Be All That You Can Be: Leave the Army

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=17438

As long as there has been a U.S. military, people have been leaving it. That choice has never been more appropriate than today. Individuals who signed up to defend the United States are engaged in a war that was sold on the basis of lies, was entirely unnecessary, is making us less safe, has nothing to do with defending anyone, and which involves the horror of slaughtering men, women, and children by the hundreds of thousands. The majority of Americans want the war to end and just voted accordingly in the Congressional elections. The majority of Iraqis want the war to end. The majority of American service men and women in Iraq want the war to end. And taking part in this war is illegal, whether you are ordered to do so or not.

Approximately 6,000 Americans have refused to report for duty or deserted in order to avoid taking part in this war, or to avoid taking further part in it. Many have objected to the stop loss program that requires them to serve longer than they had agreed to. Others have objected to the rationale behind the war and the horrors that are part of it. Many are best able to support their families by avoiding military service that is poorly compensated. In the cases we know the most about, one motivation for desertion that is clearly absent is cowardice. While quiet desertion tends not to result in any penalty, public opposition and resistance often means prison.

Lt. Ehren Watada, the first U.S. military commissioned officer to publicly refuse to fight in Iraq, has said that he will not obey an illegal order. He faces court martial on February 4, 2007, for obeying the law. Sgt. Camilo Mejia was one of the first Iraq War vets to publicly refuse to return to Iraq – for which he served 9 months in prison. Mejia objected to the war as based on lies and to the murdering and torturing of civilians that he witnessed. Sgt. Kevin Benderman is serving a 15-month sentence for the crime of applying for conscientious objector status and refusing to serve any longer in Iraq. Marine Corps reservist Stephen Funk was the first enlisted man to publicly refuse deployment to Iraq, and he spent 6 months in prison as a result. He said: "I will not obey an unjust war based on deception by our leaders."

Dan Felushko enlisted as a Marine after September 11, 2001. When ordered to Iraq he deserted, commenting: "I didn't want 'Died Deluded in Iraq' over my gravestone. I didn't see a connection between the attack on America and Saddam Hussein."

Unfortunately there are not too many jobs out there, and that is a huge problem our nation needs to deal with. When our men and women come home, we need to provide them with civilian opportunities to make a decent living.

There are stories of current military families undergoing extreme financial hardship. I know of one Army person who just signed up for a third tour in Iraq because he needsd the money.

If a soldier wants to leave, then why should he or she be forced to stay until 'the tour' is up?

If a soldier wants to leave, and if it is a true volunteer force, then why are stumbling blocks to them leaving put up?

If a soldier wishes to be a civilian and look for a job in the job market, then why should he or she be prevented from doing so?

If a Congress and President decide on a poor course of action for soldiers and the country, regardless of the quality of the rationale used to commit them, why should soldiers be forced to stay in the military for X more days IF THEY WANT to leave right NOW?

After all, its a VOLUNTEER Force, isn't it?

Excellent idea. A military referendum on the war. If enough soldiers want to get out scott free without benefits and such let them go. If you haven't got enough left for the war after that? Sorry George, take up needle point because your days of a world conqueror are over.

People who enlist during peacetime collect a check with virtually no risk. There job is (in theory) to defend the US.

If the time comes when they need to actually defend the US, the job suddenly becomes a lot more risky and many leave. Whoops! No military!

Increase pay to compensate for greater risk.

I've read news reports of Halliburton contractors allegedly getting paid double or triple what troops are getting for similar duty. Is Halliburton paying more for that risk? Are they paying Free Market rates? Why then do they need NoBid contracts? Who pays for those?

It seems the fixed salary and contract times of soldiers, under W's war, is shifted to slick suits with NoBid contracts who are unwilling to similarly sacrifice.

Maybe if soldiers were free to leave, and the military needed to auction up salary to have a war of aggression instead of defense, then maybe Congress would be a little more careful before committing troops. Maybe they'd poll troops in advance to see what they think. Do they want to go to 'wherever' to do 'whatever'? How many will leave? How much more will it cost? Can we afford it?

It's not like economics is undiscovered and certain things about that science, if it can be called that, aren't known.

and with compulsory military service we'd be about as agressive as countries like Norway (post-Viking, that is)

Compulsory service equals No aggression? ===> Vietnam.



Too many lies.

Men were only drafted to fill spaces which couldn't be filled by voluntary means.

I'm talking true compulsory service--where EVERYONE serves, whether there's a war or not. It has an amazing chilling effect on those hot-headed politicians who might have sons, daughters, nieces, and nephews.

