Anti-War Up - GI Resistance Vietnam & Now
redvet
May 4, 2007
Resistance R Us - Then ... and Now
By Susan Galleymore
One of the best kept secrets of our time is the ferocious GI
resistance to the war in Vietnam. It covered the gamut from
individual, passive, and unorganized to overtly active, collective,
and organized. It sprouted in military barracks and on aircraft
carriers. It flourished in army stockades, navy brigs, and in the
dingy towns that surround military bases. It penetrated elite West
Point, spread through Vietnam’s battlefields and, according to a
Vietnam-era military officer, by 1971 it had “infested the entire
armed services.” Until the recent screening of the documentary, Sir,
No Sir, the American public knew little about the resistance to that
war.
Today, there is budding GI resistance to this war, the Global War on
Terror (GWOT). So far, resistance has not blossomed into the
near-epidemic of that time but the ground is fertile and – thanks to
Sir, No Sir! – GIs are learning their history and emulating their
forebears.
As a counselor on the GI Rights Hotline, I know that, for every GI in
the news refusing to fight, there are thousands more GIs quietly
saying “no” to this war. I predict that, despite the monolithic nature
of the military, GI resistance to the GWOT will be active, individual,
public, and persistent. It will also be supported by a parallel and
collaborative civilian resistance -- irate mothers, fathers, and
grannies, for example -- and facilitated by the Internet and the
widespread recognition that our nation has “been had” by cynical
radical neoconservatives. I predict this as I am one of those irate
mothers.
An Army of One
My association with the U.S. military and the Global War on Terror
began very personally. I come from a long line of men enlisted into
war – from the British Raj in India, the second Anglo-Boer War, WW I
and II, and South Africa’s covert war against the Frontline States.
Seeing first hand the physical and psychological devastation wrought
on my family’s males, I came to believe that – given the opportunity –
motivated individuals and nations can resolve conflict without
resorting to government sanctioned violence. Ironically, I am also a
“military mom”: my son is a highly trained soldier and a U.S. Army
medic. When he enlisted in 1999 I was not pleased about his choice
but, as he pointed out, there was no war on the horizon.
“Besides, he said, “I am not going to change my mind about serving.”
Little knowing my prescience, I responded, “We’re at the end of the
Clinton presidency. Who knows who the next president may be or what
disastrous policies he may inflict upon us?”
My son was deployed to Afghanistan in 2003. I struggled through that
six-month tour of duty and the additional three-month extension. Six
months later he was deployed to Iraq. At that point, I engaged the war
from the point of view of a warrior mother: I traveled to Iraq to
learn first hand about how the invasion was affecting our troops – and
Iraqi families. That trip grew into MotherSpeak, an organization which
shares the stories of mothers around the world affected by war and
terror. Then I trained as a counselor on the GI Rights Hotline and
have spent more than two years counseling troops and decoding military
rules and regulations. I also co-founded Courage to Resist to support
the troops that refuse to fight.
Just the facts…
Official Pentagon numbers state that over 8,000 soldiers troops have
gone Absent without Leave (AWOL) since the start of the GWOT in March
2003. They also state that over 40,000 troops from all branches of the
military have gone AWOL or taken Unexcused Absences (UA) since 2000.
I believe the unofficial numbers for all troops are even higher. In
2005, for example, GI Rights Hotline counselors answered over 38,000
calls nationally. Today, the Hotline has more than doubled the number
of trained counselors to cope with the volume of calls. In 2006, over
75 percent of the calls answered came from troops already AWOL or UA
or about to go AWOL or UA. In telephone conversations with
administrators at military Personnel Control Facility (PCFs) around
the nation, I’ve learned that, at minimum, approximately 25 to 50 AWOL
or UA troops await processing out of the military each week. This does
not include the six to eight “catchers” – military personnel who
travel around the country -- retrieving and returning troops to bases
for non-judicial punishment. The majority of reluctant GIs are either
discharged or reattached to their units and their stories never reach
the public.
SOP
To understand the military’s Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) it
helps to understand military lingo: Soldiers (Army, National Guard,
Individual Ready Reserve) “go AWOL”; Marines, Sailors, or Airmen/women
“go UA”. Initially, none is a “deserter” as this describes a service
member who intends never to turn him- or herself back into the
military. AWOLs and UAs fully intend to return to the military. While
many nuances pertain, the distinction between AWOL/UA and deserter is
not a matter of semantics: the maximum penalty for desertion during
wartime is execution.
Each branch of the military has its own process for AWOL or UA service
members. The rules and regulations for each branch are clearly stated
in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and service members
have the right to access them. Unfortunately few troops conduct the
research that could help their case; knowing this, gung-ho base
commanders, officers, or NCOs can – and do -- bend the rules based
upon personal preference or antipathy towards individuals. At these
times, the expertise of GI Rights counselors or civilian lawyers
specializing in military law is invaluable.
