Generals Opposing Iraq War Break with Military Tradition
The generals acted independently, coming in their own ways to the agonizing decision to defy military tradition and publicly criticize the Bush administration over its conduct of the war in Iraq.
What might be called The Revolt of the Generals has rarely happened in the nation’s history.
In op-ed pieces, interviews and TV ads, more than 20 retired U.S. generals have broken ranks with the culture of salute and keep it in the family. Instead, they are criticizing the commander in chief and other top civilian leaders who led the nation into what the generals believe is a misbegotten and tragic war.
The active-duty generals followed procedure, sending reports up the chain of command. The retired generals beseeched old friends in powerful positions to use their influence to bring about a change.
When their warnings were ignored, some came to believe it was their patriotic duty to speak out, even if it meant terminating their careers.
It was a decision none of the men approached cavalierly. Most were political conservatives who had voted for George W. Bush and initially favored his appointment of Donald Rumsfeld as defense secretary.
But they felt betrayed by Bush and his advisers.
“The ethos is: Give your advice to those in a position to make changes, not the media,” said Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, now retired. “But this administration is immune to good advice.”
Eaton has two sons serving in Afghanistan and Iraq; his father, an Air Force pilot, was shot down and killed over Laos in 1969. He said his frustration began festering in 2003, when he was assigned to build the Iraqi army from scratch. His internal requests for more equipment and properly trained instructors went unheeded, he said.
While on active duty, Eaton did not criticize his civilian bosses - almost to a man, the generals agree active-duty officers have no business doing that. But he was candid in media interviews. Building an Iraqi army, he warned, would take years, and the effort might never succeed.
In 2004, he was replaced by Gen. David Petraeus - now the military commander in Iraq - and reassigned stateside. Sensing his once-promising Army career had foundered, Eaton retired Jan. 1, 2006.
Two months later, on the third anniversary of the U.S. invasion, Eaton criticized the administration in an opinion piece in The New York Times.
“I didn’t think my op-ed would be a big deal,” he said. “It certainly turned out to be otherwise.”
Eaton said he wrote the piece because he believed that three pillars of our democratic system had failed:
- The Bush administration ignored alarms raised by him and other commanders on the ground;
- the Republican-controlled Congress had failed to exercise oversight;
- and the media had abdicated its watchdog role.
“As we look back, it appears that without realizing it, we were reacting to a constitutional crisis,” Eaton said in a recent interview.
Some of Eaton’s colleagues, both active and retired, endorsed his decision to speak out. Others thought he had stepped out of bounds. He became persona non grata with ethics instructors at the U.S. Military Academy, his alma mater.
Eaton said he has no regrets.
Maj. Gen. John Batiste, former commander of the First Infantry Division in Iraq, chronicled his painful journey from stalwart soldier to outspoken critic in a post on the political Web site Think Progress this month.
Once heralded by many military observers as headed for appointment to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Batiste began his journey of introspection after he retired with two stars in 2005.
The self-described arch-conservative and lifelong Republican made the “gut-wrenching” decision to end his 31-year military career in order to “speak out on behalf of soldiers and their families.”
“I had a moral obligation and a duty to do so,” Batiste wrote. “I have been speaking out for the past 17 months and there is no turning back.”
Code of silence
It is rare in U.S. history for even retired generals to step outside the chain of command and criticize the nation’s civilian leaders.
That was true even at the time of the unpopular Vietnam War.
Andrew Bacevich, a professor of history and international relations at Boston University, said several generals who served in Vietnam now regret they didn’t go public when it might have done the nation some good.
“That has encouraged generals today to voice their unhappiness,” Bacevich said.
“But that war was brief, it seemed to go very well and the generals’ comments were almost uniformly positive,” he said. “This war is very long, it has not gone well and that’s a main reason we’re hearing the voices we’re hearing.”
For retired Brig. Gen. John Johns, the decision to finally stand up against the administration was a deeply personal one.
“My wife lost her first husband in Vietnam,” said Johns, who taught leadership and ethics at West Point.
“To learn later that President Lyndon Johnson and (then-Secretary of Defense) Robert McNamara knew as early as 1965 that we could not win there, that hurts her deeply to this day.”
Six months before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Johns, who retired in 1978, agonized over whether to go public with a paper calling the impending war “one of the great blunders of history.”
