Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Serving Soldier Leads London Protest Against War in Afghanistan
A serving soldier today accused the government of abusing the trust of the army and serving soldiers by continuing military action in Afghanistan.
British soldier Lance Corporal Joe Glenton, center, who is facing a court martial because he refuses to return to fight in Afghanistan, takes part in an anti-war demonstration in London, Saturday Oct., 24, 2009. The demonstration on Saturday was organized by the Stop the War Coalition and called for the British government to remove British troops from Afghanistan. (AP Photo/Matt Dunham) Lance Corporal Joe Glenton, who is facing a court martial for refusing to return to Afghanistan, made his comments before an anti-war demonstration in central London.
Glenton, 27, led former colleagues, military families and anti-war protesters in the march, calling for British troops to be brought home.
He told protesters at Speakers Corner in Hyde Park that he found it distressing to disobey orders but felt that he had been left with no choice.
The centre of London was brought to a temporary standstill as thousands of protesters made their way to Trafalgar Square.
Some of the crowds chanted "Gordon Brown, terrorist" while others sang "What do we want, troops out".
His statement, released before the rally, read: "It is distressing to disobey orders but when Britain follows America in continuing to wage war against one of the world's poorest countries I feel I have no choice.
"The Geneva Convention was launched after the Second World War and the Nazi extermination of six million Jews. It means no soldier can say I was just obeying orders.
"Politicians have abused the trust of the army and the soldiers who serve. That is why I am compelled and proud to march for Stop The War Coalition today."
Peter Brierley, whose son Lance Corporal Shaun Brierley was killed in Iraq in 2003, also attended the march.
Brierley, a 59-year-old CCTV supervisor from Batley, West Yorkshire, recently hit the headlines after refusing to shake hands with the former prime minister, Tony Blair, accusing him of having blood on his hands because of the Iraq war.
Brierley said British troops needed to be withdrawn from Afghanistan as soon as possible.
"They are not doing any good while they are over there," he said. "They need to leave the country to sort itself out. While the British troops are there they are actually bringing in insurgents who are coming in to fight."
The protest came as a poll found that almost half of the UK public believe that military victory in Afghanistan is impossible and many believe that British troops should be brought home either immediately or within the next year.
The YouGov survey for Channel 4 News found just 6% of the 2,042 people polled on October 22 and 23 believed British troops were winning the war, 36% said eventual victory was possible and 48% who said victory was not possible.
A quarter said British troops should be withdrawn "immediately" and 37% said most should be withdrawn soon, with the remainder pulling out within a year or so.
27 Comments so far
Show AllGo Glenton!
Joe
no go Joe!
My brothers and I, my nephews and one niece, have, together, 76 years of military service to the United States. My son is awaiting his call up date in the US Navy. I salute this Cpl Glenton for his courage to stand up for what is right and honorable. As I encouraged and saluted Lt Watada here in the state of Washington. I am a member of Veterans for Peace. I am very proud of my family's service to this country, for I strongly believe that a strong military is necessary to protect our nation. But like Watada and Glenton, and many, many others, I believe just as strongly that our government has taken our nation down a path of empirialism that has brought this nation to its knees in disaster, as it has also done in England. Genocide for money is evil, and that is what we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the people we elected in hopes that they would bring it to an end are simply carrying it on. Our fellow FVP chapter in Seattle has put together a display known as Arlington West, a set of grave markers with the names of those Americans killed in Iraq. Each year, our chapter installs this display, usually at the Peace Arch on the international border with Canada [you remember, the one that used to be proudly unguarded and is now thick with Homeland Security Brownshirts]. This year we will set it up in Bellingham's Veterans' Park on Veterans' Day. It is a serious and emotional display, with the names of all of these young men who have died in their nation's service, many of whom were caught on the horns of the very dilemma that Glenton is fighting. Why cannot his sacrifice, and the sacrifice of these fine young men we of VFP honor with this display, open citizens' minds? Yet we will be harrassed and belittled by other vets who believe in the 'my country right or wrong' philosphy fostered by our government. We of VFP honor them both - the ones who serve, and the ones who go beyond service to protest illegal government policies. And we firmly believe that war is a stupid and evil way to gain compliance with a nation's wishes.
