We Shall Not Be Moved

August 26, 2006 4:25 PM

We Shall Not Be Moved: Some joined the US military as a patriotic duty, some to better themselves, but the horrors of serving in Iraq, including Abu Ghraib, changed everything. Deserters tell Gary Younge why they had to quit.
posted by jack_mo (32 comments total)

And having spoken their own truth, they must then face the consequences. Jail, disparagement, exclusion, ridicule. "Some people called me a traitor," says Anderson. "But I thought, 'You're supposed to support the troops and you're not listening to a word I'm saying.' "
posted by Hypnic jerk at 4:39 PM on August 26, 2006

Remarkable stories.
posted by stbalbach at 4:43 PM on August 26, 2006

"The response of your colleagues can vary. Some soldiers have been raped; others were told, 'I don't agree with you but I'll support you any way I can.'" (emphasis added)

Reminds me why I stayed out of the military.
posted by sudasana at 4:55 PM on August 26, 2006

I don't agree with desertion, but soldiers and their families damned well remember who put them there when it comes time to vote and protest.

I find it likely that for every deserter there are a hundred soldiers who once supported but now hate GWB and the Republican liars who took them to Iraq.
posted by Kickstart70 at 5:01 PM on August 26, 2006

There's nothing I can add editorially to this past the quote I posted above (the struck me deeply), but I should write that several months ago, I heard an NPR story on soldier desertion and suicide that tackled this issue directly. Several deserters were interviewed at length in the piece. In response to the report, the military spokesperson declared that while the narratives surrounding such incidents can be very compelling and at times, indeed heart-breaking, on a percentage basis such incidents occur significantly less frequently than they did during Vietnam, Korea or WWII.

If there is a way to confirm or refute that, I have no idea, but would welcome further response.
posted by Hypnic jerk at 5:10 PM on August 26, 2006

Bush and Saddam Should Both Stand Trial, Says Nuremberg Prosecutor
posted by homunculus at 5:24 PM on August 26, 2006

Does anybody but me see the irony in the civil rights rallying cry being used to describe people whose resolve was very obviously shaken?

On the other hand, I am sympathetic to the plight of soldiers in Iraq intelligent enough to recognize how President Bush has misused them, co-opted their post-9/11 patriotism to engage in an entirely unnecessary war.
posted by The Confessor at 5:24 PM on August 26, 2006

Unnecessary? Debatable. Mismanaged? Definitely.
posted by mischief at 5:28 PM on August 26, 2006

I had a friend in the reserves. She served in Bosnia, I respected her for that. When it looked like her unit was going to be called up for Iraq, she got pregnant. How does that compare to the options available to men in the reserves?
posted by peeedro at 5:39 PM on August 26, 2006

on a percentage basis such incidents occur significantly less frequently than they did during Vietnam, Korea or WWII.

Which is pretty much what one would expect with a draft in force for those conflicts.

I'm not sure we're going to be able to use any other conflict for comparison, really. I can't think of anything comparable while we've had a voluntary military force.
posted by weston at 5:43 PM on August 26, 2006

Unnecessary? Debatable.

Um, no. No, it's not. Not even slightly. There was no threat to us in Iraq.
posted by Malor at 5:50 PM on August 26, 2006

Mischief

I'm concerned about derailing the thread, which should be about these brave soldiers (1), and not our arguments over the necessity of the war. Thus, I'll make my response brief.

Thus far the war's proponents, including President Bush, have failed to provide a sustainable argument for its necessity, even as the lack of such an argument threatens to destroy the Republican Party's mid-term electoral prospects.

While it is possible that the President acted on privileged intelligence; information currently kept from Congress and the American people, I consider this very unlikely given the electoral climate and the administration's general willingness to disseminate classified information that supports their political agenda.

1. Brave soldiers, who 'bravely ran away.' The Monty Python reference was irresistable, but I didn't want to put it directly in the middle of my argument, and thus risk undermining it.
posted by The Confessor at 6:04 PM on August 26, 2006

Invading Iraq was entirely unnecessary. They had no WMDs, and posed no threat to the US or her allies.

What they did have, was oil.
posted by stenseng at 6:16 PM on August 26, 2006

Well, at least gas prices went down.
posted by bob sarabia at 6:41 PM on August 26, 2006

I don't agree with desertion,
posted by Kickstart70 at 5:01 PM PST

And if they feel they are being given orders to do things contrary to The Constitution, what do you think they should do? Hang about?
posted by rough ashlar at 7:27 PM on August 26, 2006

These soldiers' point is not just that they find the war in Iraq unnecessary. 'Unnecessary' is but one of several aspects of their experience of this war that have led them to the conclusion to reject it...probably to a fair amount of personal detriment.

