Service members speak out against war

[codeorama]

http://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-en...dp-widget-news

Service members speak out against war
By Stephanie Heinatz
247-7821
October 25, 2006, 2:11 PM EDT
More than 200 U.S. troops have come forward, asking their Congressional representatives to end the occupation of Iraq and promptly bring American service members home.

Their coming out marks the first time since the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003 that men and women still in uniform have publicly spoken out against operations there, organizers of the effort said.

They are doing so under the Military Whistle-Blower Protection Act, which says active-duty, National Guard and Reserve forces can communicate with their legislators without fear of reprisal.

In a conference call with reporters this afternoon, three of the troops pointed out that they are doing this off-duty, out of uniform and in no way as a representative of the military.

"While we do serve our country, we feel this occupation should come to an end," said Jonathan Hutto, a Navy seaman stationed in Norfolk.

If sent to Iraq tomorrow, Hutto said, he wouldn't disobey an order.

"We're not pacifists. We are not conscientious objectors. We are not encouraging anything illegal," Hutto said.

They're just encouraging any service members who feel the same way to go to www.appealforredress.org.

"The way the Web page is set up is the service member sends a letter directly to their Congress member," said J.E. McNeil, an attorney advising the effort and the executive director for the Washington-based Center on Conscience & War, a group that helps protect the rights of conscientious objectors.

It's not a petition, McNeil said, as that wouldn't be allowed under the military rules.

"When men and women join the military and put on the uniform they don't give up their rights as U.S. citizens," she added. "Participating as fully as possible in their government - that's what these men and women are doing."

The grass-roots effort began early this year with Hutto as one of the organizers.

"The idea … originated when I was deployed ... off the coast of Iraq," said Hutto, who was on the USS Theodore Roosevelt aircraft carrier.

An old professor had sent him a copy of "Soldiers in Revolt," David Cortright's book documenting the U.S. soldiers who opposed the Vietnam War.

"By 1971," Hutto said, "more than 250,000 of these active-duty service people appealed to Congress" advocating an end to that war.

Hutto and Liam Madden, a Marine Corps sergeant from Vermont, then brought Cortright to Norfolk to talk about the Vietnam-era G.I. movement.

"Why do I support this appeal for redress?" Madden said. "It's as simple as I oppose the war in Iraq. I feel it is my duty, not as a Marine, but as an informed citizen, to inform people there is a tool for them."

"The occupation is perpetuating more violence," Madden added. "It's costing way too many human, Iraqi civilian and American service members, lives."

[Thiebear]

The Whistleblower act: SHOULD be used to report illegal commands and misdeeds. Not a general feeling about the war.

They have every right to speak out, but beware the consequences... And 200 out of 150k? I could find 200 people in the military to state ANYTHING...

And yes we do give up MANY rights when we put on the Uniform.

[Sarge]

Already done

[Redskins Diehard]

The Whistleblower act: SHOULD be used to report illegal commands and misdeeds. Not a general feeling about the war.

They have every right to speak out, but beware the consequences... And 200 out of 150k? I could find 200 people in the military to state ANYTHING...

And yes we do give up MANY rights when we put on the Uniform.

There have been far more than 150k servicemembers deployed in support of OIF.

[Predicto]

They should shut up until they are out of uniform.

[Burgold]

They should shut up until they are out of uniform.

I agree, but when retired servicemen or officers speak after they are retired you always hear people condemn them or doubt their motives because they didn't say anything while in the service.

[Redskins Diehard]

I agree, but when retired servicemen or officers speak after they are retired you always hear people condemn them or doubt their motives because they didn't say anything while in the service.

That condemnation is typically reserved for people that speak out about how we went about implementing the policy in the wrong manner...not about the policy itself.

For example. If Tommy Franks was opposed to invading Iraq with the lighter force than he should have let that be known. It was not his job to decide if Iraq should be invaded, but it was his job to invade it with a force level that he thought was appropriate.

Using this example. The seaman that has been floating around the Persian Gulf is perfectly justified in working with his chain of command to change to clockwise circles in the middle of the water to counter clockwise circles.

[chomerics]

That condemnation is typically reserved for people that speak out about how we went about implementing the policy in the wrong manner...not about the policy itself.

No, the condemnation was from a lot of generals that though we needed 400K+ troops to accomplish what we needed to accomplish in Iraq.

For example. If Tommy Franks was opposed to invading Iraq with the lighter force than he should have let that be known. It was not his job to decide if Iraq should be invaded, but it was his job to invade it with a force level that he thought was appropriate.

No, his job is to obey Donald Rumsfeld, and you know this. Rumsfeld wanted fewer troops and wanted to do in Iraq what was done in Afghanistan. He kept on telling Centcom to do it with less troops.