MichaelC
I was with you up until your penultimate sentence. As a Vietnam veteran, I see absolutely no reason why one should "honor" those who are serving in the military today. This statement is made all the more egregious by the fact that it is coming from a member of the VFP. It makes absolutely no sense to me at all why someone who belongs to Veterans for Peace would wish to pay homage to those who are serving in the military as that organization is taking part in the illegal and unjust occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq. The last thing you should be doing is honoring those who are in the army, navy, marines or air force. They do not deserve to be honored; on the contrary, they deserve to looked upon with scorn and contempt.
The true heroes in this world are those people like this young soldier and the members of the IVAW [Iraq Veterans Against the War] who have come out against the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq and have spoken out against American militarism which is totally different than what most members of the military today are doing and that is to blindly and willing obey the illegal orders that they are given by their superior officers. The ones who speak out against the military indicate that they have a brain while the others are simply willing to go along with the program.
I think I understand Michael's position, and I agree with it. We need to honor those in the military today because there's no dishonor in being deceived.
Do you think any of those kids would be in Iraq or Afghanistan if BushCo, ObamaCo, and the military leadership had been honest and said "we're going to send you over there because the enormously wealthy people who own everything still want more money because they're sick arseholes who are never, ever satisfied. And it's your job to see that they get what they want. You must kill innocent people and maybe be maimed, disabled, or die yourself to feed the sick appetites of those wealthy elites. Now go do it!"
About 1%, maybe 2% are psychopaths who'd listen to that and jump on board anyway, because they have no human feelings and are, effectively, human-shaped crocodiles.
But the other 98-99% who are over there now? The blood would have drained from their faces listening to that and if they hadn't fainted dead away would have said "Bugger THAT!" and gone to prison rather than the transports.
But of course the leaderscum weren't honest with them. They funneled them into situations where those kids had few options, and lied to them nonstop. They deceived them. And it's the deceivers who are disgraced by lies, not the deceived.
So yes, let's honor them. Let's honor the ones who escape even more, but let's not treat the deceived as though they were the deceivers.
Mairead
Sorry, but I feel that I must respectfully disagree. As a former English major, I believe that words are extremely important and should be used appropriately. One of the six or so dictionaries that we have defines the word honor as "one whose worth brings respect or fame." I cannot stress enough that being in the military is not a reason to honor someone. One cannot honor both the person who has the courage to say NO to illegal orders that he or she is given and then say that one will also honor a person who serves in the military. It is simply hypocritical to do so. One would do well to recall the scene in the powerful documentary Sir! No Sir! when the soldier who had returned to Vietnam was telling the other soldiers in the coffeehouse that if they end up going to Southeast Asia they should not think that just because they may end up being a clerk typist that that will somehow get them off the hook because they should realize that they will still be part of an occupying force. One can also recall the words of former Green Beret Donald Duncan who said in the film:
"I was doing it right but I wasn't doing right."
The point that they were making is that there is nothing honorable about being part of an organization that is suppressing and brutalizing people, whether it be in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq or whatever country that the United States is attempting to brutalize. I do get awfully tired when people thank me for my service. This is a knee-jerk response, regardless of whether it comes from a conservative or a liberal. There is no thinking behind that insipid statement. There is also absolutely no reason why I should be thanked for what I had done since I ended up contributing to the deaths of many innocent Vietnamese people. Since we agree [or at least I hope that we agree] that the meaning of words should be important, I think what should be substituted for that ubiquitous word honor, especially with Veterans' Day approaching, is the word lament. That is a much better word to use as that word, as opposed to that much abused word honor, connotes sorrow, mourning, and especially regret. Americans should regret the fact that so many Americans had to end up dead and maimed and crippled for absolutely no justifiable reason whatsoever, especially after World War II. Unfortunately, it is extremely doubtful if Americans and their sense of bombast will ever decide to do the right thing by using the word lament instead of that much overused word honor.
Perhaps it's a girl thing (or in my case a caileach thing), but I see no bar to doing many things at once -- lamenting the effects, cursing the warmongers (and wanting to see them hanged), and honoring those struggling to do the best they can with what they've got.
It's easy to counsel perfection. "Just say no!" Stop smoking, stop drinking, lose weight, get an education, kick the habit, exercise regularly, win the rat race. Don't make mistakes. Always make the right choice and you, too, can die rich. You won't have lived, because the 'right' choices for dying rich are the wrong choices for having a life, but it all depends on making the right choice. What the hell is the right choice, and how can you know that at the time. It's easy: just recognise it. Anyone can recognise the right choice. You can tell it's the right choice because it's the right choice. Anyone who can't recognise the right choice is a loser.