He sent it to retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni and to Pete McCloskey, the moderate-Republican former congressman from California who had opposed the Vietnam War.
“At that time, they did not want to go public,” Johns said.
Zinni has since become one of the most war’s most vociferous critics, and McClosky now calls for bringing the troops home.
“And I was not convinced that the invasion would not be stopped internally,” Johns said. “Zinni was close to (then-Secretary of State) Colin Powell; I believed sane heads would prevail.”
But Powell’s notoriously inaccurate speech to the United Nations in February 2003 “sealed the deal,” Johns said, and he knew the war was unstoppable. “I was very disappointed he did that. Powell was used.”
Many sleepless nights, long talks with his wife and solitary walks followed, said the veteran combat officer.
But Johns didn’t reach his tipping point until 2005, when a longtime friend, retired Lt. Gen. Robert Gard, invited him to discuss the war at tiny Hampden-Sydney College in Virginia.
“Four out of five of us retired military panelists there said it was a moral duty for us to speak out in a democracy against policies which you think are unwise,” Johns said. “The time was right.”
The lifelong Republican-leaning conservative joined a pair of liberal organizations opposed to the war and supported the Democrats’ call to get the United States out of Iraq.
“I appreciate those who hold to the old school of not speaking out,” said Johns, 79. “I hope they will appreciate my deeply held feelings that led to my decision to do so.”
Reaction mixed
One of those who falls into that old-school camp is Navy Vice Adm. David Richardson.
A one-time adviser to Pentagon chiefs, Richardson, who retired in 1972, said that while retired generals are “entirely within their rights under the First Amendment,” he was quite surprised to see so many speaking out against the Iraq war.
“They may sound off as they please, but I don’t approve of that,” said Richardson, 93, who served in World War II, Korea, and commanded an aircraft-carrier task force during the Vietnam War. He now lives in North Park and remains active in military circles.
“When we are at war, voices that may give aid and comfort to the enemy can cost American blood,” Richardson said. “I would not want what I said to in any way affect our troops’ morale and effectiveness.”
Gard, who retired from the military in 1981, displayed a stoicism typical of old soldiers when asked about his decision to publicly criticize the conduct of an ongoing war.
“I did some serious soul-searching,” Gard said simply.
A West Point graduate with a doctorate in politics and government from Harvard, Gard saw combat in Korea and Vietnam.
Gard’s introspection ultimately led him to conclude that patriotism means more than following orders and keeping complaints inside the military.
“When you feel the country - to its extreme detriment - is going in the wrong direction, and that your views might have some impact, you have a duty to speak out,” he said.
It may not have been that way during the Vietnam era, Gard added. “But times have changed.”
© Copyright 2007 Union-Tribune Publishing Co
Good men all. Let’s hope they are heard by all of the cowards that infest our government today; and, that it causes an attack of conscience in every one of them.
Petraeus did betray the troops when he was too busy paying lip service to the politicos and psychotics in Washington than he did to seeing properly to the basic security of the troops he was reponsible for.
Some liberals, generals included, call themselves conservatives. Liberals have been so demonized by conservatives that “liberal” is a dirty word that no one wants to be called. Conservatives have in that way elevated themselves and exchanged the liberal’s reputation for theirs.
The military is mostly authoritarian conservative kill them all let God sort ‘em out because they have to be that way in order to kill people as their business requires. But their liberal sense of honor requires them to be ethical and that lifts them to a higher standard than their adopted berserking authoritarian conservative mindset would even consider.
In spite of all the flap, it turns out that Move On was correct.
Wolves in sheeps clothing?
Wolves in sheep’s clothing?
God bless the generals who had the courage to speak out against an unjust war. They knew the decision would be rewarded with firing, even though they had given their long service to the country.
If generals cannot have freedom of speech, then who can? Only Bush and his minions?
Is that where we are heading?
looks like the house of cards is getting a little shakey.
Some of us knew years ago that an invasion of Iraq would lead to disaster.
Many generals finally see the light. Belated congrats.
The next step will be when the American sheeple see the reality.
That will probably happen after the inevitable catastrophe occurs.
Still won’t matter.
The big question-will Bush and Cheney go quietly or will they bring down everybody else with them?
“While on active duty, Eaton did not criticize his civilian bosses - almost to a man, the generals agree active-duty officers have no business doing that”.
WHY NOT! Are “active duty” generals somehow devoid of ethics/morals/scruples/brains, and only grow it all back when they “retire”?
