Iraq War Deserters

September 7, 2006 1:46 PM

Since 2000, at least 40,000 soldiers have deserted the Army--most of them as a result of the Iraq War. 50,000 deserted during Vietnam. How do we compare their statements of moral outrage with those of Siegfried Sassoon? (related)
posted by mattbucher (73 comments total)

They were both immoral, unjustifiable wars. Keep those desertions comin'!
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 1:53 PM on September 7, 2006

Cowards. Killing people/getting shot at for college money is fine in the abstract, but someone asks you to actually do it and suddenly you get a conscience? That's hardly fair to the people who are risking their lives for real to keep gas cheap.
posted by Mayor Curley at 1:54 PM on September 7, 2006

They were both immoral, unjustifiable wars. Keep those desertions comin'!

You do realize that one was staffed entirely by volunteers, right?
posted by Mayor Curley at 1:56 PM on September 7, 2006

That's 40,000 military personnel that have deserted from all branches, not 40,000 soldiers from the Army. This from the first link.
posted by Nahum Tate at 1:58 PM on September 7, 2006

Bad journalism.

The article says most of them are AWOL for family reasons. As in, they're in the US (maybe after a tour, maybe not), we all know where they are, but they didn't show up for work this week. Shit happens to 18-year-olds and they walk away from the post. This isn't news.

And I'd like to see someone try this from within Iraq, leaving the "front lines," as the article says. What, you think you're just going to throw your gun down, stroll to the airport, hop a flight to Toronto, and your sergeant will be like, "Where's Johnny? Anyone seen Johnny? He was just here..."
posted by frogan at 2:03 PM on September 7, 2006

You do realize that one was staffed entirely by volunteers, right?

What a perversion of the word "volunteer". It's obvious that the duty they signed up for is not the duty they got.
posted by owhydididoit at 2:04 PM on September 7, 2006

Blow it out your ass, Curley. Your blame the soldiers song and dance is old and stale. By your username, I can only assume you're an American. If so , you're the hypocrite and the coward, complicitly reaping the benefits of a society that thrives on the subjugation of the rest of the world, and then shitting all over the bottom 20% of the socioeconomic scale, the poor assholes who didn't have the education or opportunities that you did, the grunts that keep your gas cheap and cupboard full.

You had options, and an education that allowed you the luxury of making a more informed choice. Get down off your high horse, and quit being such a judgemental asshole.
posted by stenseng at 2:04 PM on September 7, 2006

I guess it comes down to what is more important to you:

1) keeping a promise to the Army
2) anything else
posted by sonofsamiam at 2:06 PM on September 7, 2006

You really want to feel so morally superior? So lacking in culpability? Renounce your citizenship as an American. Until you do, you've got just as much goddamned blood on your hands as the poor schmucks over there effecting American foreign policy at the barrel point of an M-16 do.
posted by stenseng at 2:06 PM on September 7, 2006

What a perversion of the word "volunteer". It's obvious that the duty they signed up for is not the duty they got.
posted by owhydididoit at 4:04 PM CST on September 7

WTF? How is it a perversion of the word volunteer to apply it to people who, of their own free will, signed up for something?


That's 40,000 military personnel that have deserted from all branches, not 40,000 soldiers from the Army. This from the first link.
posted by Nahum Tate at 3:58 PM CST on September 7

The article says most of them are AWOL for family reasons.
posted by frogan at 4:03 PM CST on September 7

Hmm.... are you trying to telling me that the post was incorrect? Non-possible!
posted by dios at 2:07 PM on September 7, 2006

That's 40,000 military personnel that have deserted from all branches, not 40,000 soldiers from the Army. This from the first link.

You are right. My bad.
posted by mattbucher at 2:08 PM on September 7, 2006

I think curley was being, ya know, ironical.
posted by basicchannel at 2:10 PM on September 7, 2006

Speaking as a veteran of the last Gulf War. I see this as a good trend.

This war is plain stoopid and bordering on evil.

