« A Little Perspective | Main | All Latveria Bows Before Me »

February 08, 2007

Choices

"For a warrior there is no other end to the journey."

-- Alyt Neroon, Babylon 5

Geez, I'm sick for a few days and I miss a thread where I'm actually a featured player. I'm going to lose my egotist's society membership card if I'm not careful. Fortunately, I'm firmly of the belief that it's never to late to talk about myself, and since the thread dovetailed rather neatly with some thoughts of my own that I've been kicking around for some time, I just couldn't resist.

As many readers are probably aware, the court martial for First Lieutenant Ehren Watada began on Monday (although it has since been delayed due to a mistrial and is now scheduled for another attempt in mid-March). 1LT Watada will be on trial for missing movement and conduct unbecoming an officer, the first for his decision not to deploy with his unit to Iraq, the second for comments he has made about the President in the course of his arguments against the war. 1LT Watada is something of a hero among many who oppose the war for his refusal to go to Iraq; he says that the war is illegal and that he is justified in not going because he cannot legally be ordered to fight an illegal war (which is true if the war is illegal).

I respect 1LT Watada's willingness to risk jail and a dishonorable discharge for his beliefs. It takes courage to stand up for a position that, among Watada's peers, has to be incredibly unpopular.
Unfortunately, I do not believe 1LT Watada's arguments hold water. I am not a lawyer, but I believe that Massachusetts v. Laird established that Congress does not have to pass a formal declaration of war in order to meet the Constitutional requirement for so doing (where are those strict constructionists when you need them?). Nor do I think that appeals to international law establish the illegality of the Iraq war. Iraq was in breach of the 1991 cease fire agreement for the better part of a decade. Because the agreement was a cease fire and not a peace treaty, the United States had every right to resume the war begun in 1991. The war was many things, but I do not believe 1LT Watada has a case if his defense rests solely on the argument Iraq is an illegal war.

Still, as Bob McManus pointed out, if enough soldiers would refuse to go, it would eventually force the United States to end the war for lack of manpower. While the war is not illegal, it is, in my opinion, a disaster that is almost certainly going to end with the U.S. leaving Iraq to work out its problems on its own and with the aid of its neighbors. Isn't it worth it, then, to work to bring that about sooner rather than later by doing what we can to stop the war? To some degree, I think the answer to that question is yes. I respect the willingness of those who attend protest marches and who harangue their Representatives and Senators to do more to bring the war to a close. But I cannot bring myself to join those ranks.

The writers of the Constitution were very careful to establish civilian control over the military. They were well aware of the dangers of a standing army, dangers I believe we would do well to remember today, and they wanted to make sure that there would be no Napoleons making mischief in North America (note to pedants: yes, I know Napoleon hadn't yet caused any mischief when the Constitution was written, but he serves to make the point better than some lesser-known figure). Even during the American Civil War, when there were calls for American generals, particularly George McClellan, to set themselves up as dictator to win the war, no general ever gave it serious thought that I am aware, and in the 20th century the extremely popular General Douglas MacArthur did not attempt to defy President Truman when Truman relieved him. This does not mean that soldiers do not or can not be permitted personal opinions; as a survey of milblogs today or a review of soldiers' diaries from past conflicts can quickly reveal, American soldiers have always had their own strongly-held views about what the government ought to be doing with them. But when push comes to shove, they shut up and do what they're told. It has to be that way.

Nobody in their right mind wants to go into combat for the sake of going into combat. While I cannot speak from experience, I believe I am on safe ground in saying that war is a horrible, dehumanizing, degrading experience that does terrible things to all who experience it. Given a choice, many soldiers would opt out of combat; indeed, even during truly existential wars in our history, our government has had to rely on a draft to muster sufficient combat power to win. Today, however, all of our soldiers are volunteers, and except for perhaps a very thin slice of them, all have had the opportunity to opt out of the service since the war began. Why they have not done so varies from individual to individual. Some may have been tempted by the large reenlistment bonuses available to them. Others may enjoy the military and are willing to suffer the occasional deployment as a cost of that life. Others may not want to let down their comrades in arms. There are probably as many reasons as there are soldiers who have made those choices, in fact. And I have no doubt that one factor that prevents more people from bailing out when the time comes for them to deploy is the knowledge that they would face legal charges if they did so, as they should.

As has been noted many times before, the United States is not a democracy. It is a republic. We elect men and women to make decisions for us. As long as they make those decisions in accordance with the framework we have set out, we are bound by law to respect those decisions. It doesn't matter if someone personally believes that the income tax is unconstitutional: our system has determined that it is, and if you choose not to pay it, you will suffer the consequences. This system works, in large part, because we all implicitly agree to it. There are many more citizens than there are police and soldiers; if enough people disobey the law, it is almost impossible for the government to enforce it (see speed limit laws as a textbook example, where enforcement is generally used more as a fund raiser than anything else). Of course, if enough people choose not to go along with it, the system breaks down and we all get to start over again. Given that Adams and Madison are long dead and I can't think of a single modern politician who stacks up to either of those gentlemen, I'm not overly enamored of such a result.

I happen to think that, for Congress to meet its Constitutional requirement of declaring war, they ought to have to formally declare that a state of war exists between the United States and whatever nation or group we're supposed to be fighting. But I cannot be the arbiter of what is constitutional, because if I can, than we all can and we no longer have a constitution. We have to subordinate our own beliefs to our system or the system simply doesn't work. And while I am libertarian in many of my beliefs, I am not of the belief that we can get by without government at all. The system only works if we agree to be bound by it. Therefore I, and every other soldier who volunteers to serve, have to be willing to abide by the results of our system. And our system, our government, says that this war is a legal war and that we must fight it.

I suspect that some will argue that there are some things that are worth tearing everything down for. I concur with that belief, but I do not think it obtains in this case. Our situation is not yet so grim that we need to tear down the very foundations of our republic in order to set things right. Perhaps it will yet come to that. But we're not there yet. I hope we never reach such a point. Until then, I cannot escape the conclusion that it is the duty of soldiers to obey their orders and fight where and when their government tells them to fight.