The Iraq war is proven to be launched under false pretext, the invasion was in violation of the Geneva Accords, thus rendering all active militarists COMPLICIT IN WAR-CRIMES. Coming to one’s senses after the fact does no good whatsoever, it only reveals on record the extent of their complicity, as it demonstrates MALICIOUS INTENT to comit war-crimes, when in fact they KNEW BETTER at the time.
One assumes that “active duty” generals “know better” as well, and their fatigued wall of silence only renders them further complicit by not BLOWING THE WHISTLE while on active duty (So what’s a Court Mashalling when the alternative is to condone and commit mass murder?)
THE BODY HAS A HEAD, generals, even you Borg/Robocops who had most of your humanity excized by your drill-seargents back in boot-camp and replaced with militaristic, order-following brain-implants requiring you to murder on command– If you can claim to grow your scruples back after militaristic mutilations, I FOR ONE DON’T BUY IT.
Something is wrong in the minds of career military men, and if they had morals as they belatedly claim now in retrospect, then NOTHING could have gotten them to do what they did, whether “active duty” or otherwise.
Each and every enlisted person in Iraq now would abandon the battlefield at once if they had any scruples whatsoever. The grunts like to kill, the generals like to command people to kill. This gives them reason for “living”, and for this they are sick in the brain and should be incarcerated, institutionalized, and taken out of society and put on meds.
It isn’t just the retired Generals that are getting vocal. I found this piece this morning on comcast headlines about Admiral Fallon calling for diplomacy with Iran.
Military Chief: ‘No War’ With Iran
By BRIAN MURPHY, Associated Press Writer
Sun Sep 23, 3:31 AM
BAGHDAD - The commander of U.S. military forces in the Middle East does not believe current tensions with Iran will lead to war and urges for greater emphasis on dialogue and diplomacy.
“This constant drum beat of conflict is what strikes me which is not helpful and not useful,” Adm. William Fallon said in an interview with Al-Jazeera television, which made a partial transcript available Sunday.
Fallon, the head of U.S. Central Command, wraps up a seven-nation tour of the region on Tuesday that included stops in Persian Gulf countries, Afghanistan and Iraq.
Many of the talks with military and political leaders were dominated by worries about expanding Iranian influence and U.S. accusations that Iran is supplying arms and training to Shiite militiamen in Iraq.
“I expect that there will be no war and that is what we ought to be working for,” said Fallon during the Friday interview at Al-Jazeera’s headquarters in Qatar. “We should find ways through which we can bring countries to work together for the benefit of all …. It is not a good idea to be in a state of war. We ought to try and to do our utmost to create different conditions.”
Al-Jazeera was expected to broadcast the complete interview later this week.
Admiral Fallon was also critical of the “surge” and is General Petreus’ commanding officer, the one that it is rumoured called him “an asskissing litte chickenshit”…I figure after this article it won’t take Bush long to find some way to railroad him out of the military…
At 740 million dollars a day the Iraq cakewalk was/is a sucker’s dream that only benefits those neocons with dual citizenship and certain generals whose experience in “actual warfare” is limited to video games.
The point that most every one seems to overlook is that the CinC is, 24/7 a servant of the people and is responsible for all actions that result from his decisions. The 4000 miltary dead, the over 60,000 crippled for life and the intrution of “private armies” paid for by the taxpayer in addition to over 1.5 million Iraqi refugees and over 600,000 killed are not indicative of proper decisions at the highest level.
A general is also a 24/7 servant of the people he commands and the results expected of him/her. How are they to deliver good beneficial results if the ultimate decider is not making decisions that support rational/intelligent objectives.
Move On, conservative or liberal are easy references to make. The reality is that American blood, sweat and tears NOT ADJECTIVES that are being expanded in an effort that began with the neocons claim of WMDs; protecting Israel/followed by regime change; followed by remarks about Alqueda/Ben Laden; followed by inter/intra religious wars;followed by statements to the effect that a group of barefooted individuals who in many instances still using animals for transportation will invade the USA. And its better to fight there than in New York or Beverly Hills.
Those who speak out are to be commended. Those who speak out as knowledgeable and experienced patriots are to be honored. Those crippled and dead young men and women are not Republicans, Democrats, liberal or conservative, black, hispanic or any other color. They are or were simply citizens of the USA.
