Where does a soldiers loyalty stand? To his country and the laws of the land or with his superiors? Which one trumps?

Ultimately none - because as I said the military is little more than a tool of the state. Can do a lot of good, but also a lot of bad.

The Military is a tool of the state--its the bigstick in diplomacy. War is politics, but a Military entity is not a political party. The Military must follow the president, as he is the commander. If someone wants to make a political statement then they should not join the military but run for office or joine a political party.

[Joel Halfwassen 0]

You know. I could see calling him a coward and a traitor if he was to go AWAL and skip off to Canada or something. God knows I remember when I was a kid in Canada my family was wishing we could deport all those hippy draft dodgers who were escaping from the Viet Nam Conflict. Especially since my dad was an officer in the US Navy (he was a USC). But it wasn't policy then. However this guy is willing to pay the price for his beliefs. I can't call that cowardly. Now the real question in my mind is will it help his cause? What is his goal with this?

Joel

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Guy should never have joined up.

Where does a soldiers loyalty stand? To his country and the laws of the land or with his superiors? Which one trumps?

Ultimately none - because as I said the military is little more than a tool of the state. Can do a lot of good, but also a lot of bad.

The Military is a tool of the state--its the bigstick in diplomacy. War is politics, but a Military entity is not a political party. The Military must follow the president, as he is the commander. If someone wants to make a political statement then they should not join the military but run for office or joine a political party.

True - he should have found a political career outside of the armed forces. The military isn't a democratic institution - there's no room for individual expression, certainly not when it undermines collective discipline.