U.S. War Resister denied Asylum in Canada

[GMO]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1845&ncid=1845&e=1&u=/cpress/20050324/ca_pr_on_na/war_resister

[Franklinnoble]

So?

I have no problem with someone not wanting to go to war, as long as they're prepared to accept the consequences.

[Fritz]

whelp, thats about what Canada said they would a few years ago.

soldier got what bargained for, imho

[jamesUMD]

what the F*** do people think they are signing up for????? We have an entirely volunteer military. You join up, soak up the benefits, and then when they actually want to put you to use for what they trained you for, and you what, leave the country????

He was even in the freaking Infantry. I have no compassion for this moron. I hope he get's 5 years, a dishonorable discharge, and his kid grows up seeing what happens when you shirk obligations that you voluntarily make.

[tategter]

what the F*** do people think they are signing up for????? We have an entirely volunteer military. You join up, soak up the benefits, and then when they actually want to put you to use for what they trained you for, and you what, leave the country????

He was even in the freaking Infantry. I have no compassion for this moron. I hope he get's 5 years, a dishonorable discharge, and his kid grows up seeing what happens when you shirk obligations that you voluntarily make.

Yup...you sign on the dotted line, you become property of the government. He is a coward. Plain and simple.

Before anyone gets their panties in a wad over 'just because he doesn't want to fight doesn't make him a coward', rememeber that he signed-up for the army and took an oath. When he broke that oath because he didn't want to do his job he confirmed his cowardice.

[Raiders Army]

/agree with the above sentiments.

I wonder why people don't desert to Mexico instead of Canada. Isn't the dollar worth more than the peso than the Canadian dollar? :)

[st.cronin]

Plus the weather's nicer.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

Looks like he's got a trip to Leavenworth and a room with A big guy named bubba.

[flere-imsaho]

I'm sure none of you care, but I heard this guy interviewed on NPR this morning.

His story is that he found out, after he joined the army (to earn money for college, like the ads say), that he couldn't kill people. He told his chain of command this, and asked, offered, and pleaded that he be assigned to another role than infantryman, including, in his own words "a human shield".

His Chain of Command ignored his every request.

In an all-volunteer army, I have to wonder what the point is of forcing people into combat.

[Raiders Army]

I'm sure none of you care, but I heard this guy interviewed on NPR this morning.

His story is that he found out, after he joined the army (to earn money for college, like the ads say), that he couldn't kill people. He told his chain of command this, and asked, offered, and pleaded that he be assigned to another role than infantryman, including, in his own words "a human shield".

His Chain of Command ignored his every request.

In an all-volunteer army, I have to wonder what the point is of forcing people into combat.
Hehe. He's full of it. There are Rules of Engagement, to be sure, but he can certainly kill some people (and the best way to do that is by being an 11B). Now, you can't kill the people you work with, and maybe that's what his disgruntlement was.

As far as your last point, no one is forcing people into combat. They chose to be in the Army, and if they didn't think they could ever go into combat, then there's something wrong there. History proves that the Army predominantly goes to war when the nation goes to war. If he joined the Peace Corps, then he might have an argument.

[Franklinnoble]

I'm sure none of you care, but I heard this guy interviewed on NPR this morning.

His story is that he found out, after he joined the army (to earn money for college, like the ads say), that he couldn't kill people. He told his chain of command this, and asked, offered, and pleaded that he be assigned to another role than infantryman, including, in his own words "a human shield".

His Chain of Command ignored his every request.

In an all-volunteer army, I have to wonder what the point is of forcing people into combat.

You sign up, you do as you're told. It's not up for discussion. It's the damned army, for crying out loud.

He took the money. He knows soldiers sometimes have to kill people. He now objects, and he now goes to jail. I don't see a problem here.

[MrBug708]

Not sure what Flare said though. Maybe he made a grammatical error, but it sounds like the guy WANTED to kill people

[rkmsuf]

I think he meant he couldn't bring himself to kill people.

[Raiders Army]

Either way, you can kill people in the Army especially by going to combat in a warzone or if you don't want to kill people, what the fuck did you think an 11B does?

[flere-imsaho]

I think he meant he couldn't bring himself to kill people.

That's what I meant (and what he said). Bad grammar on my part.

If we assume that some (most?) people don't know if they can bring themselves to kill another person until it's clear they're going to have to do so, then I think his defense is plausible. I wonder how many people sign up for the Army, sure that they can kill people, if necessary, and then find out later, perhaps in bad circumstances, that they can't?

This isn't something I'm making up. WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, etc... are littered with stories of soldiers who froze up when faced with the idea of killing people. Which brings me around to my point. In WWI and WWII the Army didn't have a choice - it needed men on the ground, and it needed them to overcome these psychological blocks.

However, in today's all-volunteer Army, should we do the same thing? If someone really can't kill another, has a psychological block about it, he poses a real threat to his company. He's a weak link. Question is, what do you do about these guys? Can you weed them out before they sign up (which clearly isn't done)? Can you find other roles for them (which explicitly wasn't done in this case)?

Just some food for thought, folks.

[Desnudo]

My food for thought is that I'm glad the son of a bitch deserted before he got some other, more valuable Americans, killed over in Iraq.

[duckman]

When you join the military, your primary job is to be a professional soldier regardless what your secondary role is. In other words, if you are a cook in the Army, you are still a trained to kill the enemy. If they need you out on the front lines more than scrabbling eggs, then, you are going to the front lines to fight.

A lot of people are ignorant when it comes to this ideal when they first join up. They think "I will get a steady 40 hour work week, decent benefits, travel, and money for college" without thinking they may have to shoot someone for those benefits. So, I don't feel sorry for him. He knew what his job entailed (it's not like a big secret), but he thought he would get lucky and not fight for four years. His main problem is he needs to take some kind of American military history course.

Also, basic training is the weeding out process. It's not fun and games when they cram down your throats that you will be a killing machine after so many weeks. If he made it through that process, he is capable of pointing a rifle and shooting someone.

[gstelmack]

When you join the military, your primary job is to be a professional soldier regardless what your secondary role is. In other words, if you are a cook in the Army, you are still a trained to kill the enemy. If they need you out on the front lines more than scrabbling eggs, then, you are going to the front lines to fight.
American History is full of examples of rear echelon troops being caught in the fray. Battle of the Bulge has several examples of cooks, etc being given arms to defend key spots. And remember that the Jessica Lynch convoy was full of non-combatant transport troops who had to dig out their M-16s. And on and on and on.

There is no such thing as a non-combatant role in the military. So there is no way for the Army to honor his request.

[Raiders Army]

That's what I meant (and what he said). Bad grammar on my part.

If we assume that some (most?) people don't know if they can bring themselves to kill another person until it's clear they're going to have to do so, then I think his defense is plausible. I wonder how many people sign up for the Army, sure that they can kill people, if necessary, and then find out later, perhaps in bad circumstances, that they can't?

This isn't something I'm making up. WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, etc... are littered with stories of soldiers who froze up when faced with the idea of killing people. Which brings me around to my point. In WWI and WWII the Army didn't have a choice - it needed men on the ground, and it needed them to overcome these psychological blocks.

However, in today's all-volunteer Army, should we do the same thing? If someone really can't kill another, has a psychological block about it, he poses a real threat to his company. He's a weak link. Question is, what do you do about these guys? Can you weed them out before they sign up (which clearly isn't done)? Can you find other roles for them (which explicitly wasn't done in this case)?

Just some food for thought, folks.
Hmmm....I'm not so sure. There is a big difference in your example. When soldiers are faced with killing someone and can't, usually that is then and there in the situation. This guy said he couldn't kill someone when the situation wasn't even there sitting at him in the face. I guarantee you, that if you've trained with some guys, you would be willing to kill people that you don't know to save their lives. If he couldn't, then I guess being a human shield is a good role for him. Throw him on the grenade.

