1,000 Active Duty Military Members

[Texsox]

ACTIVE-DUTY U.S. MILITARY MEMBERS SPEAK OUT AGAINST WAR ON '60 MINUTES'

Thu Feb 22 2007 15:21:11 ET

 

 

 

They say they are not disloyal. They say they are not shirking their duty and that they do not oppose war. But over 1,000 active-duty and reserve members of the U.S. military are against the war in Iraq and have said so in an unusually public way -- by petitioning Congress last month. Several of them appear to explain their actions in a Lara Logan report to be broadcast on 60 MINUTES Sunday Feb. 25 (7:00-8:00 PM, ET/PT) on the CBS Television Network.

 

"I'm not anti-war. I'm not a pacifist. I'm not opposed to protecting our country and defending our principles," says Navy Petty Officer Jonathan Hutto, an Iraq war veteran who, along with another veteran, initiated the petition. A 1995 law called the Military Whistleblower act enables military personnel to express their own opinions about Iraq in protected communication directly to Congress. Hutto and others spoke with 60 MINUTES while off duty, off base and out of uniform as conscientious citizens. "But at the same time, as citizens, it's our obligation to have a questioning attitude... about policy," Hutto tells Logan.

 

Marine Sgt. Liam Madden, who helped Hutto to found the organization they call Appeal for Redress that has attracted 1,000 other military members, is more blunt. "Just because we volunteered for the military doesn't mean we volunteered to put our lives in unnecessary harm and to carry out missions that are illogical and immoral."

 

These GIs and others Logan spoke with expressed frustration with their efforts in Iraq and believe there is no end in sight to the war. Other Iraqi war veterans still on duty there believe Appeal for Redress misses a larger point. "As an American soldier, I feel like we took an oath to obey the orders of our commander-in-chief and officers appointed over us," says Army Spec. James Smauldon. Said another serviceman in Iraq, Army Capt. Lawrence Nunn, "I know what IÕm here fighting for, to give the Iraqi people some democracy and hope, so I am 100 percent behind this mission. You don't sign up to pick which war you go to."

 

Another Appeal for Redress member counters, "Our leadership gets to choose the mission. Congress gets to choose the mission," Staff Sgt. Matt Nuckolls says. He's loyally committed to whatever Congress wants him to do but savors the right to question it. "My Congressman is Lacy Clay. I would like to tell him as a constituent of his, 'Is the mission in Iraq really what you want us to be doing?' And then [if] he responds yes, okay, well, we go back to Iraq and keep doing what we're doing."

 

Developing...

 

I wonder if one of these is Nuke!?

[mreye]

If Iraq's not already Vietnam the media will make sure it is by putting crap like this on during the war. Did we not learn anything?

[NorthSideSox72]

If Iraq's not already Vietnam the media will make sure it is by putting crap like this on during the war. Did we not learn anything?

Apparently we did. We're figuring out that this thing is a pointless quagmire a lot faster than we did in Vietnam.

 

My question to you is, what do you see in this war that has even the slightest indication that it can end well? There is no positive end game any longer. Unless the administration is willing to scale back and go the Kurdistan route, I see no path that leads to anything positive. Do you?

[Balta1701]

Apparently we did. We're figuring out that this thing is a pointless quagmire a lot faster than we did in Vietnam.

 

My question to you is, what do you see in this war that has even the slightest indication that it can end well? There is no positive end game any longer. Unless the administration is willing to scale back and go the Kurdistan route, I see no path that leads to anything positive. Do you?

Are you really sure we're figuring that out? We went heavy into Vietnam in 1965 with major combat troops, and by 1968, Nixon was already campaigning on "Peace with Honor". It took nearly 10 years to extricate ourselves from Johnson's mess, but within about 3 years of the beginning of what I would label as "Major U.S. combat operations", Johnson had already backed out, Nixon was pretending to be a peace candidate to get elected, and the American people were wanting an end. Yet in this case, we still have after 4 years, a significant fraction of the people running the country pretending that just by saying our goal is "victory" somehow that will magically become an option, and large chunks of the media waiting to pounce on the opposition as "Anti-troops" if they actually propose something that would scale back the conflict.

 

If anything, we're faster by about 1 year, but that's it; it took until about 1970 for the majority of the American people to admit that sending troops to Vietnam was a mistake, we got there in the Iraq debacle in about 4 years.

Edited February 23, 2007 by Balta1701

[Texsox]

If Iraq's not already Vietnam the media will make sure it is by putting crap like this on during the war. Did we not learn anything?

 

Exactly. We have to suspend freedom of speech when we are fighting a war. Never criticize the government. Damn hippy commies

[Balta1701]

Exactly. We have to suspend freedom of speech when we are fighting a war. Never criticize the government. Damn hippy commies

The White Sox would have won the world series last year if the media would just have shut up and not reported their losses. CLAP LOUDER!!!

[StrangeSox]

The only way to protect our liberties is to make sure we don't use any of them.

[Chet Lemon]

Stay until the job is done.

[Balance]

Stay until the job is done.

Define "the job."

[Texsox]

Stay until the job is done.