Of the four branches, the Army’s process is the easiest to understand:
a soldier must be gone at least 30 days before s/he is officially
categorized as AWOL. After this period the associated paperwork
prepared and a federal warrant is made out for her/his arrest. If no
other charges are pending – and the service member is not arrested
during a routine traffic violation or similar event – and s/he turns
her- himself in at a PCF, s/he could be discharged within five to
seven days.
If the Army’s process is the easiest to understand, the Marine Corp’s
process is the most complex and most likely to include unexpected
consequences to a service member. Where the Army usually begins
processing out AWOLs after 30 days, UA Marines must be gone over 180
days. During this time UAs must keep a low profile and avoid being
turned in, arrested, or otherwise apprehended by suspicious civilians
or local or military police.
Despite the assumption that the military is a bureaucracy that doesn’t
change easily, I find that the Marine Corp change procedures
informally depending on circumstances. Former Marine Jeff Paterson,
who claimed Conscientious Objector status and refused to deploy for
Gulf War I, reported that, in his experience at that time, Marine
leadership is less likely to return a UA who has been gone for six
months or more to a unit.
Jeff states, “A Marine who has been gone for six months has lost the
Marine mindset and has become a ‘different’ creature from fellow
Marines. The thrall that holds an active duty Marine has been broken.
It is often too troublesome for the leadership to re-propagandize a
lapsed Marine. It’s easier just to get rid of that person before the
rest of the unit is ‘infected’.”
Nevertheless, as the GWOT gains momentum, fewer new recruits can be
persuaded to enlist, and more GIs refuse to fight, I find that a UA,
even after an absence of over 180 days, can be simply returned to her
or his unit or transferred to another unit. Alternatively, a UA who is
ultimately discharged is more likely to be court martialed or serve
time in the brig. I discuss this in more detail below.
Both the Air Force and the Navy must be gone for over 180 days before
paperwork is processed for discharge.
Discharges
It is impossible to list all the reasons why troops go AWOL/UA.
Nevertheless, whether it is family hardship, a medical condition, a
personal grievance, even a change of heart about war, the underlying
theme is incompatibility with the military institution and its
mission. By the time they go AWOL/UA, most service members have
exhausted the military’s processes for redress -- with little success.
Most find the AWOL/UA option worth the risk.
AWOLs or UAs usually – but not always -- receive an Other Than
Honorable (OTH) discharge. This “bad paper” discharge could affect a
service member’s future employment. A Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD) or
Dishonorable Discharge (DD) will most certainly affect a service
member’s future employment. These discharges, if given for a routine
AWOL or UA, should be fought vigorously.
It is possible to upgrade a “bad paper” discharge but there is no
guarantee that an upgrade will be granted. Some counselors believe
that it may become easier to upgrade bad paper discharges if this
war’s overall reputation as “noble,” “necessary,” and “against terror
and WMDs” continues to plummet.
A caveat or two
Any service member seeking a discharge or considering going AWOL or UA
is urged to call the GI Rights Hotline, the Military Law Task Force,
or the Lawyers’ Guild to discuss options with a trained counselor or
lawyer and discuss whether any changes have been made to the UCMJ.
Given the history of GI resistance against unpopular wars and the
large numbers of troops currently refusing to fight, it is likely the
military will increase punishment to resistors. No service member
should act without a thorough discussion of the pro’s and cons of
her/his intended action.
In discussing the following high profile cases I share information
gleaned from my or my colleagues’ work with these troops who have
refused to fight. The stories of Ehren Watada and Agustin Aguayo’s for
example, are available on the Internet and, instead of repeating
information here, I reference applicable web sites.
Brave Hearts
“I have come to believe that it is wrong to destroy life, that it is
wrong to use war, that it is immoral, and that I can no longer go down
this path. Because I have taken this stand, I am free even though my
body will probably be locked up. This is something I can live with.
Something I can't live with is being a participant of war.”
Army Specialist Agustin Aguayo, U.S. Army, 1st Armored Division
During his one year tour of duty as a medic in Iraq, Agustin Aguayo
was decorated for his service under combat conditions. Stationed in
Germany in February 2004, he applied for an honorable discharge as a
conscientious objector (CO). His application was denied by the
Secretary of the Army. The U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia (which has jurisdiction over court cases concerning U.S.
military personnel stationed abroad) upheld the Pentagon’s decision
for reasons Aguayo’s attorneys believe are contrary to legal
precedent.
Aguayo’s appeal is the first military CO case to come before the
powerful and influential D.C. Circuit Court in the 35 years since the
Vietnam War. His appeal is one of only a handful of CO cases to reach
the appellate level; it is also the only one pending.
The U.S. government seeks to cut back on existing legal precedent, set
during the Vietnam War, that civilian courts have authority, under the
Writ of Habeas Corpus, to exercise oversight over the military’s
decisions regarding CO applications. This precedent protects the right
of conscientious objection which dates back to the Revolutionary War.
