[Vision2020] Active Troops Going Public to Oppose War

[Paul Rumelhart]

I'm sure that day-to-day, there are thousands of good things happening 
in Iraq.  Saying anymore than that is difficult when I have no yardstick 
to use.  Are we 75% of the way to our goal?  I have no idea what our 
goal is.  Is the juice worth the squeeze?  I have no idea what the juice 
is supposed to be.  Are we supposed to be setting up a democratic 
government?  Are we supposed to be chasing down potential terror plots 
against the US?  Are we still looking for weapons of mass destruction?  
Are we supposed to be policing the Iraqis?  Are we supposed to be 
rebuilding?  Should we be trying to keep the three main groups from 
destroying each other? 

I was in the military, for a few years anyway, and I know what kind of 
people they are.  Almost everyone I met was a dedicated defender of 
honor who truly believed in what they were doing (as did I).  So I'm not 
surprised in the slightest to hear that decent people are finding ways 
to do decent things in Iraq.  I think if we had focused goals we could 
get behind, we'd be doing a lot more good. 

Anyway, why do I have to have a direct family member involved in the war 
to be able to have an opinion on the subject?  If I see something that I 
think disgraces our military, like what happened at Abu Ghraib, do I 
have to just let it slide because I never met anyone involved?  If I 
hear our government arguing forcibly for torture to be used as a means 
of gaining information, should I be silent because I've never been to 
Iraq and "don't know what it's like?"  When I hear about the numbers of 
our soldiers being killed should I not be asking about our goals and 
whether or not it's worth the cost?

I would like to hear about some of the good things that are happening at 
the individual soldier's level.  Maybe I could then get a grasp on what 
it is we're trying to do over there.

Paul

Kai Eiselein, editor wrote:

