"Hero"? Only for the lefty anti-war nutcases

Via Army Times:

In one of the first known cases of its kind, an Army officer from Honolulu is expected to refuse to go to Iraq this month with his unit, citing what he calls the "illegal" and "immoral" basis of the war, his father confirmed.

The officer, 1st Lt. Ehren K. Watada, 28, son of former state campaign spending commission executive director Bob Watada, is believed to be one of the first military officers to publicly take steps to refuse his deployment orders.

"My son has a great deal of courage, and clearly understands what is right, and what is wrong," Bob Watada said yesterday. "He's choosing to do the right thing, which is a hard course."

No. He is NOT "doing the right thing." Our military is entirely a volunteer force, and your son, sir, has had ample time to reconsider his choice of a career in the Army. He did not have to enter Officer Candidate School, he did not have to raise his hand and swear to protect the United States of America and the Constitution "against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

Apparently, Lt. Watada attempted to resign his commission in January, and was refused - gee, why am I not surprised? This young man signed up for military life after the war had started, and now he's got cold feet.

Well, boo-bloody-hoo-hoo-hoo!

I hope the Army brings him up on charges, breaks him down to buck private, and sentences him to several years at hard labor. Certainly they can't send him to Iraq now: he'd be terrible for the troops' morale, and probably a prime candidate to be "Uriah'd." Of course, Uriah was an honorable man, dedicated to doing his duty and honoring his king. Obviously, Watada does not fit this mould.

Robert Arakaki, the 83-year-old president of the 100th Infantry Battalion Veterans group, who saw combat in Italy in 1945, yesterday said Watada "owes the country a lot."

There "should be some kind of good explanation" for why Watada wants out, he said, and Arakaki takes issue with claims of an immoral and illegal war.

"Who determines what is legal or illegal? Him or our government? Not him," Arakaki said.

Retired Navy Cmdr. Jack Miller, past president of the Hawaii chapter of the Military Officers Association of America, said "there's always been the problem of following orders. This time is no different."

"Being a Vietnam veteran, we went through this," said Miller, 72. "The rest of the load had to be shared by those willing to follow orders and serve their country."

Dependable, loyal officers are needed, and "if one doesn't fit that qualification, a bad apple will contaminate the barrel. He (Watada) should be punished in some way," Miller said. "You don't want someone over there in Iraq who's not going to willingly follow orders. That's dangerous."

This... person... is a smear upon the honor and valor of our Armed Forces, and his actions are a slap in the face to our active duty servicemembers and our veterans.

I hope they throw the book at him.

UPDATE: John of Argghhh! chimes in brilliantly: (make sure you read the whole thing)

Note that it doesn't say "I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter if and when I agree with what I've been asked to do."

There is, in fact, no provision for that anywhere, especially when the legal obligation to serve is a minimum of 8 years of service whether all on active duty, in the reserve, or a combination of the two. Something you know when you sign that document and stand there proudly swearing the oath.

The only way out is for the convenience of the government. Sometimes easily granted, sometimes not. Sometimes forced upon you, for performance problems, sometimes granted you because you ask, via a resignation. But for those first eight years, it is *always* at the convenience of the government.

UPDATE, again: Of course, I knew Emperor Misha would tear this idiot a new one, but Misha surpasses His usual awesome snark and just lets it rip:

Yep, he's a study in courage, alright.

You signed the contract, you disgusting waste of skin, you stayed on long after this "illegal" war started, yet somehow we're supposed to believe that it's a coincidence that your sudden pang of conscience happened to coincide with your order to deploy?

Don't make the mistake of thinking that everybody is as dimwitted as your new "friends" in the pro-terrorist movement.

(And that's the nice part... )

Others blogging: Wizbang!, Stop the ACLU, Michelle Malkin, Euphoric Reality

Technorati Tags: LT Watada, Iraq, illegal war, refuse deployment, Fort Lewis