Matthis Chiroux, a sergeant in the U.S. Army, is refusing to be deployed to Iraq, saying that the war is “illegal.”
“I stand before you today with the strength and clarity and resolve to declare to the military, my government and the world that this soldier will not be deploying to Iraq,” Chiroux said in the sun-filled rotunda of a congressional building in Washington.
“My decision is based on my desire to no longer continue violating my core values to support an illegal and unconstitutional occupation… I refuse to participate in the Iraq occupation,” he said, as a dozen veterans of the five-year-old Iraq war looked on.
Let’s examine Matt’s position. His refusal to deploy can be legally interpreted as desertion in the face of the enemy, for which the penalty is death. My knee-jerk reaction is to call this man a coward and dismiss him as the intellectual offspring of the hippie generation. I’m not sure if that works; it depends on his attitude toward the likelihood that he is arrested, tried, and convicted to the full extent of military law. If he is truly standing up for his beliefs, then he is most certainly not a coward. If he thinks there’s no way that the army will touch him because it will devolve into a PR disaster, then I’m back to my initial line of thought.
The army cannot afford to not prosecute. To do so invites mass desertion. It is a break in discipline that would affect the armed forces of our entire country. Whether they procecute to the fullest extent of the law is something else entirely, and likely dependent upon what the legal definitions and the precedents are. It is my sincere hope that Matt does receive the stiffest penalty the army can levy against him.
(I double-dog dare someone to seriously make the following response to the above: “If there is the potential for mass desertion in your army, then maybe the war isn’t worth fighting.” )
“Oh, Pete! You’re so heartless and cruel!” Wah, wah.
Look at it this way. What Matt is doing is tantamount to pissing on the grave of everyone who has made the commitment to fight for their country and died in the line of duty. His press junket is little short of a half-baked plea for attention. His personal sense of honor means nothing to him if he is willing to break his oath to his country. You could say that his moral compass “trumps” his oath to serve, but realistically, he should have realized when he originally joined the service that he could be called upon to fight for a cause that he was uncomfortable with.
The issue here isn’t the legality of the war. The issue here is that Matt has broken his word. In the structure in which he finds himself, there are penalities for this. This is not a mystery nor should it be a surprise to anyone who enlists in the armed services.
Furthermore, the article linked above is unapologetically slanted, using loaded words guaranteed to garner sympathy for this poor, misunderstood individual.
“I was from a poor, white family from the south, and I did badly in school,” the now 24-year-old told AFP.
The only way that gets any better is if he was black or Hispanic.
…worked his way up from private to sergeant.
He’s a regular Horatio Alger, huh?
Minutes earlier, Chiroux had cried openly as he listened to former comrades-in-arms testify before members of Congress about the failings of the Iraq war.
Sure, failings like roads, schools, clean water, electricity, increased security, ramping oil production. And the best part about it? Now it’s without a mass-murdering fuckhead in control!
Another soldier told AFP he had to boost his dosage of medication to treat anxiety and social agoraphobia — two of many lingering mental wounds he carries since his deployments in Iraq — before testifying.
It’s called a serotonin deficiency. A lot of people have them; they manifest in the mid to late twenties. Was this a result of combat? Remember he had to boost his medication. That strongly implies that he was on it before.
I have a friend who had been to Iraq twice. He is a member of the Texas National Guard who has seen a great deal of the landscape there. His honest reports, delivered over a campfire with a companionable drink, do not even come close to validating the whining of the men mentioned in the above article. My friend would have no reason to lie, and every reason to bare his soul with supportive friends if the above were reality.
How do the men and women in Matt’s unit feel about his desertion? Do they feel hurt or betrayed? Do they roll their eyes at him? Are they going to miss him on the line when they take fire? Is Matt’s lack of commitment going to result in his unit being deployed down a man? If that happens, is someone going to die because they’re short handed?
![Let’s Kill Hitler [HD]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51hESmStH-L._SL160_.jpg)
I have never understood “the war is illegal” rhetoric, but I will tell you that my personal honor supersedes commitments I’ve made that would force me into immoral actions. You claim that because of this, the soldiers personal honor means nothing to him. I would argue the contrary. Would you give your approval to the Nazi soldier that beats and murders jews just because he made a commitment to that army?
Are you comparing our liberation of Iraq to the Nazi occupation of eastern Europe and the internment of the Jews?
You were from a poor, white, southern family… Whooptee Friggin Doo… So was I, and I worked my way up from Private to Staff Sergeant in the USMC. This is a distraction technique moving the reader from “He is refusing to serve in an illegal war” to “I’ve been serving so far because my socio-economic conditions have forced my hand”.