In Aguayo’s case, the Army argues that the federal court should defer
to military “expertise” without requiring any verifiable factual or
logical basis for the Army’s denial of his CO application. This
argument is consistent with recent attacks on the authority of
independent courts to use the historic Writ of Habeas Corpus to
challenge unfettered Executive power.
The decision of the United States Court of Appeals in the case of
Aguayo vs. the Secretary of the Army could profoundly influence the
willingness of the civilian courts to question the Executive’s refusal
to honor the right of U.S. military personnel to exercise their
freedom of religion, including the right not to participate in war.
While the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
considered Aguayo’s appeal of the Army’s refusal to release him, he
was threatened with forced and imminent return to combat. The
eyewitness account of this event by Agustin’s wife, Helga, states
that, on September 2nd, at approximately 9:45 a.m., “I got a call from
Augie that he was being held at his unit's headquarters. He told me
they were bringing him home to get his uniform and Iraq stuff. He
refused to grab his Iraq gear but the sergeant escorting him told him
he didn’t need to, just to put on the uniform and grab his toothbrush,
a pillow, and a blanket. Augie refused. I thought maybe it was over,
but then a short while later two sergeants came to our apartment and
forced Augie to get his Iraq gear. He went to the back of the house
and jumped out a window. One of my daughters was skating in the front,
and one sergeant chased her and demanded she tell him where he was.
She was terrified and ran away. They came pounding on doors and
searched the house three times, looking through all my personal
things. And then the Rear-Detachment Commander and the 1st Sergeant
came and went as far as to say that he would be put on that plane,
even if he had to be put in handcuffs. They tried to intimidate me and
were very harsh with their words.”
Agustin went AWOL in Germany then, unaided by the military, made his
way back to the U.S. and – well within his 30-day limit – turned
himself in to military custody at Ft. Irwin, California. I accompanied
him from Los Angeles to Ft. Irwin.
If anyone is a conscientious objector to war, it is Agustin Aguayo. At
the same time, anyone considering applying for CO status should
understand that this is not an easy “out” of the military. CO status
is no longer based solely on religious belief but rather on the
“crystallization of belief” about the nature of war and warfare. The
application process takes a long time and begins with writing a
personal statement about why one considers oneself a CO and includes
defending that point of view in front of a military board.
Working with the Aguayos crystallized my belief that anyone
considering applying for CO status should also take practical
considerations into account, including:
§ Is the service member prepared for a protracted and, usually,
expensive legal battle? The Aguayo family – Agustin, his wife, and two
daughters – are faced with loss of income while fighting this case,
the costs of the family traveling to and from Germany where Agustin is
held, and mounting legal fees. And, there is no guarantee that Agustin
will not serve seven years in jail for his resistance… with all those
attendant financial and emotional costs.
§ Has the service member researched other organizations for
information on discharges? Service people should be aware that
different organizations approach COs – and AWOLs and UAs -- in
different ways. For example, an organization based on religion with an
apolitical mission may present the CO application and process in a
different light than an organization with a, say, an anti-war mission,
or an organization with a purely political or critical theorist
mission.
Agustin Aguayo turned himself in at Ft. Irwin and he was taken into
military custody. But first, standing outside and witnessed by over
two dozen civilian and military individuals, he submitted to a search
and his pockets were turned inside out. His wrists and ankles were
cuffed and chained, he was assisted into the waiting vehicle, and he
was driven to Ft .Irwin’s brig.
Despite the Public Affairs Officer’s proposition that Agustin would
probably remain in California, 72 hours later he was returned to
Germany. He is currently in a U.S. military prison in Germany awaiting
court martial and a possible seven-year jail sentence for refusing to
fight in war.
Learn more about Agustin Aguayo at www.couragetoresist.org and donate
to his legal fund at www.AguayoDefense.org.
"Fellow resisters … if we stay strong, stand our ground, speak the
truth, and stand up for what's right we will always be free."
Darrel Anderson, U.S. Army, 1st Armored Division
During his seven months as an infantryman in Baghdad, Darrel witnessed
U.S. troops abuse and kill civilians, he refused to fire on a civilian
automobile, he was wounded by a roadside bomb, and he came to the
conclusion that this war is wrong. With the possibility of a second
deployment to Iraq and at the urging of his conscience, he went AWOL
and fled to Canada.
While he was grateful to Canada for harboring him, Darrel wanted to
return to the U.S., accept his punishment – if any – from the Army,
receive counseling for the symptoms of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
(PTSD) he sustained in Iraq, and, as he states, “get on with his
life.” Darrel’s mother drove him across the Peace Bridge bordering
Canada and the U.S. and he turned himself in to military custody at
Ft. Sill, Okalahoma. Within five days, he was discharged with an OTH.