Hi all,
What a relief to hear and see in print knowledgeable, honorable and heartfelt men speak the truth about this illegal and immoral war. So, I ask indignantly why this piece wasn’t in the Sunday paper this morning? Will I see it there in the coming week? I live in a liberal (and dang proud to say it) area where our newspaper is often maligned by area conservatives.
In any case,I agree with the comment about the flap over MoveOn’s full page ad about Petraes’ lapdog kiss up to Bush et al losing some of it’s steam.
In regards to Colin Powell’s coercion into duping the Congress and the whole country….I firmly believe he is heartsick and distressed over his part….and that Petraes will be also when the fat lady finally sings.
What really galls me though is Sen. Feinstein jumping on the “shame on you” bandwagon. I thought better of her, but now I see she too is in lock-step with the foul machinery that is running (ruining) our country.
General Petraus was commenting on his assigned mission,the surge. Of course he had to have a “good” report for his plan. He has political ambitions and wants to run for president one day.
I applaud the other Generals who stood up to say that there is more than one opinion on the surge and our involvement in the controlled genocide in Iraq.
You know, its’s funny, we are trying to give democracy to Iraq, and Bush and Cheney are taking democracy away from us.
What this article does not say is that the Bush clan created the perfect storm. Since the Bush Clan have had any influence on the military, they have been promoting and a fast tracting their own kind of CIA/ military officers from Senator Prescott Bush Bush Sr Bush Jr until now to create the perfect storm of obedience from this nations officer corps! Such complaince from the military has not been seen since Adolf Hitler SS. Like General Petraeus who is a Bush in uniform, who is a CEO in uniform who has never killed any one in the line of duty, who has never shed the blood of our enemy, who is only qualified to attack Havard, who is not a soldier ,who sold out his nation for the stars on his shoulders and a promising career in the military industrial complex! His father in law General William Knowlton made sure he did not have to earn his rank just like Bush! Its one moron talking to another moron!
Where can I send a THANK YOU letter to retired General John Batiste? If anyone knows how to contact him - we need to organize a huge national campaign to THANK HIM for his phenomenal bravery!
He is the lone voice in the wilderness, and probably the bravest person ever to serve in the Pentagon.
Natureboy said:
“Each and every enlisted person in Iraq now would abandon the battlefield at once if they had any scruples whatsoever. The grunts like to kill, the generals like to command people to kill.”
All too true. The US is a nation without scruples. If there were scruples: the soldiers wouldn’t kill, generals wouldn’t order killing, administrations and legislators wouldn’t send them to kill, and the citizens wouldn’t allow it. The soldiers, the generals, the government, and the mass of American people don’t have scruples.
We have a nation without scruples whose majority, like spectators cheering for “their” team, thrills to their government going about the world committing mass murder in their name. There seems to be increasing opposition to the war because of American’s killed, or the cost, or because it is looking “unwinable,” or now seems pointless, or because it has dawned on some that maybe, just maybe, they were lied into the war.
What is also apparent is that the majority of the citizens of the United States STILL don’t give a damn about the people in other countries who are slaughtered by the US government. STILL don’t give a damn or comprehend that they, the citizens, are as responsible for heinous crimes against humanity as the government they could control if they chose to do so.
Of course there are still people that think Iraq was somehow behind the 911 activities of a few men, none of whom were from Iraq: people who are ignorant beyond belief, mind-bogglingly stupid, or blind jingoists.
Then there are simply citizens who lust for blood and any pretext will suffice as it did for the hordes in the coliseums in ancient Rome who cheered in ecstasy as lions ripped apart screaming human bodies.
Only a massive change in the ethical culture of the masses in the United States will rein in the most deadly barbarous nation in the world’s history. Good luck on that for us all.
So how is it that so many generals come out against this war, but a substantial percentage of Democrats still don’t?
We live in strange times when ex-brass are more sensible than supposedly democratically elected opposition to Bush.
“What might be called The Revolt of the Generals has rarely happened in the nation’s history.”
Oh, when did our country last experience a “unitary executive” who attached hundreds of “signing statements” to Congressional legislation; created the likes of the “Patriot Act”, destroying civil liberties; invaded a country under the guise of a “global war on terror” to essentially control the flow of oil; tortured prisoners at the nearest goulag while simultaneously abandoning Geneva Convention Rules; wiretapping/opening and reading mail/creating a database containing personal information on sovereign citizens/secretly searching homes and offices…..all without a legal search warrant from FISA; firing people from their jobs for “whistleblowing”; giving private (buddy) contractors “no-bid” contracts….etc.,?