You did badly in school… tough sh** soldier, suck it up and keep marching. Sounds like you failed to take school seriously while you were there. Lack of effort on your part does not foster sympathy on my part.
No matter what his supposed motivations for refusing to go (standing on moral grounds, fear, a plea for personal attention, etc.) he has made a public spectacle of himself… a spectacle that he has waited a few long years to make. Had he already served in Iraq and refused another deployment, I could let this go. But he has been serving for six years in Afghanistan, Germany, Japan, and the Philippines (the last three being cushy “skate” PCS assignments). Where was his indignation toward an illegal war while serving in these stations? Sounds like (to me) that his number (or his unit’s) came up in the rotation. Now, all of a sudden, after 6 years, he doesn’t want to serve… because now he’s slated to go. He was silent about the “illegal” war while he was safely noshing knackwurst and chugging a stein of beer in Frankfurt. It looks like cowardice to me.
If he had already done time in Iraq or had already been protesting Iraq I could understand. But that he lacks either, and this disobedience to orders is so very conveniently timed, I believe he should face punishment… at the very least he should spend the balance of his service commitment in Leavenworth.
Mr. Chris’ point is well taken, but the analogy doesn’t apply here. This soldier is refusing service on legal grounds, not moral. In addition, no one is asking him to support the slaughter of any race or any non-combatants. If the war is illegal, it was illegal when Saddam was in power. We are in Iraq at the request and invitation of the elected government of Iraq.
He was a f’n Army journalist! How REMF do you get? Yet he can’t serve in Iraq? little bitch…
I refuse to be a member of the human race because humans have caused the majority of death in the world… Its a pathetic argument. Being an American living in America supports the war effort to the same extent that being a journalist does in the Army… possibly more so.
Pathetic argument from a POS soldier.
I found myself getting more and more angry at the article when I first read it. I thought it would tug at my liberal heart strings, but as I kept reading, my rage continued to build.
Did you know that since the beginning of the Iraq war, no soldier who has deserted the army has served more than 18 months in jail? We’ve come a long way from the days when desertion meant treason and treason was punishable by death. The sad part is, is that with an all volunteer force, there would be no one signing up if you took everyone who got a case of cowards and put him in front of a firing squad.
I honestly think if America is to retain its global military might, we need to do what Israel does.
– Wikipedia
There is no excuse for breaking a promise to your country or to the men in your unit. You serve because it’s what you promised to do out of your own volition. Abandoning your unit or your flag is cowardice, no matter from which background you came.
Go have fun flipping burgers after your dishonorable discharge, asshole.
He was an Army journalist who deserted his post to keep from supporting the US war machine in Iraq and contributing to the photographing of hundreds..no…maybe even thousands of Iraqi people.
Maybe he is native American and he thinks he is stealing their souls with his magical soul stealing Konica Minolta SLR ™
What I like most about this pos is that he wasted no time breaking Army regulations by growing his hair out. Now all he needs is a tatoo on his face, and giant ear plates.
My response has little to do with the soldier in your post. Rather I’d like to address the idea:
“You could say that his moral compass ‘trumps’ his oath to serve, but realistically, he should have realized when he originally joined the service that he could be called upon to fight for a cause that he was uncomfortable with.”
Yes, our moral compass does trump any sort of oath we take. I use the holocaust because the issue of right/wrong is clearer. I hoped that through it you would understand that no oath excuses evil behavior, ever.
I agree with Chris in that no oath excuses evil behavior. However, I dispute his analogy of the Nazi soldier as a comparison to this incident of refusal to serve. I also repeat my claim that I believe this incident to have nothing to do with a moral or legal stance… and everything to do with an attempt to avoid a dangerous duty (fear).
Peer carefully into the oaths and code of conduct and show me any evil you find within…
Enlisted Oath: I (state your name) do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
Officer Oath: I (state your name) do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; That I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
6 Articles of the Code of Conduct:
ARTICLE I: I am an American, fighting in the forces which guard my country and our way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense.
ARTICLE II:I will never surrender of my own free will. If in command, I will never surrender the members of my command while they still have the means to resist.
ARTICLE III: If I am captured I will continue to resist by all means available. I will make every effort to escape and to aid others to escape. I will accept neither parole nor special favors from the enemy.
ARTICLE IV: If I become a prisoner of war, I will keep faith with my fellow prisoners. I will give no information nor take part in any action which might be harmful to my comrades. If I am senior, I will take command. If not, I will obey lawful orders of those appointed over me and will back them in every way.