[Raiders Army]

American History is full of examples of rear echelon troops being caught in the fray. Battle of the Bulge has several examples of cooks, etc being given arms to defend key spots. And remember that the Jessica Lynch convoy was full of non-combatant transport troops who had to dig out their M-16s. And on and on and on.

There is no such thing as a non-combatant role in the military. So there is no way for the Army to honor his request.
What you're saying is very true today. We fight an asymmetrical war where soldiers in the rear, reserve, main, and advance must fight. I think he was scared of dying versus not wanting to kill someone. That to me, my friends, is what we call a pussy.

[stkelly52]

That's what I meant (and what he said). Bad grammar on my part.

If we assume that some (most?) people don't know if they can bring themselves to kill another person until it's clear they're going to have to do so, then I think his defense is plausible. I wonder how many people sign up for the Army, sure that they can kill people, if necessary, and then find out later, perhaps in bad circumstances, that they can't?

This isn't something I'm making up. WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, etc... are littered with stories of soldiers who froze up when faced with the idea of killing people. Which brings me around to my point. In WWI and WWII the Army didn't have a choice - it needed men on the ground, and it needed them to overcome these psychological blocks.

However, in today's all-volunteer Army, should we do the same thing? If someone really can't kill another, has a psychological block about it, he poses a real threat to his company. He's a weak link. Question is, what do you do about these guys? Can you weed them out before they sign up (which clearly isn't done)? Can you find other roles for them (which explicitly wasn't done in this case)?

Just some food for thought, folks.
The problem with this is that if you make it a policy that people who can't bring themselves to kill someone will be moved into a (mostly) noncombat role, most of the soldiers in the Army would suddenly find themselves unable to bring themselves to kill others and ask for noncombat roles. We cannot have that.

[flere-imsaho]

A lot of people are ignorant when it comes to this ideal when they first join up. They think "I will get a steady 40 hour work week, decent benefits, travel, and money for college" without thinking they may have to shoot someone for those benefits.

I wonder why that is? Perhaps because that's what the Army emphasizes in its commercials and that's what it's recruiters emphasize? Just try and get a recruiter to talk about killing people - it's not easy.

Look, I'm not trying to defend the guy, per se, I'm trying to get you guys to broaden your horizons a bit.

Here's my point:

Given that 1) The Army's recruitment program continues to stress non-combat aspects of the Army to the exclusion of actual discussion of combat and 2) it's unclear whether or not the Army's training actually conditions people to kill other people....

I propose that:

1. We now have an Army in which a good number of troops are not psychologically prepared to kill other people.

2. These people represent a serious threat to their fellow servicemen.

3. No one has yet proposed a serious way to deal with this issue.

Based on this, I ask you all to either:

1. Disagree with the above points and provide rationale/examples why.

or

2. Agree with some/all of the above points and postulate what could be done about this situation.


On a side note.... Although I agree with all of you who say "Look, you signed up for the Army, you may have to go to war", I urge you to examine the way the Army has been sold. Prior to 2002 you would be hard-pressed to find a recruiter who would talk to you about going to war. These guys are salesmen, they're not going to tell you what you want to hear. They say things like "sign up for X commission, and you'll never be deployed" or "join this company and you'll never see combat". Now we know that's all BS, but does every High School kid who gets the hard sell know it's BS? Of course they don't.

[Raiders Army]

I propose that:

1. We now have an Army in which a good number of troops are not psychologically prepared to kill other people.

2. These people represent a serious threat to their fellow servicemen.

3. No one has yet proposed a serious way to deal with this issue.

Based on this, I ask you all to either:

1. Disagree with the above points and provide rationale/examples why.

or

2. Agree with some/all of the above points and postulate what could be done about this situation.
1. Disagree. Where is your proof? What is a "good number"?
2. Disagree. Even the soldiers who are not psychologically prepared to kill other people are not necessarily a serious threat to their fellow servicemen. They may rise to the challenge given the right incentives (i.e. someone is shooting at them, their buddy just got killed, etc.).
3. Doesn't matter. You haven't proven that there is a large scale issue. Even if there is, it's simple....court-martial.

I've asked you in another thread, but you never answered. Have you ever served in the military? No offense, but your arguments don't seem to have much weight to those who have served.

[jamesUMD]

Within the 1st 2 days of basic training you know exactly why you are there. If people decide very quickly the military is not for them, the military will make sure your butt gets sent home back to the civilian sector. This guy sucked up the benefits for what 2-3 years, up until it was time to pay the piper, and then he claimed it was an unrightous war?????

[HomerJSimpson]

On a side note.... Although I agree with all of you who say "Look, you signed up for the Army, you may have to go to war", I urge you to examine the way the Army has been sold. Prior to 2002 you would be hard-pressed to find a recruiter who would talk to you about going to war. These guys are salesmen, they're not going to tell you what you want to hear. They say things like "sign up for X commission, and you'll never be deployed" or "join this company and you'll never see combat". Now we know that's all BS, but does every High School kid who gets the hard sell know it's BS? Of course they don't.


This reminds me. I was talking with a guy in school who said he was joining the Army after he finished. I asked him if he was worried about being sent over to Iraq, he said "naw, the recruiter told me no one gets sent over there in there first term." I nearly laughed my head off. I told him when I joined up, I was told "no one gets sent over seas in there first term." When I got to training, I found out that EVERYONE in my job was sent to Germany in their first term.

Always remember, kiddies, how can you tell when a recruiter or a politician is lying? When their lips are moving.

[Fritz]

FWIW, Alvin York once thought he could not kill people. I don't think that is something you know for sure until it happens. Just a guess, since I have never been put in that position.

[Dutch]

/agree with the above sentiments.

I wonder why people don't desert to Mexico instead of Canada. Isn't the dollar worth more than the peso than the Canadian dollar? :)

Sure, but you can't drink the water. :)

[Anthony]

What you're saying is very true today. We fight an asymmetrical war where soldiers in the rear, reserve, main, and advance must fight. I think he was scared of dying versus not wanting to kill someone. That to me, my friends, is what we call a pussy.

i think for this thread to work, anyone in this thread who's been in active duty and actually served in the Armed Forces should raise their hand (i already know of a few in here). the rest should not be calling anyone a pussy.

i don't want to die and i don't like doing the dirty work of rich old white men who couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag. thus, the Armed Forces isn't for me. so what's the difference between me - who doesn't join up - and this other guy who decided this isn't for him? i've already had 2 career changes - i've left PR and insurance industries because they weren't for me. no one is allowed to change their minds?

don't blame it on some people that they come from a background where joining the army is sometimes the only way to get to college. there's a reason why the armed forces is comprised of people from lower income backgrounds and don't have much, as opposed to the rich kids of wealthy business people and politicians.

you people say "he took an oath". maybe he took the oath because that was the only way to get ahead in life. maybe he honestly *did* want to serve his country, just not be a killing machine or have to die for it. why isn't there a way for you to serve your country that doesn't involve possibly having to put someone in a body bag?

in any event, doesn't look like he would have been much use in combat. Army should have accomodated someone who could have put other lives in danger.

[Dutch]

i don't want to die and i don't like doing the dirty work of rich old white men who couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag. thus, the Armed Forces isn't for me.

And that right there is the beauty of an all-volunteer force. The reason we are so good is because we have the people who want to be in the military, not a bunch of people who don't trust the American government. Freedom of choice is a powerful tool America has given us all.

[GMO]

Is this something like someone signing a contract with a NFL team, getting the signing bonus but then before the first game say that he doesn't want to play because he's decided he doesn't like rough games that includes tackling people?

[Dutch]

Is this something like someone signing a contract with a NFL team, getting the signing bonus but then before the first game say that he doesn't want to play because he's decided he doesn't like rough games that includes tackling people?

