US ARMY: CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS
Published in B&E- 08 March 2007
Nation’s conscience keepers!
After battling a stubborn insurgency and a spiralling civil war, the US confronts angry soldiers
“The dissenter is every human being at those moments of his life when he resigns momentarily from the herd and thinks for himself,” wrote Archibald Macleish, a famous poet and a close associate of the American president, Franklin D. Roosevelt. And that particular moment arrived in Lieutenant Ehren Watada’s life, when he defied the US military command to move to Iraq. The officer’s conscience simply went against participating in an internationally acknowledged illegal war – perpetrated on a false premise that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction. Precisely for this crime, the US military officer is facing the court martial; in a retrial next month, the officer may be sentenced to years of imprisonment for conduct prejudicial to the military order and discipline.Watada is not exactly a “conscientious objector” (CO) (Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, recognises the right of the individual to refuse to perform military service for reasons of conscience, thought or religion. The US is a party to these treaties). He rather falls into the category of “selective conscientious objector” (SCO) – he is willing to lend his services to fight in Afghanistan, but is surely not ready to go to Baghdad. Although the COs are recognised under the US military law, it does not pay any credence to SCOs. The US army does not have conscripts – it is an All Volunteer Force (AVF), and “in an AVF the right to refuse the call of duty is totally unacceptable, the British army takes a very serious view, such acts can jeopardise the unit cohesion”, says Mike Clarke, Professor of Defence Studies, King’s College, London, while speaking exclusively to B&E.
Taking umbrage under the international law and US constitution, Watada argues that, “The wholesale slaughter and mistreatment of Iraqis is not only a terrible and moral injustice, but it’s a contradiction to the Army’s own law of land warfare. My participation would make me a party to war crimes.” He may be the first officer to refuse the Iraq deployment, but many enlisted men in the army are either already undergoing prison sentence or are under trial for the very same reason. Sergeant Kevin Benderman was the first enlisted man to do so. Another famous case is of Agustin Aguayo, a 35-year-old army medic. Incidentally, as the world discusses Watada’s fate, a Vietnam War dissenter, Dale E. Noyd, (a US fighter pilot, the first conscientious objector during the Vietnam War) died this year.These cases only prove, there is something amiss in the organisational structure of the US military. The leadership is not able to convince and motivate the men under their command to follow orders, speaks about the lack of professionalism. It may be simple to blame an individual for being wacky, but more importantly, the politico-military leadership needs to introspect and ask: Is the cause of the war just and valid enough to lead their men into harm’s way, where they may be required to kill innocents in pursuance of their duty?
“The dissenter is every human being at those moments of his life when he resigns momentarily from the herd and thinks for himself,” wrote Archibald Macleish, a famous poet and a close associate of the American president, Franklin D. Roosevelt. And that particular moment arrived in Lieutenant Ehren Watada’s life, when he defied the US military command to move to Iraq. The officer’s conscience simply went against participating in an internationally acknowledged illegal war – perpetrated on a false premise that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction. Precisely for this crime, the US military officer is facing the court martial; in a retrial next month, the officer may be sentenced to years of imprisonment for conduct prejudicial to the military order and discipline.Watada is not exactly a “conscientious objector” (CO) (Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, recognises the right of the individual to refuse to perform military service for reasons of conscience, thought or religion. The US is a party to these treaties). He rather falls into the category of “selective conscientious objector” (SCO) – he is willing to lend his services to fight in Afghanistan, but is surely not ready to go to Baghdad. Although the COs are recognised under the US military law, it does not pay any credence to SCOs. The US army does not have conscripts – it is an All Volunteer Force (AVF), and “in an AVF the right to refuse the call of duty is totally unacceptable, the British army takes a very serious view, such acts can jeopardise the unit cohesion”, says Mike Clarke, Professor of Defence Studies, King’s College, London, while speaking exclusively to B&E.
Taking umbrage under the international law and US constitution, Watada argues that, “The wholesale slaughter and mistreatment of Iraqis is not only a terrible and moral injustice, but it’s a contradiction to the Army’s own law of land warfare. My participation would make me a party to war crimes.” He may be the first officer to refuse the Iraq deployment, but many enlisted men in the army are either already undergoing prison sentence or are under trial for the very same reason. Sergeant Kevin Benderman was the first enlisted man to do so. Another famous case is of Agustin Aguayo, a 35-year-old army medic. Incidentally, as the world discusses Watada’s fate, a Vietnam War dissenter, Dale E. Noyd, (a US fighter pilot, the first conscientious objector during the Vietnam War) died this year.These cases only prove, there is something amiss in the organisational structure of the US military. The leadership is not able to convince and motivate the men under their command to follow orders, speaks about the lack of professionalism. It may be simple to blame an individual for being wacky, but more importantly, the politico-military leadership needs to introspect and ask: Is the cause of the war just and valid enough to lead their men into harm’s way, where they may be required to kill innocents in pursuance of their duty?
No comments:
Post a Comment