Comments Posted By andy
Displaying 91 To 100 Of 258 Comments
Great post Rick. I sympathize a lot with Ashley's family as I recently went through a similar situation with my Mother, who had dementia. Unfortunately, our family was forced to take a look at a variety of factors with a cold eye, including costs, quality of life, etc. I agree there are few choices between taking care of a loved-one in the home and institutionalization, which is the decision we faced, especially when costs are factored in. I am certainly in no position to second-guess the parent's decision in this case and wish them all the best in taking care of their daughter.
Comment Posted By Andy On 5.01.2007 @ 23:42
Just want to mention that I believe we need to take "treason" out of the discussion. Treason is defined in the US Constitution and Watada's violations of the UCMJ certainly do not amount to treasonous conduct. Dishonorable? Probably. Treasonous? Certainly not.
Comment Posted By Andy On 29.12.2006 @ 16:45
Paul makes the arguments better than I. However, I can see a rare case where someone in the military has a real change of heart or religious conversion, etc. In those rare cases, the military may reassign a person to a non-combat role, such as the chaplain or medical services. But the case with Watada is not that he does not want to fight, but that he does not want to fight in Iraq. There is no precedent that I know of in the military that would allow people to pick and choose which conflicts they participate in.
And as an officer, Watada should have, and almost certainly was, taught about the legal requirements of service, including what constitutes a lawful conflict under the US Constitution. In every respect, the was legal and he should have known that international "norms" do not apply unless they violate a signed and ratified treaty.
Finally, I don't know if the desk job offer is real or not - it's just what I read on his wikipedia entry. I assume there is some justification for it.
Comment Posted By Andy On 29.12.2006 @ 15:57
Also, Lt. Watada claims the war is "illegal," but according to every constitutional measure, it is perfectly legal and in accordance with the constitution and the US government. It is true that people in the military are obligated to only follow lawful orders. Unfortunately for Lt Watada, deployment orders are perfectly lawful.
Comment Posted By Andy On 29.12.2006 @ 11:03
A couple of points from someone who has served:
1. Resignation. I am not surprised and would not expect the military to refuse an offer to resign a commission. The precedent it would set could have serious ramifications. Are officers allowed to pick and choose which combat operations they deem "legal" and them simply resign to get out of them? I imagine many more officers would resign to keep from deploying if they could. Also, Lt. Watada had not yet served his entire first comissioning period. New officers typically have at least a 4 year initial commitment where they are not allowed to resign. After that, they have more leeway in when they can resign depending on commitments due to new assignments, training, etc.
2. Going to Afghanistan. Lt. Watada was assigned to a combat unit. Members assigned to such units in all the services train and deploy with their units. It's not practicable logistically to simply send him to Afghanistan instead since he would have to be temporarily assigned to a unit he has not trained with. Although it could work for one or even a few inidividuals, this action would again set a precedent - imagine the flood of requests to go to Afghanistan as soon as Iraq deployment orders come up. Officers in the Navy, especially pilots on aircraft carriers, often support both operations. Would they be allowed to request only OEF and not OIF missions? Of course not.
Additionally, according to Lt Watada's wikipedia entry, he was offered a non-combat desk job by the Army, which he refused.
Overall I don't have much sympathy for Lt Watada. Perhaps his convictions are genuine and he truly believes what he says. In either event, it does not matter because once you sign the dotted line and take your oath, you are expected to do things you may not agree with. That is simply part of serving in the military. For example, I have always been against the "don't ask, don't tell" policy and some other policies of the military, but I have to take the bad with the good and do what I can in the confines of what is legal and honorable. Soldiers throughout time have been ordered to do things they either did not want to do or went against their personal ethos. That Lt. Watada is getting court-martialed and not summarily shot is a testament to how far we've come in dealing with these situations.
Comment Posted By Andy On 29.12.2006 @ 10:54
IG REPORT ON BERGER'S THEFT AN EYE OPENER
Mr. Berger must go through a different security clearance process than I did. Had I done a tenth of what is alleged against him, my clearance would be permanently gone and I'd likely be facing criminal charges. It is another example of elites in this country protecting elites. It's why General Officers get early retirement for the same crime that will put an enlisted servicemember in jail for a few years.
This incident brings up a larger issue of security at our national archives. Berger was caught, but I'd be very surprised if he was the first or only high-level government official who did the same thing. The Archive needs an accounting system for every document along with physical searches of EVERYONE who leaves.
Comment Posted By Andy On 26.12.2006 @ 14:29
The end of the cold war had as much to do will any loss of American influence as anything. It should be no surprise that nations who no longer require our protection from the Soviets would start acting "rebellious." It's akin to the befuddled parent who can't understand why their teenager isn't eternally grateful for all those diaper changes and lost sleep of early childhood.
A tremendous global realignment always brings change in international relationships. We should not expect or demand former allies to support us just because we're the USA, but at the same time our (former) allies need to realize that American power keeps oil flowing from volatile regions to keep them warm at night, and provides open sea lanes so critical to the global economy.
Comment Posted By Andy On 19.12.2006 @ 22:48
JOINT CHIEFS QUESTION IRAQ TROOP "SURGE"
The thing about adding more troops is that they will add nothing unless the overall strategy changes. We've been fighting a conventional war against the insurgency for the most part and it has failed (predictably, I might add). The additional troops migh be of value if the US and Iraq adopt a more effective operation strategy.
And frankly, in a city as large and diverse as Baghdad, another 30k troops who don't understand the culture or the language will not be able to secure much.
I detail a more aggressive strategy on my blog. While not perfect, it's certainly better than what we've been doing.
I'm all for getting rid of Maliki as well, but I'm not sure a SCIRI led coaltion is much better. Perhaps different warts will turn out to be better warts in the long run.
Comment Posted By Andy On 19.12.2006 @ 22:37
I haven't had any problems accessing the site, but I have lost a few comments. I had assumed they died from my mistakes or problems with my internet connection.
Comment Posted By Andy On 14.12.2006 @ 14:12
SOY IN THE BOY GIVES HIM CURLS LIKE A GIRL
Well, now I know why I wear my wife's clothes on the weekends! j/k
Comment Posted By Andy On 13.12.2006 @ 11:11
