From Baghdad to the Brig: A Reluctant Hero for Our Times
“We still have a choice today: nonviolent coexistence or violent co-annihilation … If we do not act, we shall surely be dragged down the long, dark and shameful corridors of time reserved for those who possess power without compassion, might without morality, and strength without sight.” - Martin Luther King, Jr., 1967
Agustín Aguayo might not be a household name, but his struggle pierces the core of the US anti-war movement.
Aguayo, a 35-year-old Mexican-American from Los Angeles, joined the Army in 2003 yet soon realized he couldn’t take part in violence. He applied for conscientious objector (CO) status in February 2004 but was sent to Iraq anyway, where he refused to load his weapon even while on guard duty and patrols.
In an exclusive interview this week, Aguayo explained: “I was determined that I would not hurt/injure others in any way, no matter what the consequences.” He added, “I actually believe that this action of not loading my weapon kept me sane. It brought me great sadness to know some soldiers I knew had shot at people, and some soldiers I knew were hurt by the actions of others. It was so absurd.”
The Army rejected Aguayo’s bid for CO discharge during his year in Iraq, so he filed a habeas corpus after returning to a base in Germany, stating: “My conscientious objection applies to all forms and aspects of the war. An Officer once explained to me how in his view the Army was like a huge machine made of many parts that all work together to achieve the desired outcome. I know this is true. If the desired outcome is killing, I cannot be part of the ‘machine.’
Aguayo said he still carried guilt from his 2004-2005 deployment, where he was expected to “patch-up, treat and help countless soldiers for ‘sick call’ in order to facilitate their prompt return to combatant duties.” He maintains, “I helped them get physically better and be able to go out and do the very thing I am against – kill. This is something my conscience will not allow me to do.”
The habeas corpus was denied in August 2006, and a week later, Aguayo was ordered back to Iraq.
Risking court martial and imprisonment, Aguayo went AWOL (absent without leave) on Sept. 1, 2006, surrendering to Military Police the next day. Rather than facing legal action, however, Aguayo was told he would be sent to Iraq even if it meant carrying him on the plane forcibly.
That’s when Aguayo fled to California. But less than a month later, he once again turned himself in, stating, “I have come to believe that it is wrong to destroy life, that it is wrong to use war, that it is immoral, and I can no longer go down that path.”
Aguayo was promptly sent back to Germany and thrown in the brig.
The saga of Agustín Aguayo has critical and wide-reaching implications. His change of heart regarding military service is mirrored in a growing anti-war sentiment across the US. And his legal woes set a precedent for other troops facing similar conflicts about deployment.
As Aguayo’s wife Helga observed after his court martial, “Fear is what motivates the Army. Fear was the prosecution’s recurring theme. I know they fear others will follow.”
In early March 2007, Aguayo was convicted of desertion and missing movement. He was reduced to the lowest rank possible, stripped of pay and benefits and sentenced to eight months.
With good conduct time, Aguayo was released last week, but he’s still not free. According to Helga, who has tirelessly defended “Augie” during his ordeal: “He’s under the custody of his rear-detachment unit in Germany, the same people that threatened using handcuffs and shackles to take him by force onto the plane. The same people that told me in front of our daughters that he could be put to death because he was a deserter. The circumstances are not ideal, to say the least.”
She adds, “We still do not know when they will release him under administrative, voluntary, or involuntary leave. We have to wait to see if the Commanding General will approve it, and even if it is approved he will still be in the military for the next 12-24 months active duty. Essentially, he is still property of the Army and since he is still in the Army, he has to obey Army Regulations. During this time he could potentially be charged with anything else and I always fear they will try to redeploy him to Iraq.”
As for Aguayo, he has no regrets. He looks back on his imprisonment as “a special time of reflection” and believes that in refusing to redeploy to Iraq, “I was finally true to myself.”
Aguayo insists, “It would have been devastating for me to go against my conscience. There comes a moment in one’s life when one realizes which are the morals one will do anything for, and nothing can change after this experience. We all have a conscience, it is part of what makes us human, its a beautiful gift. Unfortunately, over time we don’t listen to this inner voice, we abuse it and we lose our humanity.”
From Baghdad to the brig, Agustín Aguayo has been a powerful symbol for the anti-war movement. His three-year fight against the war “machine” is a lesson for us all.