We do a lot of that to one another. It's not healthy for anyone.
(I do hope you realise that this is not meant to be criticism of you -- I'm well aware that you're doing your best to to make the right choice too, just as I am)
Nicely said. This is a knock-out exchange IMHO. I think it would be marvelous to sit down over a pitcher of fine ale with you and Erroll and just get to know each other.
hello to those of you that are veterans , in your discussions.
Whatever the reasons are that you each have some differences on what is honorable, whom to honor, for what reason...
i think all of you, more than anyone, know that War is as has been said throughout history - HELL. and war itself can never really be honorable.
perhaps a good example might be from one of western civilization's clearest and most far-reaching examples, lessons, reminders, stories, symbolisms of the thing called "WAR"....
the ancient greeks spoke of it - being the ones credited largely with the designs of what is today called 'western civilization' - and many of its assumed principles and notions, that one must remember is , in many ways, such as in WAR and "HONOR" not all that dissimilar in all cultures with their different versions of expressing or defining "honor".
but put it this way, gentlemen:
Socrates said:
"ALL WARS are waged for profit, power and money".
the greatest single body of greek literature - the very one that almost entirely defines western culture - in all its ways , even in terms of definitions of reality , concepts, even the arrangement of language and thought process as well as of course perhaps , even until today, the greatest repository of ALL that is contained in WAR...from the most intimate personal human experiences of love, betrayal, jealousy, etc..to the great concepts and conceits of nations and peoples , almost like a Compendium of what was THEN - and until today "would STILL be"...
to show that NOTHING is NEW under the sun - where it comes to war -
showed one very important matter somewhere in the Iliad and The Trojan War -
and even certain characters in those stories ARGUED or discussed JUST LIKE YOU ARE today :
and you know what it is? they were ALSO talking abotu "HONOR" ..or "glory of dying"
and yet other parts of the stories showed the PRICE of all that :
destroyed lives, wives and children fatherless and husbandless ..communities reduced to more bloodthirstiness, sacrifice of all that was good...and so many other evils - matricide, patricide, betrayals, ostracism, enslavements, loss of home - becoming homeless, refugees, loss of sanity, and, betrayal of the innocent..
loss of honor...
I am not sure who or where the statement started in more modern times - but it is the same thing:
:"OF ALL EVILS -- war must be most feared - for IN war is contained ALL other evils".
Erroll, as a Vietnam vet you know that there IS a dilemma involved: to follow orders, in the hope that those orders come from a rational planning source, or to refuse. Of course, there are divisions within VFP, as there are in IVAW, or any other organization. I believe that most VFP members would support my statement of honoring both. In fact, most of my VFP chapter are Vietnam vets. We do need a strong military, and to have that we must have good men and women volunteering for it. My son will be in the Navy, as were three of my brothers and one of my nephews. Two other brothers and I, and one niece, were in the Air Force. Another nephew was in the Army, another in the Marines. Our service, and yours, was honorable. I, personally, never had to face that awful dilemma of choosing between my orders and my morality. Your decision, and that of many other vets, is not one of dishonor because you kept your oath. I honor your decision, whether you want it or not, as I honor those of my siblings, my nephews and niece, and my son. Those who must enter combat in an illegal war must face that dilemma. Most of the rest of the military personnel are doing what needs to be done to keep our country strong, while we get rid of the assholes who are currently running it
Michael, I've a question for you. You say 'we need a strong military'. What would you think about replacing the immense, full-time military we now have with a Swiss-style one, or perhaps I should call it an Original American style one: well-trained, defence-only militia units where everyone is automatically part of it from age 16 thru 60. No standing army, or only a tiny cadre, but a 150-200M-person militia.
Excellent. I would support it. However, given the technological array present in most military establishments, I think we would still need a small permanent core of military personnel.
MichaelC
I strongly suggest that you read my comment at 10-24 at 5:53 pm. Please do not presume to tell me that what I did to those people in Vietnam was somehow supposed to be "honorable". Since you are in the VFP I have to assume that you have seen the film Sir! No Sir!. Those are the people that deserve to be honored as well as those like this young man in the article and the members of the IVAW. Those are the people who deserve to be praised as opposed to the automatons in the military today who go along with the orders that they are given.
