Lt. Watada said no to the United States military when it was time for him to deploy to Iraq. Watada acted on the belief that he had the right and the obligation to refuse an order to participate in a military action that was considered “illegal” and a violation of the United States Constitution. Watada claimed that military action against Iraq was unlawful because of the following reasons:
1. The United Nations Security Council did not authorize the military action under Article 42.
2. Attack by Iraq was not imminent
3. Weapons of mass destruction, biological weapons and chemical weapons were not found, after the invasion.
Watada acted under the premise that as a military officer he had a responsibility and a duty to refuse an order that in his mind was unlawful.
I think back to the late 1960’s and early 1970’s when many 18 year old males were claiming conscientious objector status and fleeing to Canada to avoid the Viet Nam draft. Many of the arguments used then are reflected in Watada’s defense of his decision to disobey the order to deploy to Iraq. Hundreds of American teenagers fled to Canada to avoid service during Viet Nam because they felt that that war was unlawful and a violation of International Law. Many protests were led by legal scholars who provided a great legal argument against the US action in Southeast Asia. I remember listening to William Kunstler, a liberal attorney famous for defending the Chicago Seven and anti-war protestors during the 60’s and 70’s, speak about the reasons the United States should be charged with war crimes for their actions in Viet Nam. And I now sit here thinking about the new found knowledge I have regarding just what are the rules and what makes a just war. There have been many comparisons between Viet Nam and Iraq and having lived thru the worst of Viet Nam, (almost becoming one of its statistics), I also look at the comparisons with a suspecting eye.
Watada makes the claim that the war was not a “just war” nor was it a war that was entered into with legal justification. As a matter of fact he claims that the reasons for beginning the conflict, (weapons of mass destruction), was made up by the Bush administration. This was proven after the invasion failed to locate any of the weapons that led us into harms way. Viet Nam was sustained by the premise that we were preventing the spread of communism in the world. 57,000 American lives were lost and communism ended a little over 20 years later.
Was Watada justified in disobeying an order because he believed the war to be unlawful and unjust? Was the Iraq invasion flawed and did the United States exhibit jus ad bellum to justify the military action that had led us down the path to a military occupation of a sovereign state. One that will most likely last for years and years. Is the United States justified for prosecuting Watada, because of his out spoken dissent of the Iraq war, when in fact it was not justified to invade and occupy Iraq? The United States pursued Security Council approval prior to the invasion. It was not granted. The United States provided evidence that weapons of mass destruction existed in Iraq. If not found and subsequently destroyed they could be used against the US. The evidence was flawed and found to be inaccurate. The invasion of Iraq was a preemptive first strike by the United States to “prevent” Iraq from using their mass destruction weapons against the west. However, well intended the action was, the US had no legal justification to invade another sovereign state without UN approval.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I agree that Watada is right in making the claim that the Iraq War is not a "just war" on the basis the UN Security Council did not authorize military action under Article 42. That being said, I think the US had all other justification to go into Iraq. This sounds crazy, right?
At the time the US was mounting a second front in the GWOT, many believed that an attack from Iraq was imminent and Iraq had WMDs. These beliefs have since been proven wrong, but at the time the perceived threat (albeit manipulated and politically framed by the Bush administration) was imminent. Our operating assumptions were based on few pieces of good evidence that were manipulated to lead us to believe a preemptive strike was necessary as a preventative measures.
I think you make two comparisons that are very interesting but a little questionable: the Watada-Vietnam conscientious objector comparison and the unjust war-unjust punishment comparison. If I'm not mistaken, conscientious objectors (COs) formally declared their ethical objection to war in whole, before being drafted, and they were not officers. Watada is not a draftee nor an enlisted soldier, he is an officer that has sworn an oath to protect America and serve the Commander in Chief. It is not his place to form policy. Your comparison of his punishment and the unjust war is interesting, he is not opposed to serving in Afghanistan but refuses to go to Iraq. Certainly saying that he'll go to Afghanistan helps his case, but it is clear to see why the Army wouldn't want him in service at all. The military's strict hierarchical structure does not take kindly to insubordination. Watada certainly makes an interesting argument, but from the Army's perspective the legality of the war, jus ad bellum, has no bearing on a soldier's decision not to follow orders. If Watada was in the field objecting to orders because of just in bello, the Army's choice to charge Watada may be different.
Watada's decision to refuse deployment on the grounds of "just war" in fear of committing war crimes is incredibly interesting to me. He is certainly an iconic figure for those opposed to the war in Iraq and those opposed to the Bush administration, but I do not think he is justified to refuse deployment. He is the tool of policy and it should be the responsibility of policy makers concerning "war crimes" or "crimes against peace", not the soldiers in respect to the legality of the war as a whole.
Post a Comment