Mismanagement is nothing but normal stuff for soldiers. It has nothing to do with the topic at hand and is just a troll's trick.
posted by taosbat at 7:34 PM on August 26, 2006

During the first year of the Iraq War, I heard that three US soldiers stationed in Mosul had attempted to desert by putting on Arab dress and attempting to cross the border into Syria! Clearly, such an action was born of desperation: I don't know of too many average Americans who would like to take up long-term residence in Syria unless they have family there or are married to one...seeking asylum from Syria would have probably been these guys' only option had they been successful (in which case the tale of their attempt at desertion may have never come to light).
At the time of the Gulf War, I was put into circumstances where I had to think long and hard on the morality of war in general, and the morality of that war in particular. Part of it was that there were a lot of things I found suspicious about the justification for that particular war. Like the fact that the US could forgive and forget the Iraqi military firing on the USS Stark only a short time before (that incident seemed like a definite military provocation to me: they sank our battleship) but pitch a fit over the invasion of Kuwait when fomrerly and formally they "took no position on Arab-Arab conflicts". I had just turned 18 and it was not long after the war started that there was serious talk of reinstating the draft in the USA: only this time, in the name of womens' rights, it would now be co-ed! As a female, I would no longer be automatically exempt from conscription. I had started to think seriously about the morality of war and the actions of the United States, not an easy task when the question of whether war is inherently right or wrong is not often discussed in schools, and wasn't really examined in my religious education. Also, like most Americans, I grew up in an atmosphere where lots of movies and books glorified the allies in WWII. I eventually came to the conclusion that war was wrong as a method of solving disputes between leaders because the price in their peoples' lives was too high. I started to think about what I would do if the draft were re-instated, and the US military wanted me. I looked into how to become a Conscientious Objector: I discovered that just about the only way to get CO status with the US military, and make it stick, was to convert to Quakerism well before being called up. Even though this would have been a shocking thing for me to do as a devout Catholic (at least as shocking to me as to the people who know me) I was sure that God would understand under the circumstances: after all, the Pope himself was against that war, and had Catholics been as Catholic as in former times, there would have been all kinds of resistance. The proposal to reinstate the draft was narrowly defeated, and I gave a sigh of relief, and never did join the Quakers. I hoped that after President Bush (Sr.) left office, wiser heads would prevail and the US would not be involved in another war with Iraq (or any place else, for that matter.) Whenever I fill out official forms that ask if I have registered with Selective Service, I gratefully check off the box that says "I am female".
posted by bunky at 9:47 PM on August 26, 2006

Sorry, but this is bullshit.

I'm gay, and I'm a veteran.

I joined the military knowing full well that I was gay - but I wanted to serve anyway.

When I joined, I signed on the dotted line to follow orders.

That's it.

When my commitment was up (actually, after 11 years of recomiits) I left.

I'm a big 'ol Bush hating Democrat. If you join the military, you do so for your country - not for the political party in control. If you have a problem with following orders, even if you don't agree with them, then DON'T join.

Deserters should just be discharged and removed from the military system - they're not helping anyone but themselves. If they couldn't understand the ramifications of their decisions before they joined the military then they certainly don't have the ability to make rational decisions when it comes to protecting their fellow Americans.

I say good riddance.
posted by matty at 11:04 PM on August 26, 2006

And if they feel they are being given orders to do things contrary to The Constitution, what do you think they should do? Hang about?

That's what applying for conscientious objector status is for.
posted by Kickstart70 at 11:22 PM on August 26, 2006

I'm going to have to veer slightly from where I would otherwise agree with your opinion there matty. We're handed a false dichotomy from the outset in the article:
"Whether you call them deserters, conscientious objectors or resisters, every story of American soldiers who left the army prematurely because of the Iraq war shares the same emotional trajectory."
We're given one guy who cut from the program and went AWOL and another who went to his commander and said he'd be applying for CO status and got an honorable. The first guy is a deserter (whether one agrees with his reasons or not) the second guy isn't.
Watada is the answer to what one should do if one believes one can prove an unlawful order has been given. How you might think or most especially how you feel about it doesn't enter into it. You are either given a provably unlawful order or you are not. If you are, it is your duty to resist it. There's some wiggle room here however (thus the "debatable" aspects of the Iraq war) in terms of the big picture. I happen to think the evidence favors Watada, but even if he wins, how far would that influence events?....I don't know.
posted by Smedleyman at 11:36 PM on August 26, 2006 [1 favorite]

Not quite. You need to convince your superiors you have a sincere and profound opposition to all war. Now that's got to be hard when you willingly signed up for the American military but your own personal opinion of a conflict's legality or constitutionality won't come into it.
posted by Jenga at 11:36 PM on August 26, 2006

Smedleyman... I can buy that. Good arguement.
posted by matty at 11:38 PM on August 26, 2006

And if they feel they are being given orders to do things contrary to The Constitution, what do you think they should do? Hang about?

That's what applying for conscientious objector status is for.
posted by Kickstart70 at 11:22 PM PST

Really? Hrmmm, that's not my understanding. CO is for when you are opposed to the violence of all war. Not illegal orders.

But hey, when do facts ever stop anyone?
posted by rough ashlar at 12:02 AM on August 27, 2006

My four years in the Coast Guard were served in the mid-'90s. I came off of the inactive reserve list in 2001... months before 9/11.