>I asked a question a while ago.....It was "Does anybody here have relatives
>serving in Iraq?" I got one reply, from someone who said no, but had a
>friend/friends serving there.
>It amazes me that many here are so quick to point out the
>bad/illegal/negative/protesting things our troops are doing/havedone, but
>none have pointed out any of the good they've achieved.
>Like or dislike the war, there is no way every soldier or every action there
>is negative.
>And by the way, my kid brother in law, Pfc. Christopher D. Blair, is serving
>in the United Staes Army north of Bagdad. I talk with him on a fairly
>regular basis and despite all of the reports to the contrary, there is some
>good happening.
>
>The terrorists learned well from the viet cong, you don't need to win
>battles to win the war. Win the propaganda battle and the people of the US
>will cave in.
>The U.S. won the Tet Offensive, but lost the media battle and the war of
>public opinion during Kennedy's War.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com
>[mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]On Behalf Of Tom Hansen
>Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 1:10 PM
>To: Vision 2020
>Subject: [Vision2020] Active Troops Going Public to Oppose War
>
>
>>From the November 6, 2006 edition of the Army Times -
>
>------------------------------------------------------
>
>Active troops going public to oppose war
>
>By Gordon Lubold
>Staff writer
>
>A group of active-duty military members is openly questioning the war in
>Iraq, saying its public declaration that it's time to bring the troops home
>is protected under federal law.
>
>The group, calling itself An Appeal for Redress, claims it has received the
>electronic signatures of about 200 active-duty service members who feel it's
>time to redeploy U.S. troops from Iraq.
>
>One of the people behind the site is Seaman Jonathan Hutto, who believes the
>current debate about the war in Iraq includes everyone but the people who
>matter the most.
>
>"We've heard many voices, we heard from some politicians, some activists and
>pundits. We haven't heard from the men and women who actually serve, and I
>think that's a constituency that has to be heard from," he said in a phone
>interview Oct. 23.
>
>His personal opinion is that troops should come home over a 12- to 18-month
>period, Hutto said. There are "thousands of men and women" who believe that
>it's time to end the war, he added.
>
>Although his new site, www.appealforredress.org, had received about 200
>names as of Oct. 26, Hutto expects to get far more as media attention grows.
>
>
>Hutto and others affiliated with the group have already appeared on cable
>news programs and in national newspaper articles. Hutto also was one of two
>active-duty service members who wrote opinion columns touting their campaign
>that were first published in the Oct. 29 issues of Marine Corps Times and
>Navy Times.
>
>The war in Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terrorism or homeland
>security, Hutto said. "There is not a natural connection between what's
>taking place in Iraq and what's taking place here," he said.
>
>On his group's Web site, troops are presented with a statement that the site
>says is "patriotic and respectful in tone." It reads:
>
>"As a patriotic American proud to serve the nation in uniform, I
>respectfully urge my political leaders in Congress to support the prompt
>withdrawal of all American military forces and bases from Iraq," the
>statement says. "Staying in Iraq will not work and is not worth the price.
>It is time for the U.S. troops to come home."
>
>If they agree, troops can fill in their names and click on a link to send
>the statement to Congress.
>
>Hutto's group is drawing detractors as well as supporters. The effort to
>bring troops home prematurely is "shortsighted, foolish and reckless," said
>Wade Zirkle, executive director of the Virginia-based Vets For Freedom.
>
>Zirkle is a former Marine lieutenant who left the Corps after he was injured
>by a car bomb.
>
>"I think it's shameful that a handful of service members have chosen to put
>political activism above their country," he said. "The U.S. military has a
>long tradition of being apolitical in times of war and peace. It's that
>tradition that separates the U.S. from military dictatorships like Nazi
>Germany."
>
>The Hutto group's push to bring the troops home comes less than two weeks
>before congressional elections Nov. 7 and at a time when debate on the war
>is raging. Most Americans now oppose the war, according to recent polls, and
>many Republicans as well as Democrats believe a new strategy in Iraq is
>badly needed.
>
>In making its case, the group cites a clause in the Military Whistleblower
>Protection Act, Defense Department Directive 7050.6, which affords troops
>the right to communicate with a member of Congress.
>
>If a service member runs into problems, the group advises him to get a
>lawyer. "If the command tries to retaliate against you for exercising your
>free speech rights, get some legal assistance," a statement on the site
>says.
>
>A Pentagon spokesman said the group has the right to speak.
>
>"The members of the armed forces are free to communicate with Congress in a
>lawful manner that doesn't violate the Uniform Code of Military Justice,"
>said Marine Maj. Stewart Upton. "Members of the armed forces who choose to
>speak to the press in their private capacity may do so, but must not do so
>in uniform, and must make clear they do not speak on behalf of their
>military unit, service or the Department of Defense, unless they are
>authorized to do so."
>
>But Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., a former Air Force Reserve judge who has
>raised his own concerns about the war, said vocal complaints by active-duty
>members represent a "disturbing trend" that threatens to erode military
>cohesiveness.
>
>"We've had a long tradition making sure the military doesn't engage in
>political debate," he said. "We don't need a Democratic army and a
>Republican army."
>
>Eugene Fidell, who teaches military justice at American University in
>Washington and often represents active-duty members in court cases, said
>Hutto and the others who are speaking out are in largely uncharted waters.
>
>The UCMJ states that service members can speak out but cannot attack the
>"war aims" of a particular effort, Fidell said.
>
>"My reading of this suggests that there is nothing here that attacks the war
>aims of the United States," he said.
>
>If the government did find a legal basis upon which to charge service
>members who sign the statement on the Web site, officials would then have to
>decide if it was worth the political and public-relations risk of going
>after service members opposed to the war - even if what they are doing
>ultimately is ruled illegal.
>
>"There's a lot of fuzziness in it," Fidell said. "The issue is, will the
>government want to make a bunch of martyrs here?"
>
>------------------------------------------------------
>
>Seeya at the polls, Moscow.
>
>Tom Hansen
>Moscow, Idaho
>
>***************************************************
>
>"Seldom, if ever, has a war ended leaving the victors with such a sense of
>uncertainty and fear -- with such a realization that the future is obscure
>and that survival is not assured."
>
>- Edward R. Murrow
>
>***************************************************
>
>
>
>
>=======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>=======================================================
>
>
>__________ NOD32 1.1845 (20061031) Information __________
>
>This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
>http://www.eset.com
>
>
>=======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet, 
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
>               http://www.fsr.net                       
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>=======================================================
>
>  
>