Desertion in a Volunteer Army

[John99]

He cant handle it. When under extreme stress people say and do a lot of things.

 

[S.A.M.]

Thanks

I found this statement:

When you joined the military, you probably didn't even think about being a conscientious objector. You may not have known there was any such thing. At your enlistment, you signed a statement saying you weren't a conscientious objector. And you probably weren't at the time.

So he probably signed up that he was not a CO.

This is really interesting:

In the two World Wars of this century, there were many conscientious objectors, and some of them were in the military. Because there was no provision for discharge or transfer for COs, no one knows how many soldiers could have applied for CO status. But a controversial survey after World War II by Brig. Gen. S. L. A. Marshall seemed to show that many soldiers fired in the air or simply didn't fire their weapons as ordered. In many units, 75 percent of the soldiers did this.2

These people didn't apply for discharge, and most of them probably supported the war. But they also found that they couldn't kill.

In 1962, the Department of Defense finally provided for conscientious objector status. The number of applications for discharge or transfer remained low until the Vietnam era (from about 1966 through 1973). Many soldiers and sailors refused to be part of the Vietnam War. Desertion rates went to their highest levels in history. Thousands were court-martialed for many different offenses. Occasionally entire units simply sat down and refused to fight. And the number of applications for CO discharge doubled, and then doubled again, until, in 1971, 4,381 members of the military applied.

So there have always been people who refuse to follow orders.

And the law:

Under today's law, you have to object to war on moral or religious grounds. You have to be against all war. And you have to be sincere. All of these standards are easy to understand--though military officials sometimes don't know very much about them.

Military law, like the draft law, recognizes two types of conscientious objectors. The first, classified 1-A-O, is a person who won't take part in war, but is willing to serve in the military if he or she doesn't have to use weapons. The second, classified 1-O, is a person who can't accept any military service. 1-O COs are discharged.

So does this mean that a soldier can apply for CO status during the war and be discharged?

Perhaps the soldier in the OP was unaware of his choices? I shall have to read his personal history.

 

[S.A.M.]

And that's what I don't understand. How stupid can you be not to know that war is hell? has he never seen the news? Did he think he was playing GI Joe in a cool uniform with a kick-ass gun but never has to do harm?

I think he was naive, he was told he would not be deployed for combat and he believed it.

 

[Kadark]

In the Al Quida organization you must sign up saying you will behead anyone that doesn't believe in your own views and become a suicide bomber to kill innocent women and children. Which is the worse?

Two problems with this:

1) There is no code in the Al Quida "organization" which requires these things.

2) Even if these things were required by "Al Quida" (assuming it exists, for argument's sake), why should the US try and be even more barbaric and ruthless than them?

 

[WildBlueYonder]

Yeah, but if you are promised a noncombat deployment and then expected to beat up civilians, shouldn't you have the option to say, that is not what I signed up for?

My dear Princess, the questions themselves speak of your life as a civilian, naiveté at is most endearing. stop one moment & ask yourself, if, as Alexander stormed into India & 1 of his second-rank rearguard infantrymen said, "that's enough, I'm heading back to Greece", what do you think would have been the answer? or if on the road to Jerusalem, a young shield-bearer had deserted Saladin's armies? desertion in wartime is a capital offense, then & now

then you come across one of the worst & most noble traits of humans; that is so perverse that it shows our bondage to the Devil, our fallen nature, that during war we sacrifice more, strive harder, we show kindness to our dying, men cry for fallen brothers & live under codes of war that promote self-sacrifice, teamwork, heroic effort and the most brutal acts against enemies.

in war, many people bond as brothers, comrades, that they would take a bullet for each other, sacrifice for each other, doing counterintuitive acts of stupid foolishness, that are called bravery, heroism, noble, daring.

and there are those codes of war, that many cultures carry, check out Japan's samurai warriors code for example:
http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e2127.html

or the US Marines, that even a mechanic or chef is a Marine rifleman first
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifleman's_Creed

so to answer your questions; once you sign on the dotted line, your life is not your own, any higher ranking officer, president, general can tell you what to do & yes, you can say, “that’s not what I signed up to do”, but that’s as far as it would go, cause his buddies would say, “yeah, I’d rather be having a beer at Joe’s in Philly right now too, so lets get back to killing & go back home quicker”.

And as AWOL Bush showed all our Reserve & National Guard units, in war, you can call up any unit & send them into the jaws of death. What he has done is unprecedented in modern era, by using homeguard to shore up his failed war in Iraq, the cost to Americans’ life is kept to a minimum, while the cost to those families that have children/spouses in the military is high

as one of our generals said, ”war is hell”, see the twin movies by Clint Eastwood, ”Flags of our Fathers: & “Letters from Iwo Jima”, I think they’re 3 hrs each, so plan to use up the whole day

 

[S.A.M.]

stop one moment & ask yourself, if, as Alexander stormed into India & 1 of his second-rank rearguard infantrymen said, "that's enough, I'm heading back to Greece",

That is exactly what happened. Haven't you read history? At the Beas, his war weary troops refused to go on and he turned back.