Action ideas:
1. Read more about the Agustín Aguayo’s case, contribute to his Political and Legal Defense Fund or sponsor/coordinate a stop in your city for Agustín’s Victory Tour at www.aguayodefense.org. Also check out the great links.
2. Write Agustín a letter of support at aguayodefense@aol.com.
3. Learn more about early discharge possibilities at thewww.getting-out.de/”
4. Read more about Agustín and other war resisters at www.couragetoresist.org
Watch Heather talk about “The Bush Years: Damage Done and Lessons Learned”
Heather can be reached at www.heatherwokusch.com
A man who stands by his convictions no matter the conseqences. I admire that. hang in there augie. Don’t let the bastards grind ya down.
Agustín Aguayo, a man of immense moral courage and moral imagination. What is it about him that he did not fall for all the enemy formation, the lies, the propaganda, the depersonalization of The Other, The Enemy, The Different Ones?
If anybody ever doubted the comparison between military service and slavery this should certainly be mandatory reading for them. Now where is our modern day Nat Turner to once and for all speak in the language that tyrants truly understand?
Many of history’s notables spent time in prison. While not advocating it, there’s little question that for great souls, such a sojourn leads them into a stronger commmitment to their mission. Nelson Mandella is an example.
It seems to me that the mantra “support the troops” is a very difficult one for law-abiding people. When the American troops following orders from their superiors illegally invaded Iraq, not only are the leaders and superiors guilty of war crimes, but those following orders as well. *
It therefore seems that when we support people committing war crimes, we make ourselves accomplices to these crimes.
We must therefore support soldiers, who redeploy to America.
* Nuremberg Trials
While not an American, we have troops in Afghanistan, another of the unwinnable “wars” created by the West. I have a very firm conviction that “support the troops” means: bring them home and out of imperialistic actions. Neither peace nor democracy has been won through violence against civilians. Terrorism has been part of human civilizations for a long time. It is the weapon of those who have no other means to make a statement, the disempowered. If true and reasonable diplomacy (not at the end of a weapon of destruction nor threats of military action)were the means that our governments were to employ, I would be willing to believe that “terrorism” would subside substantially and that more egalitarian societies would naturally evolve.
It would be better that way than to devolve societies such as ours that were on their way to becoming egalitarian. No wonder developing nations have no interest in mimicking our “democracies” in the West. We are becoming less democratic by the day.
I support Aguayo and his family in his fight for justice against the purveyors of militarism.
This is the kind of stand that will eventually bring the occupation out of Iraq. There should be thousands , no millions of letters of affirmation from all across America . It is even more commendable to Aguayo and the psaltry eight supporters when juxtaposed with millions of Americans who don’t know because because they choose not to and too lazy to care if they did know.
I try to separate the soldiers from the crimes committed by their government but I find it difficult. When I hear US in Iraq I hear SS in Warsaw.
It takes a lot more gut to say no than to follow orders but the punishment is not as bad as the ordeal that awaits in war.
Cult of the Warrior
for Erin Watada, Jonathan Hutto, Jose Vasquez and the many dissenting soldiers
A palpable silence of reverence where “soldier”
is synonymous with hero revered.
Where service in battle is holy and
mysterious dark foreigners feared.
We venerate our soldiers’ presence on the always far
front and with heads bowed in adoration try
to show off our symbols of public support –
as long as they shut up and die.
Al Markowitz
from the Blue Collar Review
Note that Aguayo is a Mexican-American. Those who think Latino immigration is harming our country should take a look at the rosters of our units in Iraq, and the long lists of the dead - there are plenty of hispanics among them.
My favorite juxtaposition of anti-immigrant thinking is the Alamo, the Texas shrine to a an old but never forgotten war against Mexico and a rallying symbol for many in the anti-immigration movement in Texas and elsewhere. At this holiest of jingoist shrines, a small crew of quiet old men lovinging sweep the sidewalks, tend the gardens, and pick up the cigarette butts. Loyal Texans, defenders of democracy? No, just some Mexicans and Mexican-Americans doing a job that, according to popular theory, Americans won’t do. Their presense at the seat of Texan independence speaks more to democracy than all the troops in Iraq.
The real beef the US expatriates had against Mexican government is that slavery was illegal. Thus, the Alamo is a pro-slavery shrine.
Aguayo is in the brig due to disloyalty to the US Army. However, the US Army is not loyal to the US nation; it is loyal to the President and itself. When the President commits treason, the US military says “Yes, Sir” and carries it out.