TED RALL : stop supporting the troops

WE'RE LOOKING FOR A FEW GOOD REFUSENIKS
...........................

The U.S. Army's "Law of Land Warfare," taught in basic training, says that U.S. troops must always refuse an unlawful order--one that violates the Constitution or other U.S. laws, is not reasonably linked to military necessity or is issued by someone without the proper authority.

Even passivity in the face of wrongdoing breaks military law. "If you are responsible for what's going on around you, and it is going unlawfully, and you know that do nothing about it, I'm going to prosecute you," says Bill Eckhardt, a retired army colonel and professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law who prosecuted most of the perpetrators of the My Lai massacre. "So basically, you've gotta be a whistleblower."

Congress never declared war against Iraq. As an unelected imposter, George W. Bush did not enjoy authority under the War Powers Act to commit American forces abroad. Concentration camps at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere violate the Geneva Conventions, which as treaty obligations are binding under U.S. law. Iraq did not threaten the United States. Iraq is not the subject of a U.N.-led international police action. Thus, by several measures, the war is illegal. Every order to deploy a soldier, aviator or sailor to fight in Iraq is by definition an unlawful order, one that he or she is legally and morally bound to refuse.
.............................

Rather than running around shouting that they "support the troops," opponents of the Iraq war ought to tell soldiers that fighting an illegal war is wrong. Rather than feeding their guilt for the supposed sins of the '60s antiwar movement by wallowing in phony jingoism, they ought to encourage members of the military to make the same difficult decision as the 5500 soldiers who have deserted or gone AWOL under Bush and the more than 250 who have applied for C.O. status.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucru/20051207/cm_ucru/werelookingforafewgoodrefuseniks

BTW there is an interesting assessment in the article that it was the Rambo movie that created the impression that Vietnam vets were "welcomed as baby-killers".... "pure fiction"

It's real easy to call upon others to desert and face court-martial when you yourself have never confronted that life-changing choice. I support those who have chosen to desert or refuse deployment, but I also understand why others feel as if they have to follow orders. Our biggest gripe should always be with the powerful white men who make war, rather than the young, no so powerful men who are made to fight in those wars.

nt

My husband went once, against his wishes and against mine. I would rather he had refused but no one can understand why a soldier or marine doesn't desert unless they are in his/her shoes. He has said, if he is going to be deployed to Iraq again he'll head for Canada or some other country. I can't guarantee that he would though. Right now he has recently signed paperwork to stay in Korea just so he won't get sent back there.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Because in that case you could make more than half of the US population "war-criminals" because they don't oppose the war more strongly, well knowing it's illegal.

Basically it's the same for the soldiers so I think that Rall is wrong. The fact that the US soldiers are "free" to join doesn't change this. Most of them joined on false premises or simply to get what they perceived being a chance to have a better life afterwards by risking their skin.

The responsible ones are not the GIs (except in some specific cases) but the upper chain of command.

The fact that the bank robbery is illegal doesn't make all the robbers criminals?

I realize this is a very painful subject, but we are all in the position of "good germans" now, and history will judge us as such unless we face this.

but the peoples of Europe didn't consider the German soldiers as WAR CRIMINALS, when the initial hatred blew off. The Nazis yes, but not the soldiers (except some special units). I live in France, so I can tell you that. I'll always remember the pictures when De Gaulle went to Germany and told the people that the page was turned.

And you comparison with banks is not absolute. Banks can be robbed because you are hungry or because you are a hardened criminal.

In a decent society the robber will be judged differently depending of the causes, the background. If a gang robs a bank, there is a difference betwwen the leader and the poor one that has been dragged into it and regrets it. In a decent society a chance is given to the second one.

I don't suggest that everyone who followed orders and deployed to Iraq should necessarily be prosecuted for war crimes-- I agree, not all criminals are equally culpable. But I do believe that Rall has stated the essential point that no one wants to address-- the orders to invade and occupy Iraq were illegal, they were orders to participate in a crime against humanity as defined by the U.N. Charter and the Nuremburg Protocols. It's also important to emphasize that they were not all in the past-- they continue today, and new orders for new crimes will be issued tomorrow. At some point the American people have to face this-- the war against Iraq is an ongoing war of aggression. It's not just a matter of recognizing past crimes and bringing those responsible to justice-- it's a matter of stopping the crime in progress while SOMEONE-- whatever we want to call them-- is in the act of committing it.

but Rall's point is not only that : since it is, it is wrong to support the troops that don't desert or protest against it since they joined freely the Army. Even if he has a "mild" approach to it :

"Chris Clarke (full disclosure: Clarke served as editor for a defunct publication that ran my cartoons) recalls a different reality: "In the 1960s and '70s, antiwar activists opened coffeehouses near military bases to provide soldiers with troubled consciences places to spend a few off-duty hours in like-minded company. We harbored deserters and AWOLs. We wrote letters to GIs, sent them care packages, grieved over them when they joined the damnable body counts announced on the Five O'Clock Follies."