It's not a good example if playing tackle football is guaranteed. I think if you want to equate it to football, the best example would be that Billy Joe Tolliver (or Hebert?) who signed in Buffalo to be the backup a few years back.

He signed for something like $500,000 a year for 2 years. And when the starting QB was hurt one game, he says, "Sorry coach, I haven't been studying the playbook all season, you better put somebody else in."

He was quickly cut. He liked the idea of football, he like collecting the paycheck, but he didn't actually want to contribute.

[Poli]

http://www.positiveoffset.com/Parts/4.7K-ohm-resistor.jpg

[Raiders Army]

i think for this thread to work, anyone in this thread who's been in active duty and actually served in the Armed Forces should raise their hand (i already know of a few in here). the rest should not be calling anyone a pussy.
For the record, I am in the Army. The deserter is a pussy.

i don't want to die and i don't like doing the dirty work of rich old white men who couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag. thus, the Armed Forces isn't for me. so what's the difference between me - who doesn't join up - and this other guy who decided this isn't for him? i've already had 2 career changes - i've left PR and insurance industries because they weren't for me. no one is allowed to change their minds?

Apples and oranges. He signed a contract. Regardless of knowing the risks involved, he was contractually obligated to perform his duty. Even if he changed his mind, he still had an obligation. Did you leave those PR and insurance industries when they asked you do something that had to do with insurance or PR? Or did you leave them once your obligation was up?

don't blame it on some people that they come from a background where joining the army is sometimes the only way to get to college. there's a reason why the armed forces is comprised of people from lower income backgrounds and don't have much, as opposed to the rich kids of wealthy business people and politicians.

Point taken; however, this is a volunteer military. They joined of their own free will. No one held a gun to their heads.

you people say "he took an oath". maybe he took the oath because that was the only way to get ahead in life. maybe he honestly *did* want to serve his country, just not be a killing machine or have to die for it. why isn't there a way for you to serve your country that doesn't involve possibly having to put someone in a body bag?

Regardless of the reasons why you take an oath, you should still be bound by it. If your word is meaningless, then you aren't a man.

in any event, doesn't look like he would have been much use in combat. Army should have accomodated someone who could have put other lives in danger.
Think about that for a second. If we let him go, then think about the flood of others that would follow. Do you mean to tell me that you would feel good if your hard earned money that goes to taxes was pissed away on training and benefits for people who join the military and then decide it's just not for them?

Incredulously, I believe that you and many others would think it would be okay. Frankly I think that a lot of people feel guilt over not serving or willing to die for their country. They are some of the people who cry about not having body armor or cry about why can't we let a deserter just go to Canada. If your idea of what the military is like comes from watching Blackhawk Down or Band of Brothers you are way off base. I'm not saying that the Army life is like that sometimes, but you haven't seen the other side of things.

[Bubba Wheels]

All he had to do was borrow from Chevy Chase in Caddyshack. When the girl asks him why he wasn't drafted he states 'I was homosexual" then catching himself as he finishes pouring her drink he adds "but I'm much better now!"

[Chubby]

For the record, I am in the Army. The deserter is a pussy.



Apples and oranges. He signed a contract. Regardless of knowing the risks involved, he was contractually obligated to perform his duty. Even if he changed his mind, he still had an obligation. Did you leave those PR and insurance industries when they asked you do something that had to do with insurance or PR? Or did you leave them once your obligation was up?



Point taken; however, this is a volunteer military. They joined of their own free will. No one held a gun to their heads.



Regardless of the reasons why you take an oath, you should still be bound by it. If your word is meaningless, then you aren't a man.


Think about that for a second. If we let him go, then think about the flood of others that would follow. Do you mean to tell me that you would feel good if your hard earned money that goes to taxes was pissed away on training and benefits for people who join the military and then decide it's just not for them?

Incredulously, I believe that you and many others would think it would be okay. Frankly I think that a lot of people feel guilt over not serving or willing to die for their country. They are some of the people who cry about not having body armor or cry about why can't we let a deserter just go to Canada. If your idea of what the military is like comes from watching Blackhawk Down or Band of Brothers you are way off base. I'm not saying that the Army life is like that sometimes, but you haven't seen the other side of things.
Good thing everyone always completely fulfills every contract that is signed in this country and around the world.

The whole "contract" argument is a load of crap. Tons of people in various professions (which is what I think our armed forces are, a noble one at that) break/get out of/change contracts that were signed every day. Do you really want some schlub fighting in a battle who doesn't want to be there? Wouldn't that endanger his companymates?

[Raiders Army]

I don't believe you're thinking things through clearly Chubby.

1. A contract between the government, your government, and a citizen to protect this nation and possibly die for this nation is more important than say ordering 50 widgets from Office Max. If you do believe that contracts are the same no matter what, then it's okay to commit war crimes, because hey, contracts are signed and broken every day.

2. Say we let this guy go, no harm done. How do you know he doesn't want to kill someone or whether he's chicken? Additionally, how do you recoup the costs of training, benefits, etc.? Are you, Joe Taxpayer, going to be okay with that? What happens when there are many more soldiers who want to do the same thing?

[Dutch]

The whole "contract" argument is a load of crap. Tons of people in various professions (which is what I think our armed forces are, a noble one at that) break/get out of/change contracts that were signed every day.

The military is a profession. But it's objective is to fight and win wars against our enemies. Not to mow the grass back at Camp Pendleton (Marine base in California). You don't get a free college education and money for college after you get out for mowing grass. They can just pay some civlian to do that. You get all your military benefits and college money for being available to go and fight wars.

If everybody can just mow grass for a couple of years then quit the military when the shit hits the fan, it would be a massive waste and a complete failure of a system.

Do you really want some schlub fighting in a battle who doesn't want to be there? Wouldn't that endanger his companymates?

I would bet most of the people in Iraq would rather be in front of their TV's at home in the US enjoying their Saturday. It's a sacrifice. So I guess you could say that most of the people in Iraq are 'schlubs', but I think they are just taking their obligation seriously.

[Dutch]

I don't believe you're thinking things through clearly Chubby.

1. A contract between the government, your government, and a citizen to protect this nation and possibly die for this nation is more important than say ordering 50 widgets from Office Max. If you do believe that contracts are the same no matter what, then it's okay to commit war crimes, because hey, contracts are signed and broken every day.

2. Say we let this guy go, no harm done. How do you know he doesn't want to kill someone or whether he's chicken? Additionally, how do you recoup the costs of training, benefits, etc.? Are you, Joe Taxpayer, going to be okay with that? What happens when there are many more soldiers who want to do the same thing?

Raiders does such a better job at explaining this shit. He must be an officer. :)

[Chubby]

I don't believe you're thinking things through clearly Chubby.

1. A contract between the government, your government, and a citizen to protect this nation and possibly die for this nation is more important than say ordering 50 widgets from Office Max. If you do believe that contracts are the same no matter what, then it's okay to commit war crimes, because hey, contracts are signed and broken every day.

2. Say we let this guy go, no harm done. How do you know he doesn't want to kill someone or whether he's chicken? Additionally, how do you recoup the costs of training, benefits, etc.? Are you, Joe Taxpayer, going to be okay with that? What happens when there are many more soldiers who want to do the same thing?
Please show me the laws that say a contract with the government is for some reason different than a contract between 2 people or between any other entities.

I'd also love to know how "contracts are contracts" = warcrimes are ok. Is this like saying "If you don't support the war, the terrorists win"?

I would much rather have an army of professionals that want to be there, that will use my future tax dollars in a constructive manner than waste future tax dollars on some guy who changed his mind and doesn't want to be in the armed forces anymore. We've already spent the tax dollars on the guy's training, keeping him in the army where he might risk other soldiers' lives isn't going to get that money back.