I counseled Darrel’s mother, Anita, during the last stage of her son’s
stay in Canada. I present his case here as the outcome is very
different to that of Agustin’s. Both men were in the Army, Darrel went
AWOL; so did Agustin. Yet, Darrel was processed out within five days
and, today, speaks publicly about his war experiences and against the
war in Iraq while Agustin awaits a court martial and sentence.
Learn more about Darrel:
http://www.peaceandjusticeky.org/DAnderson.htm
Darrel’s experiences processing out of the military are also quite
different to those of his friend, Ivan Brobeck.
“When the U.S. went to war with Iraq, I was confident that my country
was doing the right thing. I couldn't see why [our politicians] would
lie to us. One week after I graduated I was sent off to Marine Corps
boot camp. At the end of boot camp the only thing we were told about
Iraq was that we were going there to die (that's was the Drill
Instructor's joke).”
Lance Corporal Ivan Brobeck, U.S. Marine Corps
Ivan Brobeck enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corp's Delayed Enlistment
Program (DEP) at age 17 while still in high school in Arlington,
Virginia. In June, 2003, one week after he graduated, he entered boot
camp, completed infantry training, and joined his permanent unit
stationed at Camp Lejeune. In March, 2004 Ivan deployed to Iraq.
During his tour of duty in Iraq Lance Corporal Ivan Brobeck witnessed
regular instances of U.S. military personnel abusing Iraqi detainees
as well as killing Iraqi civilians at military checkpoints in the
cities of Mahmudiyah and Fallujah. After returning to the U.S., he
came to believe that the war was illegal and contrary to the interests
and moral standards of most Americans. He went UA and fled to Canada
rather than return to Iraq for a second tour.
After his friend, Darrel Anderson, returned from Canada to the U.S.
and turned himself into Army custody at Ft. Sill (see the case
history, above) Ivan decided to turn himself into the U.S. Marine
Corps. Ivan and his wife, Lisa, expected their first child in February
2007 and, like Darrel, Ivan was eager to “get on with his life” and
receive medical care for the diagnosed PTSD he’d sustained during his
service in Iraq. Ivan purchased airfare from Toronto to Washington,
D.C. for November 7, 2006 (mid-term Election Day in the U.S.) then
contacted Courage to Resist.
Since I’d counseled Darrel and Anita and worked with their lawyer I
did the same for Ivan and Lisa from the point of view of a GI Rights
counselor and a representative of Courage to Resist. It is important
to stress that these two organizations perform different services. The
GI Rights Hotline counsels service members from the point of view of
the UCMJ, does not advocate a particular point of view, and does not
encourage any particular action over another. Courage to Resist is an
anti-war organization that does not aid and abet troops (this is a
federal crime) but assists troops in their desire to speak publicly
about why they refuse to fight.
Ivan’s case took a very different trajectory to both Darrel and
Agustin’s cases:
§ Ivan returned from Canada to the U.S. by air. Since he’d been UA for
over 180 days a federal warrant for his arrest had been issued. This
meant he’d be apprehended at the airport and taken to a Canadian jail
until a Marine Corps “catcher” could retrieve him to Camp Lejeune. To
avoid arrest, Ivan contacted the Marines and arranged for a temporary
lifting of the warrant so that he could pass through the airport
unmolested. This also, however, allowed the Marine Corps time to
review a letter Ivan had written to the White House and Congress and
proffer an additional charge of Missing Movement.
§ Ivan returned to the U.S. on Election Day. Once back in Marine Corps
custody Ivan remained in telephone contact with his wife. Lisa
contacted the Marine Corps lawyer daily to track Ivan’s case. This
apparently annoyed Ivan’s NCO who expressed his belief that “real men
are in charge of their wives and don’t allow their wives to tell them
what to do.”
§ Since Ivan had been diagnosed with PTSD by a civilian doctor the
Marine Corps was obliged to send him for diagnosis and treatment by a
military doctor. This did not happen and Ivan’s stress level
escalated; so did Lisa’s phone calls expressing her concern.
§ After an array of contradictory agreements between the Brobecks and
the USMC, a final offer was presented to Ivan: take a Bad Conduct
Discharge and the USMC will release you after 60 days in the brig
(instead of two years) and you’ll be home for the birth of your first
child.
After Ivan accepted this arrangement, Lisa Brobeck stated: “The USMC
has been diligent in resolving this matter quickly in order for Ivan
to be released in time for the birth of his son. Ivan has been treated
fairly, within the confines of the military, but there is a bigger
picture here that is overlooked when focusing on an individual
circumstance. The American public has been lied to and bullied by an
administration with little regard for the welfare of the service men
and women who put their lives on the line everyday. I ask that the
American public demand an end to this war and then demand answers from
the very government that started it.”
As a counselor and a “military mom,” I find it extraordinary that the
American public allows the Marine Corps to discharge this honorable
young man with a Bad Conduct Discharge.