ARTICLE V: When questioned, should I become a prisoner of war, I am required to give name, rank, service number, and date of birth. I will evade answering further questions to the utmost of my ability. I will make no oral or written statements disloyal to my country or its allies or harmful to their cause.
ARTICLE VI: I will never forget that I am an American, fighting for freedom, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free. I will trust in my God and in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
Let me preface my comment by saying that I served in the volunteer Air Force for four years, and am proud of that service. Dez @9 spells out the oath I took as an enlisted man, and that is also taken by members of the Reserve. Members of the National Guard take a slightly different oath “I, (state your name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the State of (name of state) against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the Governor of (name of state) and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to law and regulations.” And that oath is the key to this whole discussion.
Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Articles 90 and 91 make it a crime for a military member to willfully disobey the commands of a superior officer, NCO, or Warrant Officer, while Article 92 makes it a crime to disobey any lawful order – the disobedience does not have to be “willful” under this article. But the key to all this is that the orders must be “lawful.” An order which is unlawful not only does not need to be obeyed, but obeying such an order can result in criminal prosecution of the one who obeys it. Military courts have long held that military members are accountable for their actions even while following orders if the order was illegal. A good example is United States v. Keenan. In that case, the accused (Keenan) was found guilty of murder after he obeyed an order to shoot and kill an elderly Vietnamese citizen. The Court of Military Appeals held that “the justification for acts done pursuant to orders does not exist if the order was of such a nature that a man of ordinary sense and understanding would know it to be illegal.”
So the question is whether or not the order to deploy to Iraq is a legal order. If the prosecution of the war in Iraq is not legal, then the order to deploy would not be legal and Chiroux has a legal duty to disobey that order – that is part and parcel of the oath he took, and in disobeying an illegal order he would be keeping his oath.
During the War with France, Congress passed a law making it permissible to seize ships bound to any French Port. However, when President John Adams wrote the order to authorize the U.S. Navy to do so, he wrote that Navy ships were not only authorized to seize any vessel bound for a French port, but added traveling from a French port. Pursuant to the President’s instructions, a U.S. Navy captain seized the Danish Ship the Flying Fish, which was en route from a French Port. The owners of the ship sued the Navy captain in U.S. maritime court for trespass. They won, and the United States Supreme Court upheld the decision. The U.S. Supreme Court held that Navy commanders “act at their own peril” when obeying presidential orders when such orders are illegal.
If this goes to court, and I agree that the army can’t afford not to prosecute, then I would expect the affirmative defense that the war is unconstitutional, and therefore Chiroux’s refusal to deploy is a legal action under the UCMJ. Whether or not the war is illegal is a matter of debate (I have my own opinion, but in this case, my opinion doesn’t matter), but there are plenty of legal and constitutional experts who argue that it is illegal, and it’s a question that hasn’t been addressed yet by the courts.
Military personnel disobey orders at their own risk, but they also obey orders at their own risk.
Kate, I respectfully disagree with you concerning the US following the example of Isreal. As I stated at the beginning of this comment, I am a veteran of the all-volunteer Air Force, and proud of that fact. Let me add that a number of family members have served in the military, two in Iraq, and I have a friend that’s done two tours in Iraq. I am proud of them all. But my view can best be summed up by the following exerpt from a speech given by Robert Heinlein at the XIXth World Science Fiction Convention in 1961:
“I also think there are prices too high to pay to save the United States. Conscription is one of them. Conscription is slavery, and I don’t think that any people or nation has a right to save itself at the price of slavery for anyone, no matter what name it is called. We have had the draft for twenty years now; I think this is shameful. If a country can’t save itself through the volunteer service of its own free people, then I say: Let the damned thing go down the drain!”
@ Mr Chris, #8:
I knew exactly what you were referring to. In a bit of intellectual chicanery, I was asking if you thought our involvement in Iraq, in which we have unquestionably liberated its people from a tyrant, is equivalent.
To answer your question, I do indeed think that there are times and places in which evil behavior serves a greater good…and in those circumstances, orders which could be construed as evil should be followed. I offer the fire bombing of Dresden and Tokyo near the conclusion of WWII as the prime examples of this. The allies bombed each of those cities indiscriminately, not distinguishing between civilian and military targets. Why? Because doing so hastened the end of the war and preserved the lives of our soldiers. When we followed this with two atomic bombs on Japan, it was for the same reason. Are those acts evil? I think very few of us would debate that they were evil. But it was a necessary evil, and one in which this country has atoned for by playing global policeman for the past seventy years.