“When you feel the country - to its extreme detriment - is going in the wrong direction, and that your views might have some impact, you have a duty to speak out.”
Do you think it’s just the war these Generals are concerned about when their first duty is to “defend the Constitution” against domestic and foreign enemies?
We need more generals like these men.
Depends on who the masses believe. The media covered Petraeus, but you’re not seeing this on the nightly news. Only Keith Olbermann gives this any air time.
yknot says it well above mentioning the neocons with dual citizenship as beneficiaries of this nightmare that has been visited on the planet. There are other beneficiaries as well—the whole MI
Complex that President Eisenhower warned of. However, someone is Shrub’s puppeteer. Does anyone recall the “comission” Bush set up to “review” the intelligence used to justify this war? It was made up of dual nationals, all with a vested interest, at least, in seeing the US military take down the only national military in the Mideast Besides the Isrealis with any effectiveness. I believe that this gives a glimpse into who the puppeteer is and I believe it is waaaay past time that there is a national dialouge about this “elephant in our national living room”
I further believe that the real reason there is no effective opposition from the Democrats is that they all are either owned or are afraid of losing their jobs if they speak out.
There is a record of those who speak out against them of losing elections.
Our problems will not be solved by the minds that created them.
All to Relevant Quote:
How is the World Ruled & how do wars start?
Diplomats tell lies to journalists & then believe what they read.
(Karl Kraus, Austrian Press,1874-1936)
In view of the absurdity of this ill conceived plan to provides arms to the Saudis & others in this volatile region, and the history of other comparable policies of this administration, one can only conclude that the arms merchants are instrumental in its conception.
General Eisenhower’s warnings concerning the dangers of the military industrial complex were preceded by Albert Einstein in 1932 when he cited munition makers as the main thrust for war machines. Warnings concerning the need to scrutinize such misadventures by the executive branch had earlier been made by John Adams and other constitutional framers.
Unfortunately this war is an example of the neglect and/or ignorance of pertinent history, along with the profiteering motives. Such misguided disasters can occur only when a compliant & apathetic populace allows their legislators to tolerate these types of abuses from arrogant and unlearned administrations guided by special interests.
Let’s hope more generals and admirals step up to the plate and voice their complaint. They know that they have promised to uphold our Constitution above all else and what honor is left in our government is more likely found in their ranks, not in Congress or in the present Administration. I hope more people support these courageous military men because there will always be die hard vets who fail to see the writing on the wall.
In one of Wiseman’s documentaries missile training given to recruits includes teaching them that they can refuse to obey what they consider is an immoral order http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_%28film%29.
The Generals are doing what their basic training demands.
In my book Every Day is 9/11 I write: Add the latest civilian casualties to the deaths in the Iraq-Iran war, the Gulf wars and the sanctions and here is a sum for you: how many 9/11s does that make? How many children need to die to build a bridge for democracy? (Greene op.cit. on the Vietnam War: A two-hundred-pound bomb does not discriminate. How many dead colonels justify a child’s or a trishaw driver’s death when you are building a national democratic front? p.162. The home- guard hero should remember Vietnam was the war for democracy he avoided).
The war on Iraq was based on lies. The president should be impeached for these lies.
The republicans tried to impeach Clinton for fellatio, good grief is that worse than mass murder.
The danger from a future war on Iran would be the inevitable total warfare on US soldiers by Shia in Iraq. Apart from any other consideration Bush would be sacrificing all US servicemen for his blindness and delusions about listening to God.
Every Day is 9/11 http://www.lulu.com/content/644639
http://peacesource.net
The way is clear, legal and appropriate.
Review your oath of office.
Decide if the Armed Forces of the People of the US have been used to do something other than protect and defend the Constitution.
Arrest and try the people who used lies, fraud and illegal force to break Constitutional Law and issue illegal orders.
Monitor the perscribed constitutional progression of office.
Keep cool and let the people of the world know that WE the PEOPLE are taking the steps we must to re-join the human race, to heal the wounds we let happen, to use and devise new ways to resolve differences, and to live within our means and in Peace.
We must show them how democracy works.