Major Curly is an freaking smolding (explative removed). I didn't sign up to kill civilians to cover up a failed stoopid moneygrab for Cheney.
posted by Elim at 2:10 PM on September 7, 2006

Wait, which side do you have to be on to say "If you don't like it, why don't you just leave America!!" I keep forgetting.
posted by hermitosis at 2:11 PM on September 7, 2006

I didn't sign up to kill civilians to cover up a failed stoopid moneygrab for Cheney.
posted by Elim at 4:10 PM CST on September 7

If you telling the truth, you volunteered to do what your country asks of you. There was no conditions placed on what you were volunteering for.
posted by dios at 2:13 PM on September 7, 2006

Oh and considering even Air force and Navy personel seem to be pulling Convoy protection duty, this has become more than an ARMY war...

But good on the correction.

Dios, anything 'pertenant' to add?
posted by Elim at 2:13 PM on September 7, 2006

It's obvious that the duty they signed up for is not the duty they got.

Ladies and germs, I bring you the U.S. Military Enlistment Oath. Note the sections concerning "obey the orders of the President."

Now, if you want to make an argument that the orders are illegal, you might have a leg to stand on (and I might be inclined to agree with you).

But don't try to snowball me that they didn't know what they were doing.

U.S. Military Enlistment Oath

In the Armed Forces EXCEPT the National Guard (Army or Air)

I, ___________________________________, do solemly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed overme, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

In the National Guard (Army or Air)

I, _________________________________, do solemly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the State of ___________________________________ against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the Governor of ________________________ and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to law and regulations. So help me God.

Note: The last words, "So help me God," are optional, depending on the individual's personal religious preferences.
posted by frogan at 2:14 PM on September 7, 2006

Oh my stars and garters, I find myself in agreement with dios.

I think a flying pig just shot past my window.
posted by frogan at 2:16 PM on September 7, 2006

The figures given are very questionable, and clearly there is a distinction between AWOL and desertion, as any military person knows. As for Sassoon: he went into the army because he believed in the justness of the cause...then he roused from this romantic views and became anti-war in his poetry. But at that time, you could get what was called shell shock and today is post traumatic stress disorder. Those guys were put on trial and executed. Just recently they were "absolved." Best source for a view of what went on with this war and those writing about it: http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,1272672,00.html
posted by Postroad at 2:19 PM on September 7, 2006

"do solemly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;"

and

"according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice..... and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to law and regulations"

are they Key here.

Most folks I strill talk to from my old unit 4/7 inf and 1/15 inf and hhc 3id Think this war is illegal.
posted by Elim at 2:19 PM on September 7, 2006

They signed-up for a backdoor draft, poor health care, superiors ordering illegal treatment of prisoners on a massive scale and a fuck you very much to boot?

Hmm... yea fuck these party poopers.
posted by basicchannel at 2:20 PM on September 7, 2006

owhydididoit writes "It's obvious that the duty they signed up for is not the duty they got."

It's obvious to me, regardless of whether deserting is right or wrong, good or bad, that the duty they signed up for is the duty they got. So whose obvious wins?
posted by Bugbread at 2:21 PM on September 7, 2006

"explative" "If you telling the truth" "There was no conditions" "pertenant" "are they Key here" "Most folks...Think "

Grammar and spelling brigade, this thread needs your help badly!
posted by Bugbread at 2:27 PM on September 7, 2006

When you're on your fifth or sixth year of a four-year contract, you're no longer a volunteer. I think the figure is something like 5% of U.S. forces are now in an involuntary extension status of one sort or another. So it's no longer an all-volunteer army, it's now a mostly-volunteer army.

But anyway.

Yep, desertion rates are not particularly high, compared to all-conscript armies. In general, U.S. military personnel feel an obligation to stay on the job, no matter how stupidly they are utilized by their commander-in-chief.

"Family reasons" is the catch-all excuse. It's like "resigned to spend more time with his family" on a corporate press release - could mean anything from "got a better job" to "caught urinating in the CEO's inbox". When one is not present at a place where the miltary wishes one to be, one enters an AWOL status - away without leave. If you're gone for 30 days without coming back, it is changed to "desertion". Naturally, no one deserts IN Iraq, an American wandering around Iraq looking for a way home might as well just kill himself and save the Iraqi resistance the trouble. Desertions occur only when there is a reasonable place to desert TO, so the long, extended deployments in Iraq might in themselves account for the decreased desertion rate since 2000. Almost all of the Vietnam-era desertions occurred in the United States, not in Vietnam - same reason.
posted by jellicle at 2:28 PM on September 7, 2006

WTF? How is it a perversion of the word volunteer to apply it to people who, of their own free will, signed up for something?