If other soldiers want to leave as well than so be it. Maybe that's an indication of the importantance or "rightness" or the current actions of our military (even if it's not the military's decision for what they do, the pres/congress)


Do you want 5 guys who do nothing but try to come up with ways to get out of the army standing next to you protecting your life? Would you not want the same kind of professional that you are that will give their full attention to the mission at hand?

[larrymcg421]

I am against the war as much as anyone else, but unfortunately I can't really support this guy. There is no draft. He had a choice whether to sign up or not. My guess is he wanted all the benefits that army life provided but he doesn't want to be subject to the risks. Too bad. It doesn't work like that.

[Raiders Army]

Please show me the laws that say a contract with the government is for some reason different than a contract between 2 people or between any other entities.
I guess you're saying that contracts are the same.

I'd also love to know how "contracts are contracts" = warcrimes are ok. Is this like saying "If you don't support the war, the terrorists win"?
Hmm...the Geneva Conventions are a good contract of how we fight a war. If a vehicle has the Red Cross or Red Crescent on it, we are not allowed to fire upon it (of course, there are exceptions to this rule). I guess I can break that contract since Mike Tice broke his contract not to re-sell Superbowl tickets.

I would much rather have an army of professionals that want to be there, that will use my future tax dollars in a constructive manner than waste future tax dollars on some guy who changed his mind and doesn't want to be in the armed forces anymore. We've already spent the tax dollars on the guy's training, keeping him in the army where he might risk other soldiers' lives isn't going to get that money back.

If other soldiers want to leave as well than so be it. Maybe that's an indication of the importantance or "rightness" or the current actions of our military (even if it's not the military's decision for what they do, the pres/congress)


Do you want 5 guys who do nothing but try to come up with ways to get out of the army standing next to you protecting your life? Would you not want the same kind of professional that you are that will give their full attention to the mission at hand?
No, I don't want those 5 guys with me. I want them court-martialed and sent to prison for 5 years, receive a bad conduct discharge, and not receive any benefits. This is much easier on them than the maximum penalty, hanging them by the neck until they're dead because they are deserters.

I find it funny that if you ask a legal question and a lawyer on this board responds, you take his opinion seriously. I find it funny that if a programming question is asked on this board and a programmer responds, you take it at face value.

I am in the Army. I tell you how it is. You continue to believe that you're right.

BTW, yes, Dutch, I am an officer. :)

[Chubby]

I guess you're saying that contracts are the same.


Hmm...the Geneva Conventions are a good contract of how we fight a war. If a vehicle has the Red Cross or Red Crescent on it, we are not allowed to fire upon it (of course, there are exceptions to this rule). I guess I can break that contract since Mike Tice broke his contract not to re-sell Superbowl tickets.


No, I don't want those 5 guys with me. I want them court-martialed and sent to prison for 5 years, receive a bad conduct discharge, and not receive any benefits. This is much easier on them than the maximum penalty, hanging them by the neck until they're dead because they are deserters.

I find it funny that if you ask a legal question and a lawyer on this board responds, you take his opinion seriously. I find it funny that if a programming question is asked on this board and a programmer responds, you take it at face value.

I am in the Army. I tell you how it is. You continue to believe that you're right.

BTW, yes, Dutch, I am an officer. :)
You haven't been reading my posts then ;)

I love the "two wrongs make a right" argument. This football coach broke a contract so I can obviously fire on civilians. Puh-lease. Your logic in this regard is comical. Are there consequences for trying to break a contract? Sure, in most professions it's money or a forfeit of your right to sue. I don't however think that anyone who wants out of the military should be thrown in jail or killed as a traitor for simply wanting out. I can't fault a kid or anyone who signed up and was then forced to go fight a war they are supposed to. That doesn't really seem "volunteer" to me.

Get out of job A? - Can't work for a competitor.
Get out of job B? - Go to jail.

I'll bet you can tell which one is the military. Of course, the only possible recourse is not "can't work for a competitor" but I for one do not want my tax dollars or REAL servicemen's lives wasted by having soliders who don't want to be there farting around.

[Raiders Army]

Actually, I just re-read them with my wife.

I'm done because I have my opinion and you have yours. Again, just FYI, according to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the maximum penalty for deserting is hanging until you're dead. I guess you as a civilian have no concept of something that the military obviously thinks is important.

[Chubby]

Actually, I just re-read them with my wife.

I'm done because I have my opinion and you have yours. Again, just FYI, according to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the maximum penalty for deserting is hanging until you're dead. I guess you as a civilian have no concept of something that the military obviously thinks is important.
Nope, I just have different beliefs and independant thoughts that conflict with what the military thinks. This is why I'd never ever join the military.

[Dutch]

Nope, I just have different beliefs and independant thoughts that conflict with what the military thinks. This is why I'd never ever join the military.

The military's beliefs is keeping our nation safe from harms way. How does that differ from your beliefs and independant thoughts?

I think what you mean to say is "The military isn't for you." And that's fine, that's why we have an all-volunteer force. Careful, the Democrats want you in the draft!

[st.cronin]

Careful, the Democrats want you in the draft!

Huh?

[Dutch]

Huh?

The Dems have a few folks that think the current set-up encouraged the Bush Administration to go to war with Iraq because their "rich sons and daughters" don't have to join the military. They assumed that if the draft were in place we would not have gone to war because their "rich sons and daughters" might have to go fight.

It's a dumb argument, bad logic, and brought to you by Senators of the Democrat flavor. I know, it sounds crazy but I saw them running around on all the TV stations for about a week with that debate.

[Airhog]

Please, we all know the rich sons and daughters would be sent to some cushy reserve job flying an outdated plane :D

[Anthony]

You haven't been reading my posts then ;)

I love the "two wrongs make a right" argument. This football coach broke a contract so I can obviously fire on civilians. Puh-lease. Your logic in this regard is comical. Are there consequences for trying to break a contract? Sure, in most professions it's money or a forfeit of your right to sue. I don't however think that anyone who wants out of the military should be thrown in jail or killed as a traitor for simply wanting out. I can't fault a kid or anyone who signed up and was then forced to go fight a war they are supposed to. That doesn't really seem "volunteer" to me.

Get out of job A? - Can't work for a competitor.
Get out of job B? - Go to jail.

I'll bet you can tell which one is the military. Of course, the only possible recourse is not "can't work for a competitor" but I for one do not want my tax dollars or REAL servicemen's lives wasted by having soliders who don't want to be there farting around.

chubby and i are on the same page as this.

what i don't understand is why are there only two options to serve your country:

1. be a rich person and schmooze your way to a political career (ie, Congress) without so much as picking up a water gun.

2. risk your life and join the Armed Forces.

hate to break it to you, but if i came from a low income household out in the farms of Iowa and wanted to contribute to my country, my options would be limited to risking life and limb and joining the Army/Marines/Navy/Air Force. who knows, maybe this guy decided that the oath he took however long ago no longer applied. maybe he doesn't believe in this war. fuck, i don't believe in this war and feel we should have left a long time ago and i'm not even a soldier.

a common statement in this thread asks if i would want my taxes being wasted on a coward who squandered the training bought w/ my tax dollars. i say i don't want my tax dollars damning people to their deaths. if someone wants out and doesn't feel that they'd be able to survive then i don't want my tax dollars forcing them to their deaths. i don't want that on my conscience.

feel free to spin that now.

[Dutch]

Please, we all know the rich sons and daughters would be sent to some cushy reserve job flying an outdated plane :D

Yes, yes, one that was actually in service and flying in Vietnam when said rich kid went there (and it was deactivated after he had been assigned) while the other guy was hoping to avoid combat by joining the Navy.

Bottom line, we can take our shots, but they both served our country no matter how much we try and smear them.