Learn more about Ivan and Lisa and make donations to Ivan’s legal fees
and related expenses: www.couragetoresist.org/donate
"We kill people in the name of keeping the peace – an oxymoron if
there ever was one. After months of contemplation I concluded I no
longer wanted to contribute to the ultimate violence toward other
human beings that war is."
Sgt. Kevin Benderman,U.S. Army, 1st Squadron,
10th Cavalry Regiment, 4th Infantry Division
Kevin applied for CO status after serving one year in Iraq during
which he witnessed homes bombed and people begging for food and
drinking water from mud puddles. He saw the arm of an 8- or 9 year-old
girl burned up to her shoulder and heard the troop executive officer
say that the U.S. Army could not help as medical supplies were
limited. Kevin refused a second tour to Iraq. He was court martialed
and spent 15 months in jail. Amnesty International declared him a
prisoner of conscience.
Learn more about Kevin’s case: http://www.bendermantimeline.com/
”When you are over there, you are lower than dirt; you are expendable
as a soldier in general, and as a woman, it's worse."
Specialist Suzanne Swift, U.S. Army Military Police
Stationed at Fort Lewis, Washington and deployed to Iraq in 2004 and
2005, Suzanne Swift was sexually harassed and assaulted by superiors.
After returning from Iraq, she suffered a PTSD breakdown. Upon
learning that her unit was to redeploy to Iraq, Suzanne went AWOL
rather than subject herself to the horrors she experienced during her
first tour of duty. She was arrested at her mother's home in June
2006. In November, 2006 Lt. Gen. James Dubik, commander of Ft. Lewis,
referred Swift's case to a special court martial; this means an
Article 32, the military's form of a pre-trial, is not required.
Charges include AWOL and Missing Movement.
After her court martial, Suzanne’s mother, Sarah Rich stated: “Suzanne
faced her court martial with strength and respect. I was more than
proud of her. She was sentenced to 30 days in prison and was stripped
of all her rank. Being stripped of her rank was the most devastating
thing for her. She is being held at the prison at Bangor Naval base in
Washington. … This will be the second Christmas the Army has taken
Suzanne away from us. Christmas 2004 she was in Iraq.”
Learn more about Suzanne’s case: www. SuzanneSwift.org.
I end with a quote from the U.S. Army’s First Lt. Ehren Watada, the
first U.S. commissioned officer to refuse to deploy to the Iraq war
and occupation. He is charged with "contemptuous words" towards
President Bush and conduct unbecoming an officer; he faces over seven
years in military prison. Ehren Watada’s is the first military
persecution of an objector for First Amendment speech since 1965:
“I [have] a radical idea… born from the very concept of American
service: that to stop an illegal and unjust war, the soldiers can
choose to stop fighting. [This] is not an easy task…Soldiers must be
aware that they are being used for ill-gain. They must hold themselves
responsible for individual action. They must remember that duty to the
Constitution and the people supersedes the ideologies of their
leadership. [They] must be willing to face ostracism by peers, worry
over the survival of their families, and the loss of personal freedom.
But they must also know that resisting an authoritarian government at
home is equally important to fighting a foreign aggressor on the
battlefield. Finally, those wearing the uniform must know beyond any
shadow of a doubt that by refusing immoral and illegal orders they
will be supported by the people not with mere words but by action.”
Lt. Ehren Watada’s vision is one of radical American heroism. Will his
words stimulate GI resistance to this war similar to the resistance of
that other war in Vietnam?
Learn more about Ehren’s case:
http://thankyoult.live.radicaldesigns.org/component/option,com_frontpage/Itemid,1/
----------
For more information:
GI Rights Hotline: www.girights.org
Courage to Resist: www.couragetoresist.org
MotherSpeak: www.motherspeak.org
---------
Contact Susan Galleymore at any of the above web sites.
This article was published in the spring 2007 issue of Left Curve
Journal.
Authors Website: www.motherspeak.org
Authors Bio: Susan Galleymore is the mother of a U.S. Army soldier, a
counselor on the GI Rights Hotline, founder of MotherSpeak sharing the
stories of mothers affected by war and co-founder of Courage to Resist
supporting the troops who refuse to fight. She returned from Lebanon
and Syria in January 2007.
=====
In accordance with Title U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving the included information for research and
educational purposes.
Hertz_Donut
"redvet" <red...@lava.net> wrote in message
news:ntf543l924bk4i233...@4ax.com...
> http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_susan_ga_070503_resistance_r_us__96_th.htm
> May 4, 2007
>
> Resistance R Us - Then ... and Now
>
> By Susan Galleymore
>
> One of the best kept secrets of our time is the ferocious GI
> resistance to the war in Vietnam. It covered the gamut from
> individual, passive, and unorganized to overtly active, collective,
> and organized. It sprouted in military barracks and on aircraft
> carriers. It flourished in army stockades, navy brigs, and in the
> dingy towns that surround military bases. It penetrated elite West
> Point, spread through Vietnam's battlefields and, according to a
> Vietnam-era military officer, by 1971 it had "infested the entire
> armed services." Until the recent screening of the documentary, Sir,
> No Sir, the American public knew little about the resistance to that
> war.