Slightly off-topic, but I'd say that anyone who signed up for a stint in the army, did their time, got their money, went home, then was stop-lossed back into the front lines -- calling them volunteers would be a perversion.
posted by davejay at 2:33 PM on September 7, 2006 [1 favorite]

this artical put the number alittle higher...

The Pentagon documents 1,500,000 instances of AWOL and desertion during the Vietnam war. Official estimates of the actual number of service members who went AWOL or deserted run between 500,000 (Pentagon) and 550,000 (officials in the Ford Administration).


http://www.afsc.org/youthmil/conscientious-objection/Vietnam-war-resisters.htm
posted by tomas316 at 2:33 PM on September 7, 2006

Oh, and anyone who signed up for the army after being told that they'd get a post in one location (but ended up somewhere else), or that they'd be trained in a specific technology or skill (but ended up a grunt) -- those folks might be called volunteers, but that's a stretch, given that their decision to volunteer was based on lies.
posted by davejay at 2:34 PM on September 7, 2006

Major Curly is an freaking smolding (explative removed). I didn't sign up to kill civilians to cover up a failed stoopid moneygrab for Cheney.

No, you signed up to do whatever was asked of you, including killing people who are in the way of profits.

Sincerely,
Major Curly
posted by Mayor Curley at 2:35 PM on September 7, 2006

Cowards.

Amen. Desertions aren't simply a personal decision. They affect dozens, if not hundreds, of other soldiers who now have a far more difficult task with less manpower. You made a promise to this country to defend it. Of course there are exceptions to this who truly could not afford other options, but they all volunteered to do a job and took an oath.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 2:35 PM on September 7, 2006

It's obvious that the duty they signed up for is not the duty they got.

A decent sized chunk of the military signed up to shoot at brown people, so it's reasonable to think that they got exactly the duty they wanted.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 2:35 PM on September 7, 2006

Well, one thing's for sure: what we all think of this matter will really make a difference.
posted by sonofsamiam at 2:39 PM on September 7, 2006

What davejay said. You can fault the people signing up for not paying attention to their obligations and/or potential moral quandaries (I mean, why do you think they're teaching you to shoot a gun?), but the whole stop-loss thing is really egregious. You sign a contract for a certain length of time--so why not fault the military for not respecting said contract as well? It works both ways.
posted by bardic at 2:41 PM on September 7, 2006

If so , you're the hypocrite and the coward, complicitly reaping the benefits of a society that thrives on the subjugation of the rest of the world, and then shitting all over the bottom 20% of the socioeconomic scale, the poor assholes who didn't have the education or opportunities that you did, the grunts that keep your gas cheap and cupboard full.

You had options, and an education that allowed you the luxury of making a more informed choice. Get down off your high horse, and quit being such a judgemental asshole.

I would rather work in a shit-town tire warehouse or cannery than kill foreign nationals for US corporations. And no justification you can give is going to make the military-industrial complex a positive, whether you're making policy in a government building or enforcing policy with the barrel of your gun in another country.
posted by Mayor Curley at 2:43 PM on September 7, 2006

You really want to feel so morally superior? So lacking in culpability? Renounce your citizenship as an American. Until you do, you've got just as much goddamned blood on your hands as the poor schmucks over there effecting American foreign policy at the barrel point of an M-16 do.

Seems to me I see a lot of this kind of sentiment on MeFi lately. I really don't get it... do the folks expressing this feeling really want America to drift farther toward the crazy? Whom exactly does that help?

Regarding the folks deserting or going AWOL... yes, Mayor Curley is trotting out the same old soldiers-are-evil line. It's old, but at least he's consistent. It's keeping the discussion at the level of the individual soldier and their moral decision, though, which I don't think is all that interesting.