[Raiders Army]

Okay. I wasn't going to post again on this topic, but I read the Terry Schiavo Poll thread and saw this there:

We obviously do as a society, have the power to try and overturn dozens upon dozens of identical court rulings simply because some disagree tho right?

Her parent's also said she said she wanted to live which clearly didn't happen, I know you'd love for things to drag on whenever one person jumped up and said "SHE BLINKED TWICE WHEN I ASKED HER A QUESTION" since that would keep her alive for decades.


Just to clarify: Chubby believes that the court system (which he agrees with) who said go with Michael's wishes is right, and just because you disagree with it, you shouldn't stop it.

He also believes that the military system (which he disagrees with) who said punish a deserter is wrong, and because you disagree with it, you should stop it.

It is difficult to maintain an open mind when your bias clearly closes it. I believe G.W. Bush called this waffling. :rolleyes:

[jamesUMD]

Chubby posted: Nope, I just have different beliefs and independant thoughts that conflict with what the military thinks. This is why I'd never ever join the military. If the military lets everyone out of the military that doesn't want to honor their contract and yet we still have a war to fight, what do you think will happen.

Army - soldiers that decided they no longer wanted to be in the military = shortfall
Army + draft of new population of people that don't want to be in the military = same predicament

Can we not gloss over the fact that he chose the 11 Bang Bang (Infantry).

That's akin to someone choosing to be a professional boxer and then saying they object to hitting people because they are a pacifist. How freaking stupid does that sound????? There are plenty of career options in the military that will put you farther away from combat.

All those that think that they should let the soldiers just bow out of their contracts just remember that if the US shows up for a war, and no one wants to go, we aren't going to play a couple of men short if you catch my drift. Someone will be shipping out when the battle wagon starts up the engine.

[Fritz]

God lord someone got a bright new "look at me, I'm an idiot hat" for easter.

[jamesUMD]

God lord someone got a bright new "look at me, I'm an idiot hat" for easter.
Huh!

[Easy Mac]

I don't feel sorry for him. It sucks, but thats what you signed up for... its why its called an army. Its not all about fucking you company mates, the idiot.

My bro-in-law got lucky. He was in college on an ROTC scholarship. He was supposed to graduate in 2000. But he just went through a really tough time in 2000, stopped going to class and all. He eventually realised he just didn't want to go into the military, he went through ranger school and everything (the weird thing is he loved it). So they let him out of the ROTC, but he ended up having to pay them back for everything (At least 100K in scholarship and whatever else they invested). I'm just grateful that he backed out when he did... who knows where he'd be if he stuck with it. Of course, now he and my sister are in ungodly debt, but they have two kids and are happy.

[jamesUMD]

Letting soldiers out of their contracts as soon as a conflict arises sets a catastrophic precedent IMO. The military is being stretched extremely thin right now and I just think that people need to understand that. If this soldier had made an effort to get out when he finished basic training, or AIT, then I could reason with it easier.

You do not have an option as a soldier to pick and choose what wars you will choose to be a part of. When you take the oath of enlistment, you choose to follow the orders of the Commander in Chief. The military is much more restrictive than the civilian sector because, IMO, you have to train soldiers to act on orders instinctively, without them questioning the logic behind the orders. I can see others points of view, but just think too many look at how things should work in a perfect world, rather than the imperfect world in which we live.

[Chubby]

Okay. I wasn't going to post again on this topic, but I read the Terry Schiavo Poll thread and saw this there:



Just to clarify: Chubby believes that the court system (which he agrees with) who said go with Michael's wishes is right, and just because you disagree with it, you shouldn't stop it.

He also believes that the military system (which he disagrees with) who said punish a deserter is wrong, and because you disagree with it, you should stop it.

It is difficult to maintain an open mind when your bias clearly closes it. I believe G.W. Bush called this waffling. :rolleyes:
you mean waffling in "killing" your own father then promoting a threat to the constitution to save a woman unrelated to you?

I never it was wrong to punish a deserter, go back and read. I said I don't think the guy should be thrown in jail or hung.

Obviously RA thinks that if you agree with one "court" decision then you must agree with them all. Good luck on that one.

[Dutch]

I never it was wrong to punish a deserter, go back and read. I said I don't think the guy should be thrown in jail or hung.

How would you punish him then?

[duckman]

How would you punish him then?
I was thinking the same thing. :confused:

[Raiders Army]

How would you punish him then?
He's already said how he would punish him. He keeps telling me to go back and read, so that's what I did.

The whole "contract" argument is a load of crap. Tons of people in various professions (which is what I think our armed forces are, a noble one at that) break/get out of/change contracts that were signed every day. Do you really want some schlub fighting in a battle who doesn't want to be there? Wouldn't that endanger his companymates?

Translation: It's okay to break a contract.

We've already spent the tax dollars on the guy's training, keeping him in the army where he might risk other soldiers' lives isn't going to get that money back.

If other soldiers want to leave as well than so be it. Maybe that's an indication of the importantance or "rightness" or the current actions of our military (even if it's not the military's decision for what they do, the pres/congress)

Translation: It's okay to let them leave the military.

love the "two wrongs make a right" argument. This football coach broke a contract so I can obviously fire on civilians. Puh-lease. Your logic in this regard is comical. Are there consequences for trying to break a contract? Sure, in most professions it's money or a forfeit of your right to sue. I don't however think that anyone who wants out of the military should be thrown in jail or killed as a traitor for simply wanting out. I can't fault a kid or anyone who signed up and was then forced to go fight a war they are supposed to. That doesn't really seem "volunteer" to me.

Get out of job A? - Can't work for a competitor.
Get out of job B? - Go to jail.

I'll bet you can tell which one is the military. Of course, the only possible recourse is not "can't work for a competitor" but I for one do not want my tax dollars or REAL servicemen's lives wasted by having soliders who don't want to be there farting around.

Translation: Don't let the deserter work for a competitor.

That was his "punishment". Let them out when they ask to be let out. (Chubby still hasn't said what his controls would be to determine what the reasons for desertion would be. As a matter of fact, being a conscientious objector is quite different from being a deserter.) Ensure that the deserter doesn't join another branch of the military...but then again, it's not a crime to change your mind is it? War is over, wait, I want to join the Army again. Let's hand out flowers and sing a happy song.

I am tired of listening to his non-arguments. He hasn't answered any of my questions to him and I have answered his. I quote him to show him that he's a contradicting idiot who knows nothing aobut the military and how it is, yet he still spouts out sewage. If you're so smart Chubby, then why don't you tell us how you would solve this problem? How would you determine if someone doesn't want to kill someone else or if they're chicken? If you don't know, then shut up because you are talking out of your ass. Don't tell us how you would feel. You're not there. Join up and then let us know how you would feel.

For those who aren't Chubby, imagine this scenario:

You work in a corporation. You just got a contract to represent Exxon. One of your co-workers is a treehugger and objects to working with Exxon. He's gotten training from your company and has received benefits in the past three years he's been with you. He then runs to another company and attempts to get a job with them (while he's still supposedly working for you). All this time you're working your ass off for a year and he's chilling out. The other company sends him back and now your CEO says, "Hey, we all change our minds. He can break his contract to work with us. No harm, no foul." How would you feel?

[Young Drachma]

I think that you don't sign up for the Army, knowing what they're about and all the shit they tell you in Basic COMBAT training and decide, when the shit hits the fan, that you're gonna run.

That's cowardly.

[Young Drachma]

I'm sure none of you care, but I heard this guy interviewed on NPR this morning.

His story is that he found out, after he joined the army (to earn money for college, like the ads say), that he couldn't kill people. He told his chain of command this, and asked, offered, and pleaded that he be assigned to another role than infantryman, including, in his own words "a human shield".

His Chain of Command ignored his every request.