We must show them that we are not addicted to oil so much that we need to have theirs as well as ours.
We must show them that we will not be cowed by the polished mendacity of chickenhawk state-corporatist fear-mongers and profiteers.
We must show them that, as at the end of our anthem, OUR flag DOES still wave over the land of the free and the home of the brave.
As at the end of our Oath…So help us God.
(not to mention that cleaning this mess up will enhance the security of our nation)
J.L. Snyder
When are the Generals gonna arrest the war criminals in the WH and their enablers in Congress?
That’s all I wanna know.
It’s better late than never. But geez! When there all safe and retired then they speak out. Smells like chicken to me. Sorry I’m not happier but over a million Iraqis killed and these butt kissers are now speaking out! Im not impressed! True courage is when you stand for something and have something to lose for doing so not when your all set up and retired!! What a disappointing bunch of cowards that are running this country. God help us all!!
They are going to need a lot of scotch tape to reconstruct the Constitution! I think I will invest in 3M stock.
I know, Generals do not reconstruct the Constitution, but maybe their thinking will somehow begin to permeate the ultra-thick matter between the ears of Congress (although that seems to much for which to hope at this moment).
First we had the ads “featuring military veterans,” which were aimed directly at congressional opposition to the President’s surge strategy. Then major newspaper columnists, even including news anchor Katie Couric, which were flown into Iraq and were given well-organized, well-scripted tours and sent back home to write news releases about modest, but upbeat, “progress.”
Now we have the full-scale media spectacle of testimony to Congress by General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, along with the delivery of the Petraeus Report which, thanks to the Los Angeles Times, we now know was actually written not in Baghdad by the general and ambassador, but in the White House.
Think of it this way: The most political general in recent memory has been asked to assess his own work, as has our ambassador in Iraq, and then present “recommendations” to the White House in a “report” that is actually being written in the White House. No one in the media or Congress or the general public should take this situation seriously as unbiased “news” ; in reality it is deception in the form of White House propaganda but named the “Petraeus Report.” Shame on the general and the ambassador for using White House recommendations to Bush and calling them their own. Shame on Bush for again attempting to deceive the public.
In his report, General David Petraeus misled the country. First, Petraeus and the Pentagon are using a bizarre formula for measuring violence in the country, counting some violence and not others. Next, 70% if Iraqis think the escalation worsened rather than improved security conditions. Third, a comprehensive Government Accountability Office report ordered by Congress found that “average number of daily attacks against civilians have remained unchanged from February to July 2007″ and attacks got worse in August. Finally, more U.S. troops died every month this year compared to the same month last year.
Who is Petraeus fooling? Petraeus’ act reminds me of the day four and a half years ago when President Bush sent General Colin Powell to the U.N. to make a trumped-up case for war. Petraeus–another Bush puppet who is mis-serving the American public.
Does this mean there is still hope for a MILITARY COUP?
As only a retired colonel, I do not have the visibility my more senior colleagues have, but I and many of my fellow retired colonels with whom I associate have been uniformly and vocally opposed to the debacle in Iraq since before it was launched. By way of qualification for my views, I am a graduate of the US Military Academy, served as an armored cavalry officer in Vietnam, later became a JA officer, during which service I studied the law of war, and I served for a number of years as a Republican appointee in a state government executive position.
There is one aspect of the involvement in the war in Iraq by the Bush administration, and the all-too-likely involvement in the war in Iran to come, that has been overlooked by nearly all of the commentary. That aspect is the role of international law, particularly the application of the Nuremberg Principles which came out of the Nuremberg trials, over which Justice Jackson of the US Supreme Court presided. The Principles have been adopted by the United Nations, the charter of which the US was the first signatory. They are the authoritative international law on the matters they address. The principles that are relevant to this discussion are as follow:
“Principle III: The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible Government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.
”Principle IV: The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.
“Principle VI: The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:
(a) Crimes against peace:
(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression [emphasis added] or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
. . . .
“Principle VII: Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law.”
A war of aggression is a war for a purpose other than to repel an invasion of your own country or another country. When the US and the Coalition of the Twisted Arms launched the invasion of Iraq in 2003, Iraq had not invaded any country, nor was it a threat to do so. Saddam was cooperating with the UN weapons inspectors, and the inspections were having success in confirming that there was no WMD threat. US and British combat aircraft had, since Gulf War I, patrolled Iraq’s skies at will, launching attacks at any misbehavior they saw. Not only was there no invasion to be repelled, there was no capacity nor will to launch one. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that the US and its few allies engaged in “[p]lanning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression. . . ,” in clear violation of the relevant international law. The same would be true of the prospective war on Iran, for which the administration is drumming daily.