What I think is more interesting is the effect that this kind of desertion en masse, combined with the low recruitment numbers and the pitiful number of units that are currently combat-ready, will have on America's ability to keep hammering away at this crazy "war". It's not going to go on much longer at this level, simply because it can't.
posted by gurple at 2:44 PM on September 7, 2006

Blame My Mozilla settings and Script Blocking for my bad spelling. I am a product of the U.S. Edukashun system
posted by Elim at 2:47 PM on September 7, 2006

Gurgle, Didn't the DRAFT, kinda Offset the desertions?
posted by Elim at 2:48 PM on September 7, 2006

You made a promise to this country to defend it. Of course there are exceptions to this

Yes, like when the country isn't actually being "defended" from anything.
posted by aaronetc at 2:49 PM on September 7, 2006

A contract that can be unilaterally changed by one party isn't a contract. At best, you could call it indentured servitude. At worst, well.... I bet some of the soldiers are using stronger terms.
posted by Malor at 2:49 PM on September 7, 2006

gurple writes: What I think is more interesting is the effect that this kind of desertion en masse, combined with the low recruitment numbers and the pitiful number of units that are currently combat-ready, will have on America's ability to keep hammering away at this crazy "war". It's not going to go on much longer at this level, simply because it can't.

I agree with you in spirit, but it's clear to me that we're going to be bombing Iran in Spring 2007. America can't open up another front with current troop, training, and equipment levels, but Bush will do it. The man really is Slim Pickens.

/preview: I almost killed that second P. I would have 12 months ago. But no, we ain't seen nothing yet.
posted by bardic at 2:50 PM on September 7, 2006

Gurgle, Didn't the DRAFT, kinda Offset the desertions?

I'm not sure I follow, Elim. Do you mean the draft that the administration would have to impose in order to keep the current force levels in Iraq for the next 5 years? Because, seriously, that's just about what it boils down to. They've played every other card (holding officers in service, revolving-door Iraq posts) and they still won't have enough troops come the end of the year or so.
posted by gurple at 2:52 PM on September 7, 2006

the whole stop-loss thing is really egregious

People who pay attention are aware of this policy when they sign up. It's not a change. It's just not usually used.
posted by thirteenkiller at 2:56 PM on September 7, 2006

thirteenkiller, your faith in the perspicacity of 18 year olds is refreshing.
posted by bardic at 3:03 PM on September 7, 2006

Mayor Curley writes "I would rather work in a shit-town tire warehouse or cannery than kill foreign nationals for US corporations. And no justification you can give is going to make the military-industrial complex a positive, whether you're making policy in a government building or enforcing policy with the barrel of your gun in another country."

Mayor Curley, I think you're being strongly misinterpreted, assuming that people are interpreting you correctly, and thus misinterpreting their responses.

From what I can tell, you said "soldiers should kill folks as instructed, that's their job" (or the like). You were, I think, being sarcastic. Stenseng thought you were being serious, so his response was attacking you for saying that soldiers should kill folks as instructed. You thought Stenseng understood your sarcasm, and so his response was attacking you for staying at home instead of going to join folks shooting other folks. And thus your response, which seems like a very argumentative phrasing of basically agreeing with people.

Short version: sarcasm doesn't always work well in print; best avoided.
posted by Bugbread at 3:05 PM on September 7, 2006 [1 favorite]

Mayor Curley wrote:
Sincerely,
Major Curly

Let that "j" be a lesson to all of us--sometime soon you, too, might be just one small letter away from involuntary conscription.
posted by flug at 3:08 PM on September 7, 2006

How do we compare their statements of moral outrage with those of Siegfried Sassoon?

Okay, I'll bite. How do we?
posted by blucevalo at 3:09 PM on September 7, 2006

Okay, I'll bite. How do we?

I just thought that there were a lot of similarities between the way Sassoon describes his objection to the war (WWI) and the way many Americans (including myself) feel about the Iraq war. I believe that the Iraq war is being deliberately prolonged by those who have the authority to end it. However, if Joe Sixpack from Omaha writes this today then he is a deserter who knew what he was signing up for so screw him. Sassoon turned his outrage into poetry, poetry that has been canonized and lauded for generations. Is there a Siegfried Sassoon of the Iraq War (or Desert Storm)?
posted by mattbucher at 3:15 PM on September 7, 2006

"If you telling the truth, you volunteered to do what your country asks of you. There was no conditions placed on what you were volunteering for."

I'd be careful, Dios. You're heading down a very slippery slope there.

Are you suggesting that once you sign on the dotted line that you are to do exactly as you are ordered?

