Ledger

In the Jan. 24 edition of The Ledger, Nick Przybyciel’s article "Decisions, Decisions: When Morality gets in the Way of War" stood out as a very poignant piece of writing. His honest introspection was a refreshing change from the often polarized and dogmatic opinion pieces that seem to fill so many publications these days.

As another student who is a member of the Armed Forces, my own "crisis of conscience" isn’t very different from the one Nick described. Like Nick, I too have had to resolve my conflicted sense of duty, honor, and integrity with my strong disappointment in our current administration’s policies regarding Iraq and the rest of the world.

I am also among those who feel that we shouldn’t have invaded, and that the way our government went about handling both the buildup for and the execution of "Operation Iraqi Freedom" was at best questionable and at worst reprehensible. I was ordered to deploy in February 2003, and I spent the better part of that year alternating between force protection missions in Kuwait and securing oil platforms off the southern coast of Iraq. Having been there and continuing to serve right up until the present day, I still wrestle with questions such as "Am I part of the problem"? Am I facilitating what I am against"? "What should I be doing differently"?

This inner discontent has become particularly problematic in recent weeks in the wake of the Daniel Ellsberg presentation and with the start of Lt. Ehren Watada’s court martial. I greatly admire both of these men for standing by their principles, even in the face of adversity. Their willingness to stand up for what they believe is right can serve to inspire others to at least revisit and examine issues that either didn’t interest them or are taken for granted.

Like Nick, I also feel a deep bond of love and loyalty for my fellow service men-and-women, even though I don’t agree with the war in Iraq. We all took the same oath to protect and defend the constitution and to obey the lawful orders of those appointed over us.

We did so with the understanding that, in volunteering to fill our positions, we became a part of our government that does not set national policy. If the military were allowed to decide when and where it would go to war, free from civilian oversight and direction, the system of checks and balances laid out in our Constitution would be circumvented. This is why the executive and legislative branches of our government are outside of the military and why the military’s only role is to carry out the policies enacted by our civil government. We also understood that, by volunteering for service, we became part of an organization in which certain civil liberties for its individuals are curtailed.

Among these is that we no longer get to choose which battles we will fight and which ones we won’t. Lt. Watada said in his June 22, 2006 speech to the Veterans for Peace National convention that, "to stop an illegal and unjust war, the soldiers can choose to stop fighting it."

The problem that I have with this line of thinking is twofold. First, if soldiers can choose to stop fighting, what they feel is an unjust and illegal war, then do they also have the choice to start fighting what they feel is a just and legal war? Do they have this choice even if Congress and the President have decided not to go to war?

Second, if a soldier chooses not to fight, are they then free from the consequences that such a choice entails if they are morally opposed to the war? Lt. Watada maintains that he has broken no laws because his orders to deploy to an "illegal" war constitute an illegal order.

After a lot of soul searching, I have come to realize that there are no quick, clean or easy answers to the questions posed in the previous paragraphs. I continue to wrestle with these issues and will continue to do so, even though I’m fairly certain there won’t ever be answers that are completely satisfactory.

I do know I have accepted a position of trust in the eyes of the American people. They trust me to answer up when called to do the job they have entrusted me to do, and to conduct myself in a way that is above reproach in the execution of my duties.

All of us who put on a uniform and go into harm’s way don’t always understand, agree with or even like some of the jobs we are called on to do. We also know right from wrong and even though some of the policies that put us in harm’s way may be questionable, each of us as an individual chooses the manner in which we will conduct ourselves. We further understand that we will have to answer to both ourselves as well as to those who entrust us with their well being, for those choices we make.

I wish Lt. Watada the best of luck. I also wish Mr. Przybyciel all the best, wherever life leads him. If called upon to deploy, I will do so, and I don’t think it will make me any less, or any more principled than the afore-mentioned gentlemen.

I am proud to call them both my brothers-in-arms and I thank them both for providing diverse viewpoints to aid me in my own introspection.