 

We're done, remember Dubya landing on the aircraft carrier Mission Accomplished!

[Rex Kickass]

Stay until the job is done.

 

Iraqi unemployment is high, can't we just outsource?

[kapkomet]

So the ONLY answer is to get the hell out, right?

[santo=dorf]

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Feb 23, 2007 -> 07:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So the ONLY answer is to get the hell out, right?

For some reason, this debate reminds me of the Simpsons episode with the cat burglar.

 

"How are we going to get ourselves out of this hole?"

"We'll dig our way out!"

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

"No, no, no. Dig UP, stupid!"

[Balta1701]

"No, no, no. Dig UP, stupid!"

I vote that it's Cheney who says that line, anyone else have an opinion?

[Texsox]

So the ONLY answer is to get the hell out, right?

 

Well there are TWO options

 

A. STAY forever

B. GET the hell OUT

 

Which one do you like? If you pick B, then you agree with about everyone here. The disagreement becomes when.

[Balta1701]

Well there are TWO options

 

A. STAY forever

B. GET the hell OUT

 

Which one do you like? If you pick B, then you agree with about everyone here. The disagreement becomes when.

I think the first option is more like "Stay until even more people agree we should get the Hell out".

[kapkomet]

Most of you think we need to leave now, at least if you listen to your own rhetoric.

[Texsox]

Most of you think we need to leave now, at least if you listen to your own rhetoric.

 

Once we removed all those WMD and the evil dictator, are next goal should be getting out.

 

Mission accomplished!

 

So, which is it? Stay forever or get out? What are we accomplishing by staying 5-10-15 years and is it worth Americans dying? We can't stop crime in our own backyards. How can we say finish the job, when we keep redefining what the job is?

 

WMD? Check

Regime change? Check

??

??

??

[mreye]

Exactly. We have to suspend freedom of speech when we are fighting a war. Never criticize the government. Damn hippy commies

 

You know that's not what I'm saying, Tex. Many POWs from Vietnam said the vast coverage of discontent here only emboldened the enemy. That's the road we're heading down again.

 

I don't know the answer. I just think cuttin and running at this time is not ideal.

[Texsox]

You know that's not what I'm saying, Tex. Many POWs from Vietnam said the vast coverage of discontent here only emboldened the enemy. That's the road we're heading down again.

 

I don't know the answer. I just think cuttin and running at this time is not ideal.

 

WMD? Gone

Regime Change? Done

 

Cutting and running? Mission Accomplished, Go Home!

[kapkomet]

You know that's not what I'm saying, Tex. Many POWs from Vietnam said the vast coverage of discontent here only emboldened the enemy. That's the road we're heading down again.

 

I don't know the answer. I just think cuttin and running at this time is not ideal.

Exactly.

[NorthSideSox72]

Well there are TWO options

 

A. STAY forever

B. GET the hell OUT

 

Which one do you like? If you pick B, then you agree with about everyone here. The disagreement becomes when.

I'll take...

 

C. Make it work where it CAN work. Pull everyone back into Kurdistan, let them set up their independent country like they want to. They are capable of it, they actually like having us there, it would solve the refugee problem in Turkey and Iran by giving them a place to come back to, its a smaller area to be concerned with, there is oil to provide income, we'd be close to the borders with Iran and Syria which can be better secured... its really the best possible solution at this point (its not PERFECT by any means, and there will be issues, but its a world better than the current scenario). Unfortunately, everyone wants to make this thing all or nothing.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Exactly. We have to suspend freedom of speech when we are fighting a war. Never criticize the government. Damn hippy commies

 

 

That's the problem though. As a soldier you do not have the right to publicly criticize the government's war policies. That's one thing you forfeit when you sign on that dotted line.

[Texsox]

That's the problem though. As a soldier you do not have the right to publicly criticize the government's war policies. That's one thing you forfeit when you sign on that dotted line.

 

I do see a difference in whistleblowing and policy differences. I agree that there the military could forbid public criticism from their employees.

 

I can't believe it makes the enemy fight harder knowing some people are against the war. I think dying might be more of an incentive.

[Balance]

You know that's not what I'm saying, Tex. Many POWs from Vietnam said the vast coverage of discontent here only emboldened the enemy. That's the road we're heading down again.

 

I don't know the answer. I just think cuttin and running at this time is not ideal.

That's just absurd. Absolutely absurd. How, exactly, did that go, now? Did these POWs have conversations with the average NVA or Viet Cong soldier and ask that soldier how media coverage in the US made them feel?

 

And then you go to the standard Republican stock phrase, "cut and run," which bears absolutely no relation to the facts. The use of that phrase implies that any withdrawal from Iraq, no matter how planned or phased, is called a retreat in defeat. It creates a false choice. It shows a complete lack of the ability to think critically. And it's about time that proponents of the war start using some logic instead of White House talking points.

 

As I asked before, what is the "job" we're there to do? What is the standard by which you will be satisfied that we've gotten the "job" done? Or is the plan to simply stay in Iraq indefinitely, wasting thousands of lives and billions of dollars as a crutch for the Bush administration?