>
> Today, there is budding GI resistance to this war, the Global War on
> Terror (GWOT). So far, resistance has not blossomed into the
> Sir, No Sir! - GIs are learning their history and emulating their
> forebears.
>
> As a counselor on the GI Rights Hotline, I know that, for every GI in
> the news refusing to fight, there are thousands more GIs quietly
> saying "no" to this war. I predict that, despite the monolithic nature
> of the military, GI resistance to the GWOT will be active, individual,
> public, and persistent. It will also be supported by a parallel and
> collaborative civilian resistance -- irate mothers, fathers, and
> grannies, for example -- and facilitated by the Internet and the
> widespread recognition that our nation has "been had" by cynical
> radical neoconservatives. I predict this as I am one of those irate
> mothers.
>
> An Army of One
>
> My association with the U.S. military and the Global War on Terror
> began very personally. I come from a long line of men enlisted into
> and II, and South Africa's covert war against the Frontline States.
> Seeing first hand the physical and psychological devastation wrought
> motivated individuals and nations can resolve conflict without
> resorting to government sanctioned violence. Ironically, I am also a
> "military mom": my son is a highly trained soldier and a U.S. Army
> medic. When he enlisted in 1999 I was not pleased about his choice
> but, as he pointed out, there was no war on the horizon.
>
> "Besides, he said, "I am not going to change my mind about serving."
>
> Little knowing my prescience, I responded, "We're at the end of the
> Clinton presidency. Who knows who the next president may be or what
> disastrous policies he may inflict upon us?"
>
> My son was deployed to Afghanistan in 2003. I struggled through that
> six-month tour of duty and the additional three-month extension. Six
> months later he was deployed to Iraq. At that point, I engaged the war
> from the point of view of a warrior mother: I traveled to Iraq to
> Iraqi families. That trip grew into MotherSpeak, an organization which
> shares the stories of mothers around the world affected by war and
> terror. Then I trained as a counselor on the GI Rights Hotline and
> have spent more than two years counseling troops and decoding military
> rules and regulations. I also co-founded Courage to Resist to support
> the troops that refuse to fight.
>
>
> Official Pentagon numbers state that over 8,000 soldiers troops have
> gone Absent without Leave (AWOL) since the start of the GWOT in March
> 2003. They also state that over 40,000 troops from all branches of the
> military have gone AWOL or taken Unexcused Absences (UA) since 2000.
>
> I believe the unofficial numbers for all troops are even higher. In
> 2005, for example, GI Rights Hotline counselors answered over 38,000
> calls nationally. Today, the Hotline has more than doubled the number
> of trained counselors to cope with the volume of calls. In 2006, over
> 75 percent of the calls answered came from troops already AWOL or UA
> or about to go AWOL or UA. In telephone conversations with
> administrators at military Personnel Control Facility (PCFs) around
> the nation, I've learned that, at minimum, approximately 25 to 50 AWOL
> or UA troops await processing out of the military each week. This does
> travel around the country -- retrieving and returning troops to bases
> for non-judicial punishment. The majority of reluctant GIs are either
> discharged or reattached to their units and their stories never reach
> the public.
>
> SOP
>
> To understand the military's Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) it
> helps to understand military lingo: Soldiers (Army, National Guard,
> Individual Ready Reserve) "go AWOL"; Marines, Sailors, or Airmen/women
> "go UA". Initially, none is a "deserter" as this describes a service
> member who intends never to turn him- or herself back into the
> military. AWOLs and UAs fully intend to return to the military. While
> many nuances pertain, the distinction between AWOL/UA and deserter is
> not a matter of semantics: the maximum penalty for desertion during
> wartime is execution.
>
> Each branch of the military has its own process for AWOL or UA service
> members. The rules and regulations for each branch are clearly stated
> in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and service members
> have the right to access them. Unfortunately few troops conduct the
> research that could help their case; knowing this, gung-ho base
> upon personal preference or antipathy towards individuals. At these
> times, the expertise of GI Rights counselors or civilian lawyers
> specializing in military law is invaluable.
>
> Of the four branches, the Army's process is the easiest to understand:
> a soldier must be gone at least 30 days before s/he is officially
> categorized as AWOL. After this period the associated paperwork
> prepared and a federal warrant is made out for her/his arrest. If no
> during a routine traffic violation or similar event - and s/he turns
> himself in to military custody at Ft. Irwin, California. I accompanied
> him from Los Angeles to Ft. Irwin.