I seem to recall that the "just following orders" thing doesn't hold up so well.
posted by underdog at 3:18 PM on September 7, 2006

Believe it or not, there is such a thing as military ethics.

"As sailor Pablo Paredes noted recently, the U.S. Military Code of Justice says that, while soldiers are obligated to obey all legal orders, the same soldiers have a right, even a duty, to disobey illegal orders. That is the essence of the legal case for military resistance."
posted by Astro Zombie at 3:20 PM on September 7, 2006

mattbucher: Thanks much for the clarification. Couldn't agree with you more about Sassoon. I find myself wondering if there were a modern-day Sassoon, whether he would be so drowned out by the ocean of "stay the course" propaganda that he would never get read.
posted by blucevalo at 3:31 PM on September 7, 2006

There was no conditions placed on what you were volunteering for.
posted by dios at 2:13 PM PST

The wordings of the current oath of enlistment and oath for commissioned officers are as follows:

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;"

So you can believe Dios that there are no conditions (orders that are in opposition to The Consutition) or you can read the pledge and make your own mind up.

http://www.army.mil/CMH/faq/oaths.htm
posted by rough ashlar at 3:32 PM on September 7, 2006

The men and woman who desert to avoid the war in Iraq are, in my opinon, are the only American courageous characters associated with this war. It takes a lot more courage to ruin your future than to kill innocent people just because you signed a piece of paper to follow immoral orders.
posted by any major dude at 3:42 PM on September 7, 2006

Yeah, stick it to the man!
posted by Bugbread at 3:46 PM on September 7, 2006

It's not volunteering if your decision is based on fraudulent information.
posted by owhydididoit at 4:25 PM on September 7, 2006

From the article:

"The Pentagon’s spokesmen say that the overall number of deserters has actually gone down since operations began in Afghanistan and Iraq."
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 4:38 PM on September 7, 2006

It's not volunteering if your decision is based on fraudulent information.
posted by owhydididoit

If a person is defrauded in their contract, they can get out. It's all in black & white. A few people left Berlin Brigade when I was there because their contracts had been violated.

Among the specifics included in every soldier's contract are the full term of service, the amount of that term which is the active duty component, and the fact that the active duty component can be extended up to the full term of the contract at the military's discretion.

As for the deserters' "moral outrage," I think Smedleyman pretty much nailed it in the related thread:

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.

Also see QIbHom's comment:

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."

any major dude has forgotten that there are some soldiers who get through a tour or three in Iraq without killing any innocents or receiving any orders they thought were unlawful. Some soldiers actually...wait for it...feel their service has been honorable.
posted by taosbat at 5:09 PM on September 7, 2006

There [were] no conditions placed on what you were volunteering for.
posted by dios at 2:13 PM PST

Wow, in a history of posts that made my jaw drop, that ranks close to your number one.

I'm not even going to bother to search for a post in which you pointed out that a soldier doing a bad thing was breaking the law and we shouldn't judge them all by him, because I'm sure we all know you've made that argument.

Jesus, what are you thinking?
posted by lumpenprole at 5:25 PM on September 7, 2006

People who pay attention are aware of this policy when they sign up. It's not a change. It's just not usually used.
posted by thirteenkiller at 5:56 PM EST

Aware of the policy? There is nothing but policy. I don't know every tree used to build my house, but I sleep there every day.

Folks close to me can't even get enrolled in the degree education programs that are among the "even if you're not paying attention" selling points for high school education level enlistment.

Spend months planning an approach and untold hours of research, forms, office visits, phone calls, travel and overall frustration by both you and your wife, get to a point of no forward progress, and then get sent to Iraq for a controversial "war" and miss your child's 1st birthday...

Both sides make commitments and only one side is held to account. That's no way to run a country, a military or any other organization, especially one that asks for everything up to your life in return.
posted by VulcanMike at 5:45 PM on September 7, 2006

I could grudgingly understand if somebody in the sandbox were to throw down his weapon and says "Enough!," and I would applaud his/her willingness to accept the inevitable penalties he/she will incur. That's pretty rare, though. There's this idea that you're there with the people around you, and if you're quitting, they have to pick up the slack, and somebody else will have to come take your place. These people you'd be quitting in front of are mostly your buddies, and if they're not lifelong friends, then at least they're teammates and you're going to think about it a while before screwing them as well as yourself.

