pudge's Journal: Nation's Top Marine, Nation's Bottom Army Officer

Local news said today that "the nation's top marine" spoke out today about the Haditha incident. I assumed the newsdweeb meant General Peter Pace, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (the first Marine to hold the position). But he meant General Michael Hagee, the commandant of the Corps.

General Hagee is one of the Joint Chiefs, but General Pace is the Chairman of Joint Chiefs. I am not sure which one is "top." Maybe Hagee is, since he is in direct command of the Corps, even though he reports to Pace?

Oh, and speaking of military, there was also a big local hubbub today about Lt. Ehren Watada, who is objecting to the war and refusing to serve because the war is "illegal."

Three points to make: first, he's wrong, the war is in no way illegal. Second, even if it were, that's not your business, that's the business of the civilian leadership. Third, why is your flag backwards? When hanging vertically against a wall, the field of blue stays in the top left, just as when hung horizontally. Even I know that, and I am not an officer in the Army. It was not only backward here in the picture and video on his web site, but also in the press conference today.

I don't know why this is such a big deal. The story is no more interesting than what I posted above: even if he is right, which he isn't, he is refusing to follow orders, and he will be court-martialed and jailed for it, and life will go one for everyone else.

Neither are in the operational chain of command

[RevMike]

Most people probably don't realize this, but the service chiefs are not in the operational chain of command. They are responsible for training, acquiring equipment, developing doctrine, things of that nature. The actual chain of command starts with the President, then the Sec. of Defense, then the chiefs of the unified theatre commands.

The army general in charge of Central Command, for instance, is directly in command of all military forces in the Middle East, be they Army, Marine, Air Force, Navy, or e

Re:Neither are in the operational chain of command

[pudge]

No, I do realize that, esp. in Pace's case. His job is to coordinate among the chiefs, who coordinate the entire branch of the military, but do not have *operational* command. Still doesn't answer the question though. :)

War is Peace; Peace through Strength;

[Dark Coder]

If the lone solider thought war was illegal, why in the hell did this coward sign up for a strong possibility of serving in the front line in the FIRST place?

What people don't realize is that to keep American free, we have a class of willing people. A certain specialized class of trained mind which should have taken in all the axioms of military codes taken or be doctrined from a long history (or should I say from strong civilization) ranging from Darwinism, Sun-Tsu, Machivelli, and many other military and

Re:War is Peace; Peace through Strength;

[FortKnox]

Well said. You took my rage and said what I would have said in a much more tactful manner.

I always get aggrivated when people join the military just to help pay for their family. You better know what you are getting into when you swear in...

Re:War is Peace; Peace through Strength;

[pudge]

If the lone solider thought war was illegal, why in the hell did this coward sign up for a strong possibility of serving in the front line in the FIRST place?

It's worse than you may think: he did not enlist until 2003, when we all knew the war was going to happen. He did not join boot camp until June 2003, and did not get accept his commission until December 2003. That he did not accept his commission until 9 months into the war makes me think he was planning all along to stage this whole thing; why else

Orders

[Red Warrior]

Three points to make: first, he's wrong, the war is in no way illegal. Second, even if it were, that's not your business, that's the business of the civilian leadership.

Gotta disagree with you here on your second point.
It is his business, and the business of every soldier.
There is no obligation to obey an illegal or immoral[1] order.
In fact, there is an affirmative obligation to disobey (after having tried to get it amended) an illegal or immoral[1] order.
Failure to do so is a direct violation of the UCMJ[2

Re:Orders

[pudge]

Gotta disagree with you here on your second point.
It is his business, and the business of every soldier.
There is no obligation to obey an illegal or immoral[1] order.
In fact, there is an affirmative obligation to disobey (after having tried to get it amended) an illegal or immoral[1] order.
Failure to do so is a direct violation of the UCMJ[2] and punishable.

There's a difference between an illegal order, and the notion of this being an illegal war. I fully agree with you (how could I not?) that they should

Re:Orders

[Red Warrior]

There's a difference between an illegal order, and the notion of this being an illegal war....Even assuming the war is illegal -- just pretending here -- the orders themselves violate no laws.

IF (this_war = illegal) THEN
orders_to_participate = illegal
END IF

Following an order to participate in (theoretically speaking here) an illegal enterprise would be following and illegal order.

Of course, that is merely theory, as the facts in this case don't match the theory being advanced (as it is a legal war). As you

Re:Orders

[pudge]

Following an order to participate in (theoretically speaking here) an illegal enterprise would be following and illegal order.

I understand. I do, however, disagree, pending information that makes me agree.

I don't know if a claim of mutiny could be made to legally stick (as he is not trying to wrest control of anything

Isn't he? He is actively encouraging officers to wrest control of the military from the civilian government by refusing to follow orders.

Re:Orders

[Red Warrior]

As a follow-up on the mutiny and sedition thing, the issue in this case (in addition to the "wresting control" thing) would be confederates.

So, if he has been "acting in concert with" others, one or both might be made to stick.

Relevant UCMJ Article
----
ART. 94. MUTINY OR SEDITION
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who--

(1) with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, refuses, in concert with any other person, to obey orders or otherwise do his duty or creates any violence or disturbance is