It should be further remembered that the United States Constitution makes the Constitution and the treaties of the United States the supreme law of the land, and that the UN Charter is a treaty of the United States. Therefore, a violation of the Nuremberg Principles is a crime under both international and domestic law. At the very least, the principal perpetrators of the war in Iraq, and the likely war to come in Iran, are guilty of crimes against peace. As to the Iraq war, those people would include, at the very least, the President, Vice President and assorted senior officials such as Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz, Abrams, Feith, Luti and a number of lesser lights.
Speaking as a JAG officer advising military clients, I would remind the senior generals who may soon be faced with orders from their civilian superiors to plan, prepare for, initiate and wage a war of aggression against Iran that their oath is to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States, and that under Principle IV, set out above, an “order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.” Clearly, there is a moral choice for them – to oppose the decision, and if that fails within the system, to resign their commissions and to speak out in opposition.
Those who favored impeachment for Clinton weren’t against the President’s penchant for fellatio: it was because he was doing it with a woman.
Really it was because he lied. Have we heard anything but lies from the psychotic monkey and his handlers?
Does money and sex in public bathrooms trump the Truth everytime?
JAG COL Ret,7:29 am
Colonel:
I strongly encourage you to write an op-ed piece on the topic, and submit it to the newspaper in the nearest large city, to Common Dreams, to Antiwar.com, and maybe even the armed forces newspapers. If an attack on Iran is to be prevented, we’ll have to rely on the military; we sure as hell can’t rely on Congress.
“Speaking as a JAG officer advising military clients, I would remind the senior generals who may soon be faced with orders from their civilian superiors to plan, prepare for, initiate and wage a war of aggression against Iran that their oath is to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States, and that under Principle IV, set out above, an “order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.” Clearly, there is a moral choice for them – to oppose the decision, and if that fails within the system, to resign their commissions and to speak out in opposition.”
JAG COL.
Is definitely precise in his references to international law and specific references to US Supreme Court Justice jacksonviews at the Nuremburg Trials.
I emailed and sent letters to several Senators a number of whom are at present declared candidates President with the same reference to Justtice jackson and the Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal. PRIOR TO THE INITIATION OF THE CONGRESS GIVING ITS APPROVAL IN EARLY 2003. Needless to report that not one of them answered or even acknowledged receing any correspondance.
JAG COL references are the first that I have seen made by a superior US military officer and for which he should be highly commended for making.
Liberals may have a bad name but Conservatives are getting a far worse one. I used to be conservative and still am to a point. But, this bunch turns my stomach with disgust! They are so corrupt and controled by religion they are frightening. They are not conservative in the style Barry Goldwater was. In fact they are giving all conservatives a filthy name. They are more fascist than they are conservative. When any politician tries to tout they are more conservative than their adversary they go on my ‘do not vote for’ list.
Sorry but this is too little too late. I don’t feel any sympathy for these guys. If you were so clueless that you actually voted for bush in 2004, then you need to reap what you sow. Long before then it was OBVIOUS that he wasn’t the man for the job. To actually go out and VOTE for him means that either you’re an imbecile or you only care about money and you’re willing to sell out your country for it.
Only now when the war starts to really become unpopular do the people resposible for it (people that voted for bush esp. in 2004) start to jump sides. They should have to pay double their annual federal tax until the war debt is paid off.
JAG COL; well put! I fail to see why another nation has not filed formal charges and brought our fearless (as long as it’s not their blood) leaders up for investigation. Think of it, not a one of them would be able to fly outside the U S of A for fear of being jailed.
I would love to see these Retired Officers leading an Anti-War March, medals and all, I’d throw mine on and join them.
Courageous officers? The professional military has ignored their oaths and ceded half of what they do and stand for to private contractors without even questioning the ramifications. On the other hand, they have higher paying jobs awaiting them.
I also wish that more military figures had spoken out against the Iraq war before it was launched. In February of 2003, Veterans for Peace (of which I am a proud member) wrote an open letter to the US military high command, warning them of their liability for war crimes prosecution if they went ahead with the invasion. They can’t say that they did not know.