In an all-volunteer army, I have to wonder what the point is of forcing people into combat.

I care. But I don't believe him either. If he wanted out of basic, he could've complained then. Worse yet, did he not know he was gonna be an 11B before he signed his contract? This stuff would work for folks who don't know how the system works, but it seems fishy to me that he went through basic and AIT, successfully completed it - with his newfound reservations.

Perhaps he enjoyed the money or thought that they'd send him to jail. But I doubt it or he would've deserted then.

[Young Drachma]

On a side note.... Although I agree with all of you who say "Look, you signed up for the Army, you may have to go to war", I urge you to examine the way the Army has been sold. Prior to 2002 you would be hard-pressed to find a recruiter who would talk to you about going to war. These guys are salesmen, they're not going to tell you what you want to hear. They say things like "sign up for X commission, and you'll never be deployed" or "join this company and you'll never see combat". Now we know that's all BS, but does every High School kid who gets the hard sell know it's BS? Of course they don't.

I'm with you, here. But, ever since 9/11 we've been "at war." So even if his recruiter told him he wasn't gonna see combat, he should've been smarter than that.

Not to say I don't have sympathy, surely he got in and decided he wanted out. I know I felt the same way for a while and I was in the freakin' not going to combat Air Force. But, it seems to me that there are so many other ways of recourse, short of running away.

And I agree, when you work with people a while - especially in the military - it seems that you'd at least have some overriding sense of moral obligation
not to abandon them or to back them up if shit hits the fan, with the notion they'd do the same for you.

Seems to me, something else is going on here. But I don't think it excuses what he did.

Most kids who join the service know what their role is. And if he was in Basic, they told him - over and over - that he's supposed to fight and kill. Not hug, not get money for college. To kill and fuck the enemy up, before he gets you. That's it.

So, I don't see how - going through that - he didn't manage to tell someone then and there, "Hey, I can't do this." I think he got his feelings when he realized he was being deployed. And I understand that impluse too..since I actually - for a while - wanted to apply for CO status. Of course, I read later they barely ever grant it - and of course, I eventually got over what I was trying to avoid and all of that.

And I was lucky to deploy back when things were relatively calm and of course, I got out and moved on. But he's destroyed his life and won't even get close to what he wanted, because he felt the need to do this - when it seems like he could've done 100 things to prevent it before it got to this point.

[Loki]

Once I knew this guy who would take up the dumbest arguments just so that he could be the center of every debate. He'd join a debate about alleged excessive force from the police in a minority community, and start saying how police should be able to do whatever they want, including vigilante justice. Then, he'd get everyone arguing with him and he'd be the center of attention.

That dude was annoying as hell.

This story may or may not be relevant.

[Raiders Army]

Are you sure it was a guy taking up dumb arguments or a dumb guy arguing?

[Desnudo]

Does it really matter? Either way, dumb has won.

[Neon_Chaos]

Time to whip out the Movie Quotes book...

Son, we live in a world that has walls and those walls need to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lieutenant Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and curse the Marines; you have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives and that my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives.
You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use then as the backbone of a life trying to defend something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you," and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest that you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to.

[BrianD]

You haven't been reading my posts then ;)

I love the "two wrongs make a right" argument. This football coach broke a contract so I can obviously fire on civilians. Puh-lease. Your logic in this regard is comical. Are there consequences for trying to break a contract? Sure, in most professions it's money or a forfeit of your right to sue. I don't however think that anyone who wants out of the military should be thrown in jail or killed as a traitor for simply wanting out. I can't fault a kid or anyone who signed up and was then forced to go fight a war they are supposed to. That doesn't really seem "volunteer" to me.

It isn't a "two wrongs make a right" argument. You equated the contract to join the army with all of the everyday contracts that are broken. The "football coach broke a contract so I can obviously fire on civilians" statement shows how wrong it is to equate the contracts like you did.

Get out of job A? - Can't work for a competitor.
Get out of job B? - Go to jail.

It seems unfair on its face, but you know the restrictions before you sign the contract.

I'll bet you can tell which one is the military. Of course, the only possible recourse is not "can't work for a competitor" but I for one do not want my tax dollars or REAL servicemen's lives wasted by having soliders who don't want to be there farting around.

Having stiff penalties keeps people from joining and farting around. If you know you can get out of the contract, people will join, get as many benefits as they can, and quit when it becomes rough. If people know they are stuck when they join up, they will think more carefully before they do sign up.

[flere-imsaho]

I've asked you in another thread, but you never answered. Have you ever served in the military? No offense, but your arguments don't seem to have much weight to those who have served.

I don't see how that's relevant. Dick Cheney never served. Donald Rumsfeld served as a flight instructor in the Navy for 3 years in the 50s. Karl Rove never served. Paul Wolfowitz never served. Assuming George W. Bush served, we know he never served in combat. Etc....

[BrianD]

I don't see how that's relevant. Dick Cheney never served. Donald Rumsfeld served as a flight instructor in the Navy for 3 years in the 50s. Karl Rove never served. Paul Wolfowitz never served. Assuming George W. Bush served, we know he never served in combat. Etc....

But they do have very easy access to a lot of high ranking officers. There is a big difference between these guys and the average non-serving individual.

[flere-imsaho]

But they do have very easy access to a lot of high ranking officers. There is a big difference between these guys and the average non-serving individual.

So many potential responses, so little time....

[Raiders Army]

I don't see how that's relevant. Dick Cheney never served. Donald Rumsfeld served as a flight instructor in the Navy for 3 years in the 50s. Karl Rove never served. Paul Wolfowitz never served. Assuming George W. Bush served, we know he never served in combat. Etc....
Well it's relevant because I said so. :)

Seriously though, it's relevant because it provides a point of reference for what knowledge you have of how things work in the military. Your arguments can then be based on something other than your opinions. While I would keep an open mind to all opinions, some have more weight than others.

Take, for example, John Galt. A legal question arises. He answers it. Someone else like me answers it. Whose opinion would you value more? The lawyer or the military officer? Both are opinions, but one is based more on experience and knowledge of the situation vs. what somebody reads in the newspaper. That's why it's relevant.

Also, a simple "No" would have sufficed. :)

[flere-imsaho]

Take, for example, John Galt. A legal question arises. He answers it. Someone else like me answers it. Whose opinion would you value more? The lawyer or the military officer? Both are opinions, but one is based more on experience and knowledge of the situation vs. what somebody reads in the newspaper. That's why it's relevant.

Fair enough. I just don't want to go down the road of "Only military folks can validly discuss military matters."

For the record, my "experience" on military matters is limited to:

1. Research I do.
2. My brother's experiences (in the National Guard, to be deployed to Iraq in June).
3. A good friend in college, who came back to college after about 10 years in Special Forces.

Anyway....


1. Disagree. Where is your proof? What is a "good number"?

I guess the counter-question is "What is a 'bad' number of psychologically unprepared soldiers to have in your unit?" Which leads us to...

2. Disagree. Even the soldiers who are not psychologically prepared to kill other people are not necessarily a serious threat to their fellow servicemen. They may rise to the challenge given the right incentives (i.e. someone is shooting at them, their buddy just got killed, etc.).

Seems an awful risk to take, though. Do you want to be on patrol with someone who's going to freeze up?

3. Doesn't matter. You haven't proven that there is a large scale issue. Even if there is, it's simple....court-martial.

Yes, I haven't proven that there's a large scale issue. There probably isn't. The question (somewhat rhetorical) that I'm trying to ask, however, is whether or not, in an all-volunteer army, we should seek to weed out and remove (discharge? move to a desk job and dock pay?) people who might weaken their units. After all, unlike WWII, where you used everybody, even those who would freeze (i.e. "cannon fodder"), because you had to, we have an all-volunteer army, and should be able to avoid these issues.