"OK, lefties? You can drop the "support the troops" shtick now."

The first part is defendable (remember the theme of "Hair") but for me the second isn't. You can still support the troops and act the above way too.

Anyway his statement is schizophrenic:

"But Bush's armchair warriors couldn't have invaded Iraq without a compliant and complicit United States military--one that, it should be noted, is all volunteer. These individuals, who enjoy free will, fire the guns and drop the bombs. If personal responsibility is to have any meaning, the men and women of our armed forces have to be held individually accountable for the carnage."

I think he is wrong about "individually accountable" for the reasons I stated above. But he has a point in reminding of the behaviour the anti-war activists during the Vietnam war.

And he states that the "baby-killer" story was a myth, which I tend to believe.

It is an illegal war. They are us. The RW will be reposting this all over the web, trying to exploit it. The first reply says something I also agree with also, place blame where it belongs, on the rich white men directing this travesty.
Soldiers must be told by all to behave , and that there will be a review someday.

you want to blame somebody for the war then look up the ladder pal, not at the bottom.

..."pal," and placing the blame where it's appropriate-- most at the top, as you suggest, but no one in Iraq is blameless, IMO.

Just a hunch of mine.

http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13
Buttons for brainy people - educate your local freepers today!

...but it's gone now. The topic of war crimes culpability below the level of the civilian administration appears to be as verboten on DU as those two "unmentionable" forums. What I've never figured out is whether this is official policy, or whether it's just knee-jerk reactions by individual moderators. I suspect the former, since it is rather consistent.

apparently he's a war criminal. never shot anyone. never hurt anyone. but he's a war criminal.

on edit-- and I wouldn't presume to tell you how to deal with it.

under other circumstances... like : broke, 18,
no jobs, girlfriend just left you... aah I enlist...

not everybody can be a political desertor. It takes a lot of guts, assuming that you are even aware of what's going on...

I bet that the vast majority of the US GIs have only an idea in their heads, coming home alive and in one piece. Does that make them "war criminals" ?

Rall does like Bush, makes everybody accountable (except himself). You cannot make somebody accountable for being in a situation the person is unaware of being in (probably the majority of the troops in the beginning) or even if the person is aware, not being able to refuse for plenty of different reasons (mostly intimidation).

this person is obviously an anti-American hack. Don't even pay attention to him.

some of the people on here don't exactly have a full bag of marbles if you know what I mean......

I would even label some of these fools traitors.

:rofl:

Gotta get those two together.

many of the troops, such as Pat Tillman, whom Rall trashed in ignorance after Tillman died, oppose the war.

If I were Rall, after realizing the blunder he'd made with his anti-Tillman cartoon, I would have asked myself, why do the troops fight in this war? Then I would have asked some troops. I suspect Rall hasn't spoken to any troops about his idea.

In the first two paragraphs posted here, Rall's just the messenger--of one fact, and one learned opinion.

So, if you want to defend soldiers who carry out unlawful orders, you can't criticize Rall; you must take it up with whomever trains them to refuse such orders, and with people like Mr. Eckhardt, the retired army colonel.

(Having said that, Rall still deserves a kick in the head for the Pat Tillman bashing. And another one for not having apologized for it yet.)

his column is all over the media

so it's much better that DU discusses the issue so that a rational consensus over the issue emerges and arguments can be produced both to refute Rall and the freepers who are going to use it...

sticking the head in the sand never helps, even if the issue is controversial and painful

We need to cut down the size of our military, and give young people options in life other than ending other people's. And we need to come up with more intelligent solutions to our problems (e.g. dependence on Mideast Oil) that don't involve troops. We need a whole lot less soldiers, and a lot more Social Justice played out in the institutions of nations.

The war is wrong. The people at fault are in the administration and in corporate board rooms, not in uniform. I admire the courage and conviction of those who have made the difficult decision to follow their conscience in the face of grave consequences. But that needn't prevent me from supporting the rank and file who remain.

The war/occupation cannot be condemned in the abstract as if nobody is doing anything.

It doesn't make sense to me.

Soldiers who comply give it legitimacy - just as do people who support those who carry out illegal actions.

----

It IS asking a lot to expect people to not comply. It's also asking a lot to expect people to drop white phosphorus on towns/civilians or to shoot families. Which would you rather ask someone to do?

the troops as any MORE guilty than the American people. The ones that let Bush get installed in the White House. Re-elected him to the White House and in general where glued to their TV sets to watch us roll over Iraq. It seems a little late to have buyers remorse and a little stupid to blame the agents you hired to do the buying.