 

[Orleander]

I'd rather they let him out than keep him next to one of my brothers. They need someone who's got their back. Someone they can count on.

He better pay back all the money they spent on his training and any bonuses he got. And if he got money for college, he can kiss that good-bye as well.

 

[S.A.M.]

I find it strange that someone like you would support a pointless war like this; what do your brothers think of the mess of Iraq?

 

[Orleander]

I find it strange that someone like you would support a pointless war like this; what do your brothers think of the mess of Iraq?

They think something should have been done a VERY long time ago. They were in Kuwait the first time around and think it should have, well....shouldn't have stopped.
My brothers are getting out though. They miss their families. Neither sees action (Air Force) so they aren't as involved as Army or Marines.

 

[S.A.M.]

They think something should have been done a VERY long time ago.

Something was. Its been done several times in the last 60 years. Too much intervention in the Middle East.

 

[WildBlueYonder]

That is exactly what happened. Haven't you read history? At the Beas, his war weary troops refused to go on and he turned back.

my dear Princess, that was the whole army, not just one or a few, not a mutiny, they had nothing else to prove, under one general, they had conquered most of their known world, if Alexander had had 1 more "forward march" speech, he may well have made it to China


ever read about the 10K?

 

[S.A.M.]

my dear Princess, that was the whole army, not just one or a few, not a mutiny, they had nothing else to prove, under one general, they had conquered most of their known world, if Alexander had had 1 more "forward march" speech, he may well have made it to China


ever read about the 10K?

And they did not all desert him at once, but bit by bit.

 

[chris4355]

I don't see anything wrong with him deserting in this scenario. Its a war without reason, and he joined before realizing it was a lie. If anything, him leaving is a good thing. Especially after seeing what he saw...

Just wondering, were the soldiers kicking the heads like a soccer ball reported?

 

[joepistole]

Additionally, all troops are not only permitted but requried to refuse illegal orders. Orders to kill innocent civilians and commit atrocities are an illegal orders under the Uniform Code of Military Justice of which governs all our our armed forces.

That does not mean that innocents will not get killed in any military action. But it means that civilians are never the target and all action that can be taken to avoid killing non combatants is always to be taken. It is very difficult to avoid civilian causalities when you have an enemy who hides behind children and burkas. We have even found a few dressed in burkkas...real men - i think .

 

[spidergoat]

You can refuse to serve. They will put you in military jail, but you won't have to kill anyone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehren_Watada

 

[joepistole]

You can refuse to serve. They will put you in military jail, but you won't have to kill anyone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehren_Watada

They sure will, you can make any claim. But there is a difference between making a claim and reality. If you had better be able to prove it. In the case of this gentleman. He claimed it was an illegal war. There is no basis for that claim. But he had a chance to prove his case in a court of law.

He volunteered to do the things the Army is called upon to do. In the Army, the goal is to get the enemy to die. That means killing the enemy. And when he was called to duty he refused...cannot have that kind of conduct in the military.

 

[madanthonywayne]

What does a soldier or troop embroiled in a war he does not want do?

Perhaps you'd prefer a "no fault" divorce type rule? The soldier could cite irreconcilable differences and just walk away. Better yet, the army would have to pay alimony!

 

[S.A.M.]

Perhaps you'd prefer a "no fault" divorce type rule? The soldier could cite irreconcilable differences and just walk away. Better yet, the army would have to pay alimony!

Sounds good to me. If you enrol in good faith and are asked to commit unconscionable acts, there should be reparation.

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

Sounds good to me. If you enrol in good faith and are asked to commit unconscionable acts, there should be reparation.

and then you need a court to decide. a military tribunal is unlikely to approve since this is an admission of systemic guilt. government court is also unlikely to approve. how can it approve a war and then the money to carry it out and then keep doing these things and also say these soldiers get to leave because we are being bad.

If the UN had the power to oversee an international court, sort of like a referee at a hockey match, well.

Not that I disagree with you SAM in essence - whatever these in essence agreements are worth - but basically you need someone to admit they are being bad and do it officially.

And I think we both know the liklihood of military or government agencies to do this about an ongoing war.

 

[S.A.M.]

and then you need a court to decide. a military tribunal is unlikely to approve since this is an admission of systemic guilt. government court is also unlikely to approve. how can it approve a war and then the money to carry it out and then keep doing these things and also say these soldiers get to leave because we are being bad.

If the UN had the power to oversee an international court, sort of like a referee at a hockey match, well.

Not that I disagree with you SAM in essence - whatever these in essence agreements are worth - but basically you need someone to admit they are being bad and do it officially.

And I think we both know the liklihood of military or government agencies to do this about an ongoing war.

Yeah, which is why I find it hilarious that some veterans here expect to see official orders for this stuff.