But somebody who's tired of guarding airplanes or bending wrenches or scrubbing toilets or sorting paperwork in CONUS who quits may have other motivations, and some of them might not be so noble and morally/ethically motivated. A lot of the AWOLs/UAs -- I know from a Navy absentee-collection-unit LPO -- do so because of immaturity, boredom and criminal behavior a/w/a family and financial issues.

I respectfully submit that I can understand and sympathize with the more heated sentiments being expressed in this thread, but with a few exceptions, some of y'all are so abysmally clueless about what life is like for most of the enlisted ACDU types that I wish you'd go to an airport or a bar outside the main gate and talk to a few. If you find that offensive personally and are feeling indignant, I'm apologizing right now, but maybe you're feeling that way because you're exactly the sort of person I had in mind.
posted by pax digita at 6:07 PM on September 7, 2006

taosbat, you make some good points. There are certainly many soldiers who are doing their job and have not had to face the dilemmas that were described in the posted articles. As for the defrauded part, I worry that not every recruiter is honorable, and that some of these young men are misled by what their recruiter says, not by how their contract reads. Am I wrong to worry about this?
posted by owhydididoit at 7:21 PM on September 7, 2006

You really want to feel so morally superior? So lacking in culpability? Renounce your citizenship as an American.

This is bullshit no matter who says it. As long as you think like this - from either side of the aisle - you're part of the problem, not part of the solution.
posted by absalom at 7:25 PM on September 7, 2006

If you telling the truth, you volunteered to do what your country asks of you.

Oh, I thought you were signing up to " support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." That's a far cry from doing whatever "your country" tells of you. (As if it is the nation-state actually doing the asking, and not a group of plutocrats who currently have the reigns.)

Even if you ignore the long tradition of encouraged (or, formerly encouraged) tradition of Civil Disobedience and stress "that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice."
posted by absalom at 7:32 PM on September 7, 2006

40,000 wimps.
posted by obeygiant at 7:36 PM on September 7, 2006

I didn't sign up to kill civilians to cover up a failed stoopid moneygrab for Cheney.

You were planning to fight in one of those other wars, the ones in which the economic interests of the powerful are not a motivating factor and in which civilians don't die? Yeah, sign me up for that one too.
posted by IshmaelGraves at 7:39 PM on September 7, 2006 [1 favorite]

Anyone who complained about stenseng's post completely missed the point, and honestly I doubt how earnest your intentions on commenting were. It's not at all comparable to the way that nationalists say things like, "Well, love it or leave it! If you don't like America, get out!"

What stenseng is saying is that we Americans are all responsible for the things done in our name. We all benefit in some way (in the short term) from imperialism, because it has provided us the quality of life we are used to, to which most of us cling, and through which all of us are deeply interconnected. If you want to be free of responsibility for horrific acts of the United States, the only way is to not be an American. I'm pretty sure that's what stenseng was trying to get at. This is an important, really important thing to keep in mind, in my opinion.
posted by Embryo at 8:02 PM on September 7, 2006

"You were planning to fight in one of those other wars, the ones in which the economic interests of the powerful are not a motivating factor and in which civilians don't die? Yeah, sign me up for that one too."

Touché
posted by TetrisKid at 8:20 PM on September 7, 2006

Yeah, Touché.
posted by taosbat at 9:21 PM on September 7, 2006

...I worry that not every recruiter is honorable, and that some of these young men [& women] are misled by what their recruiter says, not by how their contract reads. Am I wrong to worry about this?
posted by owhydididoit

In my experience, no.

All Army recruiters go to the same school at Ft. Jackson (Relaxin' Jackson) and get the same training. But, each is who he or she is and each is then assigned to a unique recruiting station which is a small, relatively isolated, unit usually run by an upper-mid-level sergeant.

A responsible recruiter will try to ground even the most starry-eyed recruit in their contract and ensure the person really understands what they're getting. There are reasons for that.

First, all recruiters were once recruited themselves and their training at the school focuses on that quite a bit (You're a happy soldier, how was your recruitment experience part of who you are today?).

Second, they have all 'been there & bought the T-shirt' before they go to the school. The school also stresses something like, "you've all got buddies still in the line...don't send them duds."