>
> If anyone is a conscientious objector to war, it is Agustin Aguayo. At
> the same time, anyone considering applying for CO status should
> understand that this is not an easy "out" of the military. CO status
> is no longer based solely on religious belief but rather on the
> "crystallization of belief" about the nature of war and warfare. The
> application process takes a long time and begins with writing a
> personal statement about why one considers oneself a CO and includes
> defending that point of view in front of a military board.
>
> Working with the Aguayos crystallized my belief that anyone
> considering applying for CO status should also take practical
> considerations into account, including:
>
> § Is the service member prepared for a protracted and, usually,
> daughters - are faced with loss of income while fighting this case,
> the costs of the family traveling to and from Germany where Agustin is
> held, and mounting legal fees. And, there is no guarantee that Agustin
> attendant financial and emotional costs.
>
> § Has the service member researched other organizations for
> information on discharges? Service people should be aware that
> different ways. For example, an organization based on religion with an
> apolitical mission may present the CO application and process in a
> different light than an organization with a, say, an anti-war mission,
> or an organization with a purely political or critical theorist
> mission.
>
> Agustin Aguayo turned himself in at Ft. Irwin and he was taken into
> military custody. But first, standing outside and witnessed by over
> two dozen civilian and military individuals, he submitted to a search
> and his pockets were turned inside out. His wrists and ankles were
> cuffed and chained, he was assisted into the waiting vehicle, and he
> was driven to Ft .Irwin's brig.
>
> Despite the Public Affairs Officer's proposition that Agustin would
> probably remain in California, 72 hours later he was returned to
> Germany. He is currently in a U.S. military prison in Germany awaiting
> court martial and a possible seven-year jail sentence for refusing to
> fight in war.
>
> Learn more about Agustin Aguayo at www.couragetoresist.org and donate
> to his legal fund at www.AguayoDefense.org.
>
>
>
>
> truth, and stand up for what's right we will always be free."
>
> Darrel Anderson, U.S. Army, 1st Armored Division
>
>
>
>
> During his seven months as an infantryman in Baghdad, Darrel witnessed
> U.S. troops abuse and kill civilians, he refused to fire on a civilian
> automobile, he was wounded by a roadside bomb, and he came to the
> conclusion that this war is wrong. With the possibility of a second
> deployment to Iraq and at the urging of his conscience, he went AWOL
> and fled to Canada.
>
> While he was grateful to Canada for harboring him, Darrel wanted to
> Suzanne away from us. Christmas 2004 she was in Iraq."
>
> Learn more about Suzanne's case: www. SuzanneSwift.org.
>
> I end with a quote from the U.S. Army's First Lt. Ehren Watada, the
> first U.S. commissioned officer to refuse to deploy to the Iraq war
> and occupation. He is charged with "contemptuous words" towards
> President Bush and conduct unbecoming an officer; he faces over seven
> years in military prison. Ehren Watada's is the first military
> persecution of an objector for First Amendment speech since 1965:
>
> service: that to stop an illegal and unjust war, the soldiers can
> aware that they are being used for ill-gain. They must hold themselves
> responsible for individual action. They must remember that duty to the
> Constitution and the people supersedes the ideologies of their
> leadership. [They] must be willing to face ostracism by peers, worry
> over the survival of their families, and the loss of personal freedom.
> But they must also know that resisting an authoritarian government at
> home is equally important to fighting a foreign aggressor on the
> battlefield. Finally, those wearing the uniform must know beyond any
> shadow of a doubt that by refusing immoral and illegal orders they
> will be supported by the people not with mere words but by action."
>
> Lt. Ehren Watada's vision is one of radical American heroism. Will his
> words stimulate GI resistance to this war similar to the resistance of
> that other war in Vietnam?
>
Wow...sad day indeed, when cowardice is called
"radical American heroism". Thank God that there were no "radical American
heroes" during WWI, WWII, Korea, or Vietnam.
Lt. Ehren Watada is a liar, a deserter and coward. No amount of inane
misrepresentation of the facts can possible make him a "hero" of any kind.
Soon, Watada will be a convicted felon.
Even sadder than the pack of lies posted by the OP, is that Watada won't
spend the rest of his cowardly life behind bars. Anyone that turns his back
on his country should not be allowed to be free in this country.
Honu
redvet
wrote:
You are such a whiner. Perhaps its because you know so few who share
your views. Your sound almost messianic . You really need to stop
complaining and actually DO SOMETHING. Remember the poorly attended
and intermittent "Support the War" rally's on Ala Moana and by the
convention center on Atkinson? Now why don't you run along and
organize one?
We are sure you can find time between donating blood for the
thousands of GI's who return maimed and crippled...(You atleast are
doing that much, aren't you? You're not a total hypocrite - right?)
and selling veteran buckles. You know, with the proceeds going to the
widows.