Am I off base here?


Within the 1st 2 days of basic training you know exactly why you are there. If people decide very quickly the military is not for them, the military will make sure your butt gets sent home back to the civilian sector.

I don't think this is true, by and large, especially in the past few years. My brother attended Basic just days after 9/11 (talk about bad timing) and he said they weren't washing anyone out, and continue to not do so.

This guy sucked up the benefits for what 2-3 years, up until it was time to pay the piper, and then he claimed it was an unrightous war?????

How was he supposed to claim it was an illegal war (to use the term used in the court case) before the war was even talked about?


They are some of the people who cry about not having body armor or cry about why can't we let a deserter just go to Canada.

I take issue with this. Why shouldn't we raise a hue and a cry about troops not having body armor? Should it be optional? FWIW, my brother's unit only just received their bulletproof jackets, but have not received the plates that go in the jackets, rendering them basically useless. He'll be in Iraq in 3 months.


Say we let this guy go, no harm done. How do you know he doesn't want to kill someone or whether he's chicken? Additionally, how do you recoup the costs of training, benefits, etc.? Are you, Joe Taxpayer, going to be okay with that? What happens when there are many more soldiers who want to do the same thing?

That's the bigger issue, though, isn't it? Here are some doozies:

1. What's a "just war"?
2. Should soldiers be forced to fight in "unjust" wars?

The thing is that I, as Joe Taxpayer, would have absolutely no problem writing my portion of that money off to let as many soldiers come home as wanted to. The cynical side of me, of course, recognizes that my tax money is pissed away routinely on far more trivial concerns daily by this (and every other) government. The principled side of me feels (as everyone's more than aware by this point) that this is a war that we should not be fighting.

You know, I once considered going into the Service. I decided against it mostly on the basis that I didn't feel I could trust the government to make good decisions about how to use the Armed Forces (and I've been vindicated, time and time again, in that belief, regardless of who's in the White House).

However, and this is a point I think some of you need to consider, I'm not sure if a 17-year-old (but he'll be 18 for Basic) getting the hard sell from a recruiter, and having no other good life options, can make as lucid a decision. Are we adequately preparing them for these experiences?

The Dems have a few folks that think the current set-up encouraged the Bush Administration to go to war with Iraq because their "rich sons and daughters" don't have to join the military. They assumed that if the draft were in place we would not have gone to war because their "rich sons and daughters" might have to go fight.

This may come as a surprise to you, but Charles Rangel does not speak for all Democrats any more so that Trent Lott speaks for all Republicans. Quit it with the smear, OK?

[Raiders Army]

Didja have to do such a long post???

[Raiders Army]

I guess the counter-question is "What is a 'bad' number of psychologically unprepared soldiers to have in your unit?" Which leads us to...
You answered my question with a question. ;) I asked you what proof do you have to base your thoughts on. You didn't answer it.

Seems an awful risk to take, though. Do you want to be on patrol with someone who's going to freeze up?
Of course not. There are guys over there and here in CONUS that we don't know about either, but they still need to go. That's what they signed up to do.

Yes, I haven't proven that there's a large scale issue. There probably isn't. The question (somewhat rhetorical) that I'm trying to ask, however, is whether or not, in an all-volunteer army, we should seek to weed out and remove (discharge? move to a desk job and dock pay?) people who might weaken their units. After all, unlike WWII, where you used everybody, even those who would freeze (i.e. "cannon fodder"), because you had to, we have an all-volunteer army, and should be able to avoid these issues.

Am I off base here?
I think so. Please see the above arguments on why we can't let them out without a punishment.

I take issue with this. Why shouldn't we raise a hue and a cry about troops not having body armor? Should it be optional? FWIW, my brother's unit only just received their bulletproof jackets, but have not received the plates that go in the jackets, rendering them basically useless. He'll be in Iraq in 3 months.
Please quote me entirely. :) I believe we (you and I) already discussed this in another thread. I feel like we're running in circles about it. You have your opinion (which I respect) and I have mine.

That's the bigger issue, though, isn't it? Here are some doozies:

1. What's a "just war"?
2. Should soldiers be forced to fight in "unjust" wars?

The thing is that I, as Joe Taxpayer, would have absolutely no problem writing my portion of that money off to let as many soldiers come home as wanted to. The cynical side of me, of course, recognizes that my tax money is pissed away routinely on far more trivial concerns daily by this (and every other) government. The principled side of me feels (as everyone's more than aware by this point) that this is a war that we should not be fighting.

You know, I once considered going into the Service. I decided against it mostly on the basis that I didn't feel I could trust the government to make good decisions about how to use the Armed Forces (and I've been vindicated, time and time again, in that belief, regardless of who's in the White House).

However, and this is a point I think some of you need to consider, I'm not sure if a 17-year-old (but he'll be 18 for Basic) getting the hard sell from a recruiter, and having no other good life options, can make as lucid a decision. Are we adequately preparing them for these experiences?
You raise some very good points. I'll only touch on the last one, as I believe there is no right or wrong answer to the others. Does a 17/18 year old know what he's getting into? I believe he/she does. If they're 17, they need their guardian's permission to join and that responsibility falls on that guardian. If they're 18 and up, then they're an adult and can make their own decisions, uninformed or not. If they've been through school, they know that Armies fight wars. Can you say that your brother didn't know what he was getting into when he joined? Had he joined in the early 80s, I would give him benefit of the doubt (National Guard guys predominantly performed state duties as opposed to fighting wars). After the Gulf War, their role changed dramatically, and even more so after 9/11.

[Klinglerware]

I just don't want to go down the road of "Only military folks can validly discuss military matters."

Though I don't agree with flere about the specifics of the deserter case, I do think that the discussion of military matters shouldn't be limited to people with some association to the military. At the very least, we're all taxpayers here and we ought to be able to discuss what we are paying for. The military isn't it's own black box--other forces of American society impinge and influence it. I can think of issues such as the impact of base closures, the impact of the decrease in military spending on the fiscal health of contractors, racial and gender integration post WWII, gay rights in the 90s, etc., that are as much economic and social policy issues as they are military.

People should also remember that our military performs at the behest of the civilian leadership of this country and the citizens they represent.

[Raiders Army]

Though I don't agree with flere about the specifics of the deserter case, I do think that the discussion of military matters shouldn't be limited to people with some association to the military. At the very least, we're all taxpayers here and we ought to be able to discuss what we are paying for. The military isn't it's own black box--other forces of American society impinge and influence it. I can think of issues such as the impact of base closures, the impact of the decrease in military spending on the fiscal health of contractors, racial and gender integration post WWII, gay rights in the 90s, etc., that are as much economic and social policy issues as they are military.

People should also remember that our military performs at the behest of the civilian leadership of this country and the citizens they represent.
I agree with you completely. What I am frustrated with is how certain individuals will not listen to people with direct experience that they do not have. I understand that in a lot of my posts I am flippant and somewhat sarcastic so that may have something to do with the way that I am perceived in this community; however, if I present a lucid argument that is based on my experiences with the military (I am in the Army, have supported the Air Force extensively, and provided the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force Air Defense coverage during OIF) and someone presents a counter-argument based on no proof or experience, it becomes frustrating.

Oh...that last part is why I find it frustrating...because we perform for the citizens of this country. In my mind, it's even more important to explain things to you so you will have some insight into how we work.

[Klinglerware]

if I present a lucid argument that is based on my experiences with the military (I am in the Army, have supported the Air Force extensively, and provided the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force Air Defense coverage during OIF) and someone presents a counter-argument based on no proof or experience, it becomes frustrating.

That's a pretty fair point.