Third, they work on a points system where signing someone up for something that works, whether infantry or veterinarian assistant, accumulates various points toward promotion. It's pretty corporate.

Fourth, It's pretty corporate. They have all kinds of plans they can put together for different kids. The recruits get to pick depending on their test scores.

However, each recruiter is an individual. Some are more honest than others, especially when faced with a kid who hasn't really grown up yet and a quota. And, as always, each station unit's ésprit de corps makes a huge difference in things.

Recruiters who can be shown to have engaged in fraud or other crimes are prosecuted under the UCMJ. That's pretty corporate, too.

It's a good thing to keep an eye out for recruuiters doing the bad. Some would be wrong no matter what's going on. Some would only do the bad under certain circumstances. The latter give us a read on how things are when they get caught (military or otherwise).
posted by taosbat at 9:22 PM on September 7, 2006

about stenseng's post, yup, we're all in on it.
posted by taosbat at 9:28 PM on September 7, 2006

Soldiers are still humans. Wearing a uniform doesn't actually relieve you of the human duty to do the right thing, which in the case of this gutless little Iraqi excursion, is active refusal to participate.

If you telling the truth, you volunteered to do what your country asks of you. There was no conditions placed on what you were volunteering for.
posted by dios at 2:13 PM PST on September 7 [+] [!]

Oh. You were taking remedial grammar while the rest of us were reading about that minor law/ethics case at, um, Nuremberg?
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 9:34 PM on September 7, 2006

Here's a key quote from the first article:

The Pentagon’s spokesmen say that the overall number of deserters has actually gone down since operations began in Afghanistan and Iraq, but there is no doubt that a steady trickle of deserters who object to the Iraq war have made it over the border and are now living in Canada.

So it would appear that the majority of 40,000 deserters did so before the war began and were simply part of the normal peace time military. 40k out of what, 1.5 million? I won't bother with the math, but that really ain't much.
posted by Atreides at 6:13 AM on September 8, 2006

he whole stop-loss thing is really egregious

People who pay attention are aware of this policy when they sign up. It's not a change. It's just not usually used.
posted by thirteenkiller

Actually, it has changed. Prior to Bush, stop loss was only allowed to be used when the nation was at war. Anyone remember Congress signing a declaration of war recently? What happened was that after 9/11 Bush "authorized" it to be used for the "war" on terrah.

But this is besides the point. We have marines headed for their 4th tour in the sandbox. Try to have a functional family/friends when you're spending your fourth year being shot at. We're not asking these troops to protect our nation, we're asking them to sacrifice their lives, one way or another. If you don't understand how this can ultimately weaken our military, you should find a few soldiers who have done multiple tours and ask them what they think.
posted by Crash at 8:11 AM on September 8, 2006

I had a comment but IshmaelGraves said it all.
posted by dreamsign at 10:21 AM on September 8, 2006

“You were planning to fight in one of those other wars, the ones in which the economic interests of the powerful are not a motivating factor and in which civilians don't die?” - posted by IshmaelGraves

Fairly true as a broad statement. That can be applied to nearly any war. I think most people who volunteer have the ‘defend the country/constitution’ sort of mindset tho’.
There were people flying fighter intercepters during 9/11. Subtract all the chaos and other goofy bullshit going on and consider that: had they successfully executed their mission, a few planeloads of people might have died, but thousands of people in the towers would have lived. Do we then not have an air defense program because it might lead to abuse by plutocrats and their cohorts in government? Who’s fault is that? The guys who signed up?
The system we have is the system that exists, folks are welcome to change it. It is (so far, still) a Republic. If no one wanted to serve at all, if everyone refused to serve in the miltary in any capacity in the U.S. - what then? We have a civilian militia hop in their fighter jets and take down an aircraft being used as a weapon? Joe Six pack has his missile silo in his back yard and turns the keys when he sees on the news his local big city was nuked? I wholeheartedly agree foreign policy is being subverted by interests that have nothing to do with serving the country. But it certainly isn’t any given grunt that is profiting by it.
Bush is sending more money to the Peace Corps in an attempt to smooth out anti-U.S. sentiment as part of the war on terrorism - are Peace Corps volunteers then lackeys of the neo-con agenda?
posted by Smedleyman at 11:29 AM on September 8, 2006