"Thank God that there were no "radical American
heroes" during WWI, WWII, Korea, or Vietnam." - Honu
We think it is safe to say that you must view history as an elective
course. We can speak only of Vietnam. We think that this might make a
good primer for that period of american history.
http://www.vvawai.org/sw/sw31/sw31.html
Now it could be that you don't consider us a creditable source. You
might be interested in Col. Heinl's analysis.
In 1971 the Armed Forces Journal published a shocking (and now famous)
article on "The Collapse of the Armed Forces." In a note accompanying
the piece the Journal's editors wrote that they had some reservations
about running it, but they said these were minor when compared to the
importance of solving what had become a dire problem for the Army. The
opening lines of this article penned by Col. Robert D. Heinl capture
some of the crisis atmosphere in the upper reaches of U.S. war
planners at the time:
"The morale, discipline and battle worthiness of the U.S. Armed
Forces are, with a few salient exceptions, lower and worse than at any
time in the century and possibly in the history of the United States.
By every conceivable indicator, our army that now remains in Vietnam
is in a state approaching collapse, with individual units avoiding or
having refused combat, murdering their officers and non-commissioned
officers, drug-ridden, and dispirited where not near-mutinous.
Elsewhere than Vietnam, the situation is nearly as serious. (1971,
p.30)"
http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/Vietnam/heinl.html
Heroes of GI resistance during Vietnam? You have to be kidding. Joe
Urgo is one - Ron Kovic is another. There were thousands.
You should have paid closer attention to the anti-war movement
earlier. Its too late now...redvet, who stands on the shoulders of
giants
Hertz_Donut
Just the opposite...I know or no one that thinks Watada or any of the
deserters are "heroes" of any kind.
Your sound almost messianic . You really need to stop
> complaining and actually DO SOMETHING.
I spent 25 years in the military, with a tour in Iraq. I didn't turn coward
when my unit deployed. And what are you doing besides undermining moral,
and promoting cowardice?
Remember the poorly attended
> and intermittent "Support the War" rally's on Ala Moana and by the
> convention center on Atkinson? Now why don't you run along and
> organize one?
You know what, I have seen the "support Watada" rallies and they were even
bigger jokes...kids and homeless people...and the few who weren't either a
child or homeless were clueless...
>
> We are sure you can find time between donating blood for the
> thousands of GI's who return maimed and crippled...(You atleast are
> doing that much, aren't you? You're not a total hypocrite - right?)
> and selling veteran buckles. You know, with the proceeds going to the
> widows.
You seem to forget that no one forced them to enlist. They joined for their
own reasons, and they honored their oath of enlistment and their country.
They are honorable people, unlike the cowards you hold so dear who enlist
and then turn thier backs on their country.
You also seem bent on destroying patriotism, ans well as encouraging people
to become cowards.
I am currently working on my fourth gallon of blood. I began giving blood
in 1971, and do so as often as I can.
I also volunteer at the USO.
>
> "Thank God that there were no "radical American
> heroes" during WWI, WWII, Korea, or Vietnam." - Honu
>
> We think it is safe to say that you must view history as an elective
> course.
No; I surely do not. Cowards and deserters were no honored in those
generations, as much as you would like to believer they were.
We can speak only of Vietnam. We think that this might make a
> good primer for that period of american history.
I cna speak of WWII and Korea as well, as my father served in the Army and
five of my uncles as well. I know how much they loved this country, and how
much it meaned to them to be able to give something back. My father was a
POW during WWII, and recieved a Silver Star. One of my uncles was a
helicopter pilot in Korea, when such was a new tactic. He was shot down
twice, the second time being taken prisoner. He later escaped and managed
to make his way to friendly forces.
No one of my father's era would *EVER* honor a traitor, a coward or a
deserter. No one of my uncles era would honor them either. It is shameful
and disgusting to praise a coward.
Once again, even you must realize that the defeat we suffered in Vietnam was
not a military defeat. It was a defeat caused by the liberal mindset.
It is alright to be against war. War is a terrible disease that we cannot
seem to get rid of. You don't honor cowardice and treachery to support your
views.
You ultimately never acknowledge that Watada *volunteered". He lied when he
raised his hand and was sworn in after accepting his commission.
Watada, and all the others that you seem to deify, are traitors. They are
cowards. They are in no way heroes. They are all liars that have reneged
on their enlistments, turned their backs on their fellow soldiers and their
country, and deserve to have the privileges afforded them by this great
country stripped from them.
You are entitled to your anti-war beliefs, and I encourage you to promote
them. Buy the despicable propensity to deify traitors and cowards is
abhorrent to everyone as a human being. Cowardice is not a virtue, no
matter how badly you try to paint it as such. Any soldier who turns their
back on this country during war time deserves no less that to spend the rest
of their natural life in captivity. They usurp freedom by their actions,
and dishonor themselves as well. It is shameful to have someone, anyone,
glorify them. They are not deserving of praise, or even pity. They are
deserving of derision. they are deserving of a lifetime of incarceration.
Honu