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/memNuremberg.html
But to stop this horrible war we now need all the support of both active and retired military people that we can garner. Their support should be solicited and welcomed. Denouncing them accomplishes nothing.
It’s time for the military leadership to stand up to this administration and say NO. The UCMJ requires them to refuse illegal orders.
Look, if top military leaders can’t move the ball forward, there’s no reason for the anti-war movement to trash itself for its ineffectiveness — nor for anti-war movement critics to sound off.
Per Jag Col:
“Principle IV: The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him”.
Colonal, When/where are the tribunals starting?? What’s the delay? If the world’s public opinion and legal system is unable to muster the cajones to begin tribunals immediately and to stop this madness, then in fact the world is once again complicit in genocide.
Per Advocate:
“Only a massive change in the ethical culture of the masses in the United States will rein in the most deadly barbarous nation in the world’s history”
Advocate, I concur with your general misanthropy about Americans. It’s been agonizing, unbearable to watch as 74% supported this invasion, lemmings. It proves that if you build a society based purely on capitalist greed, that selfishness and overfed gluttonous decadence can be the only result. The market won’t police itself, rather people trained from birth in the fine arts of fat, selfish, brain-dead consumerism and making scads of money at the expense of everyone and everything else, such an ethic seems to have caused a complete liquefaction of people’s minds. For them the only “common good” or “civic duty” is to join up, and play video-games with real ammo (with the “roof’s on fire” playing over the tank loudspeakers).
I would like a response, for once and for all from the overwhelming majority of enlistees who claim to be these “CHRISTIANS” out there in the desert: You claim to adhere to this fundamentalist, faith-healing, mega-church, bible-belted, born-again “faith” in which GOD COMMANDED YOU NOT TO KILL.
Leaving aside the legal issues (implicating all enlistees serving in Iraq, for which you should all be tried and jailed) How then can a “christian” continue killing, when it was proven beyond any doubt that this was NOT a “Just War”?
This riddle alone should expose the complete duplicity and dishonesty of each and every Judeo-Christian in this country who claims to believe in these “commandments”, but who did not actively oppose the actions that their tax-dollars made them complicit in, and their hippocracy for allowing their crew-cutted, psalm-singing, tongue-speaking, hypnotized/militarized “faith-healed” mega-churched, Robertsonite Christian-coalition youth to be trained and deployed in this blasphemous war.
Why has it taken 5 years for public opinion to show any sign of turning against the war, when it was so clear to Col. Jag and the rest of us with eyes, that this was a complete hoax and an international crime from the outset??
One more question:
Now that it has been PROVEN and ADMITTED by McNamara that the Gulf of Tonkin was a false flag operation, why were all those crew-cutted militarized angry ‘conservatives’ who badmouthed (and in some cases assassinated) those who were correct about Vietnam not taken to task, at least in social discourse? If it was shown that one hideous, unwarranted, pointless, illegal invasion quagmire was completely corrupt from the outset, how can it come to pass that within a generation after withdrawing from Vietnam, we’re back at it again, and with the FULL COMPLICITY of the electorate whose families personally suffered unspeakably from the destruction of an entire generation of casualties and PTSD Vets? Were there not enough documentaries about Vietnam, not enough park-bench-drunk veterans destroyed forever by that war to have reminded the electorate that we don’t EVER do that again?
IF the soldiers who fought in Vietnam were aware that the Gulf of Tonkin was a hoax, then they too would be war-criminals (not that they aren’t for other reasons), But in this case we know NOW, during the bulk of the occupation, and have known for 3 years at least, that the pretext for the invasion was falsified, that the information could have been obtained by the UN, et. al, and that the occupation is therefore (and always was regardless) clearly and unequivocally illegal, why then do the soldiers continue to kill?
And don’t say it’s because the military owns their ass, when apparently the punishment for refusing the order to kill is a month in the brig and a less-than-honorable discharge– hardly a trade-off considering the killing and dying going on!
JAG COL: thanks for the detailed references.
yknot: believe it or not I sent letters to Kofi Annon before the invasion stating my belief that Bush was the reincarnation of Hitler, happening on his watch.
To understand the dilemma of duty, honor, politics and history on the mind of the military officer corps read “The Rise And Fall Of The Third Reich.” To my mind here is where Hitler played his game most skillfully, and Bush the most ham-handedly.