Rumsfeld repeatedly overruled the senior Pentagon planners on the Joint Staff, the operating arm of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "He thought he knew better," one senior planner said. "He was the decision-maker at every turn." On at least six occasions, the planner told me, when Rumsfeld and his deputies were presented with operational plans -- the Iraqi assault was designated Plan 1003 -- he insisted that the number of ground troops be sharply reduced.

continues . . .

Plan 1003 was repeatedly updated and presented to Rumsfeld, and each time, according to the planner, Rumsfeld said, “ ‘You’ve got too much ground force—go back and do it again.’ ” In the planner’s view, Rumsfeld had two goals: to demonstrate the efficacy of precision bombing and to “do the war on the cheap.” Rumsfeld and his two main deputies for war planning, Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, “were so enamored of ‘shock and awe’ that victory seemed assured,” the planner said. “They believed that the weather would always be clear, that the enemy would expose itself, and so precision bombings would always work.”

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/conten...030407fa_fact1

It was Rummy's call, and he continued to phase back the troop levels. Read any book on the planning for Iraq, all of them state the same thing, Rumsfeld wanted a smaller lighter and quicker force, and he never thought the insurgency would be an issue. The initial plans of 400K troops was trimmed to 250K troops then to 100K troops, it is in the history books now, you just have to read them.

[dwbiggs]

Re: Service members speak out against war

Is it a war? Seems to me that it is a police action now.

[Beaudry]

200? Way to get less than 1% speak out! Code, you just trying to prove your point from last week?

Dick Cheney gave a speach in my town before the last presidential election. A group of protesters made the front page of the paper the next day. They didn't mention that a whopping 7 people were protesting, but they made the newspaper.

[Sarge]

No, the condemnation was from a lot of generals that though we needed 400K+ troops to accomplish what we needed to accomplish in Iraq.



No, his job is to obey Donald Rumsfeld, and you know this. Rumsfeld wanted fewer troops and wanted to do in Iraq what was done in Afghanistan. He kept on telling Centcom to do it with less troops.



http://www.newyorker.com/fact/conten...030407fa_fact1

It was Rummy's call, and he continued to phase back the troop levels. Read any book on the planning for Iraq, all of them state the same thing, Rumsfeld wanted a smaller lighter and quicker force, and he never thought the insurgency would be an issue. The initial plans of 400K troops was trimmed to 250K troops then to 100K troops, it is in the history books now, you just have to read them.

I think Redskinsdiehard probably meant to say "It was his job to articulate and give his opinion on how many troops it would have taken"

Then he either went with what Rummy told him, known in the military as "Shut up and color", or he had the option to disagree and resign

[Redskins Diehard]

No, the condemnation was from a lot of generals that though we needed 400K+ troops to accomplish what we needed to accomplish in Iraq.

Right, by "a lot" you mean "a few." And these guys have come out and said that they thought the way we went about accomplishing the policy we wrong, not the policy itself.

No, his job is to obey Donald Rumsfeld, and you know this. Rumsfeld wanted fewer troops and wanted to do in Iraq what was done in Afghanistan. He kept on telling Centcom to do it with less troops.



http://www.newyorker.com/fact/conten...030407fa_fact1

It was Rummy's call, and he continued to phase back the troop levels. Read any book on the planning for Iraq, all of them state the same thing, Rumsfeld wanted a smaller lighter and quicker force, and he never thought the insurgency would be an issue. The initial plans of 400K troops was trimmed to 250K troops then to 100K troops, it is in the history books now, you just have to read them.

Have you read Tommy Franks book? The answer to this question is pretty obvious for those that have.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

And so it begins. The similarities to Vietnam continue to fall into place. I wonder which one (or more) of these veterans will throw their service medals over the White House fence and eventually turn into a treasonous, Socialist US Senator, from a Socialist State.

[Raub]

They should shut up until they are out of uniform.

Why? You don't think that we are entitled to opinions? That's one of the things that makes our military great and puts it a notch above other countries. Soldiers are open to voicing their opinions in a respectful manner. In the end, they still need to obey orders, but the US Military does not want mindless automatons.

That's a ridiculous statement to make. I want my soldiers to give me their opinions.


And for what's it's worth....I would support this cause if I thought it would do any good. It won't. It's like pissing on a forest fire. This thing isn't going to end until GW is out of office...or sooner if Congress gets shaken up during the midterms.

[Midnight Judges]

Right, by "a lot" you mean "a few." And these guys have come out and said that they thought the way we went about accomplishing the policy we wrong, not the policy itself.




Have you read Tommy Franks book? The answer to this question is pretty obvious for those that have.

I've read that part of Franks's book and it's not really all that clear. Compared to "Cobra II" it has relatively few operational details. Troops levels are not discussed in depth. One thing is clear, he regarded Rumsfeld as his boss and disagreed infrequently despite the civilian leadership getting on the last nerves of his staff.