[gstelmack]

(Military folks, please correct me if the facts below are in error)

A key for me was brought up much earlier in the discussion: part of Basic Training is to wash out those not cut out for the military. In many cases they make it borderline trivial for you to get out and go back home. If at any time you realise that it was not what you bargained for, you walk. That alone is enough to wipe out the "recruiter lied" arguments in this case. He'd have figured that out long before he made it to an active unit.

The fact that he made it through and served a couple of years makes these claims of his absolutely ridiculous. Suck it up and do the job you signed up for and took money to do.

[flere-imsaho]

Didja have to do such a long post???

Hey, I was offline all weekend, OK? :p

[flere-imsaho]

You answered my question with a question. ;) I asked you what proof do you have to base your thoughts on. You didn't answer it.


Of course not. There are guys over there and here in CONUS that we don't know about either, but they still need to go. That's what they signed up to do.


I think so. Please see the above arguments on why we can't let them out without a punishment.

I answered your question with a question because I'm less interested in claiming there's a huge number of "psychologically unready" soldiers out there (a claim I'll retract, if it's felt I made it) than I am in determining at what point the Army would see this as a potential problem. After all, accounts from WWI, WWII and Vietnam indicated this was a problem of some significance. However, none of these conflicts had U.S. all-volunteer forces. So, I'm assuming the problem is still not "solved", especially since I'm not convinced that Basic weeds these people out effectively. I don't see court-martial as a "solution" because, presumably, after the soldier has already failed in a combat situation, the damage is already done.

Court Martial for desertion prior to combat is another matter. While I respect that the Army (& other services, et. al.) needs rules, the issue of having soldiers fight a manifestly unpopular war is a question that I think a lot of people had hoped was answered with Vietnam. Clearly it wasn't.

Please quote me entirely. :) I believe we (you and I) already discussed this in another thread. I feel like we're running in circles about it. You have your opinion (which I respect) and I have mine.

Actually, I misunderstood you, which I'll blame (in this instance) on getting 2 hours of sleep last night. On this, we are speaking in circles, I agree.

You raise some very good points. I'll only touch on the last one, as I believe there is no right or wrong answer to the others. Does a 17/18 year old know what he's getting into? I believe he/she does. If they're 17, they need their guardian's permission to join and that responsibility falls on that guardian. If they're 18 and up, then they're an adult and can make their own decisions, uninformed or not.

I'm going to disagree. I'm not convinced every 18 year old truly understands what the heck they're getting into. To make matters worse, the Armed Forces' recruiting strategies, in my opinion, take advantage of this to meet their goals.

If they've been through school, they know that Armies fight wars.

Well, sure, but.... School tends to emphasize "just" conflicts, such as WWI and WWII. I'd forgive an 18 year old if he/she believed the government would only send them to fight wars for which there was a clear justification.

Can you say that your brother didn't know what he was getting into when he joined? Had he joined in the early 80s, I would give him benefit of the doubt (National Guard guys predominantly performed state duties as opposed to fighting wars). After the Gulf War, their role changed dramatically, and even more so after 9/11.

Well, first of all, my brother signed up before 9/11. He only entered Basic just days after 9/11. In fact, he was in the "waiting room" during 9/11 itself.

Secondly, my brother joined the Guard to train in biathalon, in Vermont. He's been fed a chain of lies since recruitment about his unit never being deployed, and the lies from his CoC have continued up until a month before they were sent for pre-deployment training (although he read the writing on the wall long before that).

Although Gulf War I gave an indication of how dependent the regular army had become on having Reserves and Guard Reserves, the role of the Guard didn't really change until it was forced to with George W. Bush's Iraq War. Even a cursory look at funding of the Guard from 1991 to 2003 indicates this. The Guard has been, by and large, completely and totally underfunded during that period. Until two weeks ago, for instance, my brother's unit had never had enough ammunition for regular drills.

In retrospect, of course, maybe he should have considered that someone like George W. Bush would in fact be capable of over-committing to an untenable war which would require the resources of the (still) underfunded and underequipped National Guard, but I do feel that's really asking for a lot of foresight there, especially since the National Guard's role, from inception, has hardly involved overseas deployments.

[st.cronin]

There is a process in place in the military to have yourself declared a 'conscientious objector.' It is not a difficult process (although it may have tightened up in the last year or so) - it's done through the military chaplains and something like a thousand or so took advantage of it in Gulf War 1, recieving honorable discharges.

This guy deserted. He's not entitled to much sympathy, imo.

[Raiders Army]

(Military folks, please correct me if the facts below are in error)

A key for me was brought up much earlier in the discussion: part of Basic Training is to wash out those not cut out for the military. In many cases they make it borderline trivial for you to get out and go back home. If at any time you realise that it was not what you bargained for, you walk. That alone is enough to wipe out the "recruiter lied" arguments in this case. He'd have figured that out long before he made it to an active unit.

The fact that he made it through and served a couple of years makes these claims of his absolutely ridiculous. Suck it up and do the job you signed up for and took money to do.
You are correct. AR 635-200 states in Chapter 11, Entry Level Performance and Conduct:

11–1. General
This chapter sets policy and provides guidance for the separation of soldiers because of unsatisfactory performance and/or conduct while in entry-level status.

11–2. Basis for separation
Separation of a soldier in entry level status may be warranted on the grounds of unsatisfactory performance and/or unsatisfactory conduct as evidenced by—
a. Inability.
b. Lack of reasonable effort.
c. Failure to adapt to the military environment.
d. Minor disciplinary infractions.

11–3. Separation policy
a. This policy applies to soldiers who—
(1) Enlisted in the Regular Army, ARNG, or USAR.
(2) Are in entry-level status, undergoing IET, and, before the date of the initiation of separation action, have completed no more than 180 days of creditable continuous AD or IADT or no more than 90 days of Phase II under a
split or alternate training option. (See the glossary for precise definition of entry-level status.)
(3) Have demonstrated that they are not qualified for retention. The following conditions are illustrations of conduct and/or performance that disqualify soldiers for retention:
(a) Cannot or will not adapt socially or emotionally to military life.
(b) Cannot meet the minimum standards prescribed for successful completion of training because of lack of aptitude, ability, motivation, or self-discipline.
(c) Have demonstrated character and behavior characteristics not compatible with satisfactory continued service.
(4) Have failed to respond to counseling (DA Form 4856–R).
b. Enlisted women who become pregnant while still in entry-level status—
(1) Will be involuntarily separated under this chapter when the training activity commander with separation authority, in conjunction with the medical officer (obstetrician), determines that they cannot fully participate in the
required training for the MOS concerned because of their physical condition.
(a) The training commander will furnish the training requirements to the obstetrician.
(b) Soldiers separated for pregnancy that occurred after entry on AD or IADT are entitled to maternity care in a military medical facility only per AR 40–3.
(2) Will be retained when they can fully participate unless they request separation per chapter 8.
c. Nothing in this chapter precludes separation under another provision of this regulation when such separation is warranted. For example, if homosexual conduct is involved, the case will be processed under chapter 15. However, if
separation of a soldier in entry-level status is warranted by reason of unsatisfactory performance (see chap 13) or misconduct (minor disciplinary infractions (see para 14–12a)), separation processing will be accomplished under this chapter. As an exception, soldiers with less than 181 days of continuous active service who have completed IET, been awarded an MOS, and been assigned to a follow-on unit for duty will be processed for discharge under the appropriate chapter (chap 13 or 14 or another appropriate chapter).

11–4. Counseling and rehabilitation requirements
Counseling and rehabilitation requirements are essential when entry-level performance and conduct are the reason for separation. Military service is a calling different from any civilian occupation, and a soldier should not be separated when this is the sole reason for separation unless efforts at rehabilitation have failed. Before initiating separation action, commanders will ensure that the soldier receives adequate counseling and rehabilitation. (See chap 1, section II.)

Bottom line: they have 180 days to see if the Army is for them.