Let’s give this a little bit of a modern spin, shall we? If our enemies in Afghanistan hide behind women and children, should we disengage? Should we disengage knowing that if we do, each of those “combatants” owns a bullet that could kill our sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, fathers, and mothers? At this point, we’re dealing with the simple arithmetic of survival. We’re not talking about the war in Iraq (legal or illegal), we’re talking about the country that provided refuge for the mass murdering fuckheads who rammed a plane into the World Trade Center. Should we disengage? Or should we destroy both the combatants and the culture/support system that produced them root and branch? The latter is unquestionably evil, yet I cannot imagine a universe in which I wouldn’t make that same choice. It might not bring back those that were killed, but it would go a long way to ensure that my less than two year old son won’t have to face that when he’s of age.
I’m willing to pay the price for my own sins so that my own children don’t have to. This is the spirit of those who flew the Enola Gay, and that’s what keeps this country safe.
I agree in part with Vince… disobeying an illegal order is the obligation of any service man. However, that a serviceman disobeys an illegal order does not remove him from his oath and obligation to serve. If my platoon Sergeant orders me to kill a non-combatant (murder on one hand, and a violation of the rules of engagement on the other), I am obligated to refuse the order and attempt to halt anyone else from following that order. However, I am not going to receive a “Get Out of the Corps Free” card and return to civilian life. I still have a deployment, a tour, and a contract to complete before I get to return to civilian life.
What illegal order has Chiroux been given? (There is no such order) Has he been asked to do anything illegal through his impending deployment? (NO) Deployment is the expectation of every serviceman even before taking the oath. To join any branch of service with the desire to never be deployed is a fool’s hope… especially when one joins in time of war (which he did). The President has ordered and the Congress consented, by law, to his (and his unit’s) deployment and to our involvement in Iraq (respectively). Remember, as I noted above, we are in Iraq at the request and approval of the elected Iraqi government. Once the provisional government came to power, their constitution was ratified, and their duly elected representative government requested our aid, we ceased to be at war with Iraq (Saddam Hussein’s Baathist government) and became the ally of Iraq. Illegality of the war is moot, if it ever was illegal, because the government that could make such a charge against the US does not exist. Whether the war is illegal or not is also moot concerning his orders (which are not illegal). They are separate issues.
The timing and public display of Chiroux’s protest leaves little hope that he is motivated out of a sense of legality or morality. Where were his protests prior to his deployment orders? He’s been silent concerning Iraq for 5 years. He’s had 3 cushy PCS tours in the past 4-5 years and has said nothing… until his rotation came up. Kate also brings up an important consideration… this is a volunteer force. We have no draft and Chiroux was not conscripted. (I realize that Vince’s quotation of Heinlein was in response to Kate’s suggestion that we follow Israel’s example.) He willingly signed on the dotted line… willingly took his oath.
The whole war in Iraq is illegal, and this guy is just standing up for what he believes in.
And yes, Pete, I’ll take the bait. Bush is little better than Hitler or Stalin, and his foreign policy has damaged our nation’s credibility for the foreseeable future. Wanna know why? Let’s talk about Eastern European torture centers, where the Czech Republic sold their soul to get into the EU and NATO. Let’s talk about Guantanamo Bay where prisoners are being held off of US soil without due process. There is TORTURE happening there, and yet we turn a blind eye to it. Let’s talk about Abu Gharib and the abuse of prisoners there. Let’s talk about Dick Cheney’s goon squad, i.e. the military contractors who are authorized to use deadly force for security missions in Iraq. We’re using MERCENARIES to kill CIVILIANS. How fucked up is that? We’re no better. In fact, we’re worse because we hide behind terms like “liberation” and “democracy” and “self-determination.” We play the same games for the same stakes using the same methods that Hitler and Stalin did.
I think the soldiers should take their example from Matt Chiroux. If we all banded together, then the world wouldn’t be the ugly place that it is. You can’t fight a war if no one is willing to pull a trigger.
I just want to distance myself a bit from Nina here.
I’ve learned a great deal from your comments regarding the oaths and laws that dictate when a soldier is permitted to dismiss an order. I understand the importance of unified obedience to coordinate large groups of people. I understand how wartime effects what is morally acceptable in the eyes of God. I also feel that anyone that disobeys (right or wrong) should be prepared endure the consequences.
Wow Nina! Thats good, very impressed!
I rate that a 9.4 on the BFTM. (Blog and Forum Troll Meter)
I deducted .6 because you omitted reference to the real reason we “invaded” Iraq… Oil.
Is Nina Arthur Chamberlain reborn?