On 9/11, I sincerely thought about going back into the service. Maybe the Coast Guard, maybe something else. The thought that kept me from going back in was simple: with this dipshit in the White House, we're going to kill the wrong damn people over this.

I can't pass judgment on someone for either not sharing my political instincts, or for having been already involved in the military & unable to legally leave. I just look at stories like this and thank God that I'm at least as politically aware as I am.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 12:05 AM on August 27, 2006

When I joined, I signed on the dotted line to follow orders.

That's it.

ah, Befehl ist Befehl -- we heard that already. In Vietnam, too.

actually, as Smedleyman (excellent comment as always) said, it's all about lawful or unlawful orders. I haven't checked but I'm sure that key fact must appear all over the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
and the fact that after 11 years you don't seem to have figured that out, well, with all due respect, thank God you're not in the armed forces anymore -- good riddance, really. with all due respect, of course
posted by matteo at 9:56 AM on August 27, 2006

Related by moi.
posted by Heminator at 12:58 PM on August 27, 2006

matty: Smedleyman... I can buy that. Good arguement.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is a momentous occasion. For the first time in history, someone has changed his or her mind in a discussion on the internets. Let us all pause for a moment in awed silence.
posted by UKnowForKids at 2:07 PM on August 27, 2006 [1 favorite]

Watada is a very brave officer. I admire his stand, and as a former enlisted person, I usually don't think much of officers. I also suspect he's going to get so screwed...

In Basic Training, it was stressed that we could not follow unlawful orders. That it was illegal to follow unlawful orders. This was followed by training in what exactly was legal and what wasn't.

It is hard. I'm very glad I'm not still in. It takes titanium-plated ovaries to look an officer or a senior NCO in the eye, and say, "Sir, that is an illegal order, and I cannot comply."
posted by QIbHom at 6:09 PM on August 27, 2006

For the first time in history, someone has changed his or her mind in a discussion on the internets. Let us all pause for a moment in awed silence.

Used to happen all the damn time on Metafilter. Used to.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:52 PM on August 27, 2006

Here's an interesting juxtaposition:

From the Guardian article jack_mo linked in the FPP--

At a picnic for resisters in Fort Erie, Canada, Anderson lies with his head in his wife's lap and his mother sitting alongside him. He is wearing a T-shirt saying AWOL and a broad smile, even though he joined the military in the first place to give himself more options and now he finds himself more trapped than he ever was. His claim for refugee status was denied and he thinks it will be just a few months before he gets his deportation papers. His wife is Canadian, so that might help. The US border is just five minutes' drive away but he can't go back. He says that doesn't bother him. "All those rich people in my country sent me to die for oil and my education," he says. "I don't feel like I want to go back right now. Maybe if things change."

The next day, from The Sunday Times--

Anderson went home for Christmas, convinced he would be sent back to the war. He knew he would not be able to live with himself if he returned to Iraq, armed with his first-hand knowledge of what was occurring there day after day. He decided he could no longer participate, and his parents – already opposed to the war –supported his decision. Canada seemed like the best option. After Christmas 2004, he drove from Kentucky to Toronto.

But he says he has had second thoughts about his exile. Not that he is worried much about deportation: he has recently married a Canadian woman and that will probably guarantee him permanent residency. But he plans to return to the US this autumn, and expects to be arrested when he presents himself to authorities at the border. “The war’s still going on,” he told me.

“If I go back, maybe I can still make a difference. My fight is with the American government.”

It’s not only anti-war work that’s motivating him to go home; he’s thinking about his future. “Dealing with all the nightmares and the post-traumatic stress, I need support from my family.”

Anderson expects to be convicted of desertion, and he says he will use his trial and prison time to continue to protest against the war. He imagines that just the sight of him in a dress uniform covered with the medals he was awarded fighting in Iraq will make a powerful statement. “I can’t work every day and act like everything is okay,” he says about his life in Toronto. “This war is beating me down. I haven’t had a dream that wasn’t a nightmare since I came to Canada. It eats away at me to try and act like everything’s okay when it’s not.” Not that he feels his time in Canada was a waste. “There was no way I could have gone to prison at the time: I would have killed myself. I was way too messed up in the head to even think of sitting in a prison cell. I owe a lot to Canada. It has saved my life. When I came back and was talking about the war, Americans called me a traitor. Canadians helped me when I was at my lowest point.”

posted by taosbat at 10:05 AM on August 28, 2006

“For the first time in history, someone has changed his or her mind in a discussion on the internets.”

Doubtful as to that being what it was. Looks more like just clarification and refinement of matty’s original point. I don’t think anything changed really. Just sharpened focus. Speaks well of matty’s character that we reached a consensus without acrimony (’cause if there’s anyone who’s going to be the flat tire, it’s probably me).
posted by Smedleyman at 11:18 AM on August 29, 2006

What they did have, was oil.

No, what they had was a conversion to Euros.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 2:29 PM on September 7, 2006