I agree that pay isn't nearly enough. There's a problem when private-sector contractors are making multiples of GI pay for less risk. Should be the other way around.

unless they want to. To believe otherwise is fantastic.

So you are calling, like Rep. Rangel, for a citizen soldier or militia.

I believe it was in the 3rd grade, maybe it was the 4th, when my public school teacher had been telling us about WWI or maybe WWII (that class was long ago) or maybe both. She mentioned that Hitler never went to Switzerland. Some kids asked why. She replied, "Why would anyone want to go there? It's surrounded by mountains."

Today, my acerbic retort finally occurs, "Did Hitler have secret bank accounts located in Switzerland?" Hitler could have easily used an alias created as head of his nation, and there are rumors of Bush family biz and some familiar corporate names doing biz in Germany and likely banking in Switzerland, though I have no specific knowledge of it. It is said Hitler expressed contempt for the Swiss, perhaps Hitler was being honest?

Here are a couple of interesting links about Switzerland and their Military/Militia system:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Switzerland
http://history-switzerland.geschichte-schweiz.ch/switzerland-second-world-war-ii.html

If the U.S. is going into a period of extended warfare, as Bush and the former Rumsfeld seem to have dictated (with the consent of a GOP majority Congress under the IWR), perhaps because of BushCo's failure to follow the Powell doctrine (irregardless of anything else you like or dislike about Powell), then it's unreasonable to conclude that there will be any military cost savings from such a system during wartime. Only in peacetime would the savings accrue, and that's only if the size of the professional soldier core is vastly scaled back under a such a system, something that would have to be viewed with a great deal of cynicism under Bush and Corporatism, which has its roots in at least 130+ years of U.S. history.

Therefore, calls to change to a conscripted service right now, during war, can mean only one thing, that the U.S. government needs more troops, i.e., more kids to sacrifice for them. Inductively, this means there are no plans for fewer troops, calls to Get Out Now are probably regarded with contempt by The Decider even while other leaders may give that call lip service.

It seems to me the time to debate conscription is during peacetime in order for the debate to be considered to have any honest intent.

Of course, government would not want any soldier to be free to leave at any time that soldier desires, they want a soldier to defend wealthy elites' interests. That's precisely why conscription will not solve the deeper problem we have right now of a government of the corporatist, by the corporatist, and for the corporatist, ordering citizens to die for them.

Therefore, allowing a true volunteer force will allow individual citizens to decide if they want to fight wealths' battles, or not, putting citizens on an equal footing with the wealthy elites' choices. If yes, then that is each citizen's choice. If not, then it provides an additional check and balance on a Congress and Executive Branch gone wild, and the wealthy would certainly not want that for then they'd have to 'Pay More' for their soldiers.

That's my 1/2 cent.

is if you shrink the "cheaters" to a fraction of a percent (to expect there won't be cheaters was never the point). To do that you'd have to have a very limited list of exemptions, and very strict and stiff penalties.

I not only support Rangel's proposition, but I support the draft right now. Tomorrow. With virtually EVERYONE eligible, in an expanded age range that would include me (I'm 48). A lottery would be just fine for callups. So if the "US Government" needs more troops, the "US Government" will be required to send "US Government" sons and daughters too.

Oh, the hue and cry! The wails! The tears!

And it will end the war in Iraq faster than you can sneeze.

That we should get out of Iraq. One issue with that is the Security Council decision for us to stay for one more year.

How the U.S. goes about that we differ completely. If we take your course, instead of leaving the military as it is, or putting the additional checks and balances into individuals' ability to say no without penalty, then Bush has quite the numbers of bodies to continue on the same path he's shown himself to be so poor at directing. Indeed starting Iraq was FUBAR, a preemptive war of aggression seemingly all based on nothing more than shadows, with the backing of fear that only mass media and TV can muster.

Give Bush and cronies the military that you want him to have, and it seems to me like he's just going to find additional places to use it. You know, his favorite Axis of Evil type places. It reminds of giving matches and gasoline to an arsonist.

As far as getting people fired up to object or dissent, I just don't know that I have that confidence. There's already been some significant dissent, but corporate media has marginalized it. Whether dissent would get much larger is hard to say, and is quite a gamble. People tend to do what their leaders tell them to do, for better or for worse. What if they don't?

Seems like your path very well could lead down the abyss.

A simpler method of leaving: orders to leave. Whatever they're called. Get outta there!

Really. After a long commerical about how one can get $40,000 bonuses and then some, the last sentence or two talks about "come in and register to win a nano ipod"!!!

I have a better idea..go buy an ipod and stay ALIVE!

most people do all day