I also suggest that you attempt to expand your horizons by reading such books as:
* Soldiers in Revolt: GI Resistance During the Vietnam War, the classic work by David Cortright
* Mission Rejected: U.S. Soldiers Who Say NO to Iraq by Peter Lauer
* Desertion and the American Soldier 1776-2006 by Robert Fantina
Again, these people are the ones who should be honored. You cannot claim, with any degree of honesty, that those who participated in the GI rebellion and the IVAW today and those in the military now should be equally honored. To do so would be false and disingenuous and hypocritical and would strip the word honor of any legitimate meaning. There is no honor in being part of an organization that has illegally and immorally and unjustly invaded and occupied two countries.
You are doing what so many liberal interventionists do when you claim that "military personnel are doing what needs to be done to keep our country strong..." If you believe that simplistic nonsense then I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I can sell you at a very cheap price. It is the belligerent presence of the United States military that is the cause of so much violence in the Middle East. As the title of a film that came out a few years ago stated, what this country needs is more Soldiers of Conscience who will say NO to being in the military instead of more gullible Americans taken in by their patriotic fervor to enlist in the military. Too many of these naive enlistees seem to believe that this bumper sticker that I had witnessed on a vehicle was factual if not desirable to do:
"Join the army. Travel to exotic distant lands; meet exciting, unusual people and kill them."
Honor those people in the military? I think not.
Erroll, I am not saying that all events which took place in Vietnam were honorable, no more than what happened in any war situation in our past. What I am saying is that your willingness [and mine] to take up arms to serve our country IS honorable. And I do think that too many people are too quick to condemn soldiers in battle situations for doing things that are hideous. Unfortunately, that includes many of the vets themselves. Yes, some things which soldiers did were less than honorable, just as they are now in the Middle East. I also do not think that the honor given to both the soldier of war and the soldier of conscience are equal. I am acutely aware that the minefield of honor/dishonor that our leadership has dumped us into is a horrific one. But we - you and I and the other vets struggling with these issues - are the ones who have to bring it to resolution, if that is even possible. But I think that the issues you and I are raising here are of extreme importance to all of us who have worn uniforms for our country. My statement about the need for a strong military should not ever be taken as agreement with our horrid terrorist activity in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is a measure of the ignorance of Americans that anyone with a modicum of intelligence would believe that the people of those countries could mount a serious attack on the US, even if they wanted to. They are an invaded people who simply want us out. I have lived in Turkey and Iran, and I have studied the history of the region.
I will continue to honor the soldiers of our country, just as I will continue to despise their leadership. I love my country, but I despise my government. And part of the reason that I love my country is that there are men like you in it.
May he be joined by ever swelling numbers of equally conscientiously objecting men and women of courage and foresight.
It can and must be done by soldiers who sustain their fundamental identity as human beings, responsible to themselves and ordinary people rendered 'enemies' by profoundly unjust systems, and at the very core, retain a responsible vision of humanity, supported by Nuremburg Principles and so many international treaties.
From the foot soldier to the remote operator of drone armaments - from privates to generals it can and must be done.
Thank you Joe Glenton for your courage in exercising your conscience
War is not the answer
Another world is possible and necessary.
It is most gratifying to see a person in the military who has a brain and is willing to engage in critical thinking. The hope is that his example will lead others, especially in the US, to do what he is doing.
Just to let you know that there are a number of soldiers in the US who are now and have in the recent past engaged in this critical thinking and and have refused to return to Iraq or Afghanistan. They have been court martialed and sent to the brig, then discharged with few if any veteran's benefits. Unfortunately the media does a less than stellar job of covering this resistance. If you want our young soldiers to resist you have got to be willing to support them in all ways possible! There's a great place adjacent to Ft Lewis in Washington State called Coffee Strong that has been doing just that. It was opened by a small group of Iraq War vets. They provide information about soldiers' rights and benefits available to them as well as a place to learn more about the world than what the Army feeds them. If you want to support this great place, check out GIVoice.org, or just google Coffee Strong! Viva la paz!
I hope, when we've taken our country away from the psychopaths (which we truly must do soon, or die), that there are enough people who remember those prisoners of conscience that we can identify them all and compensate them in some small measure for their bravery and self-sacrifice.
Bismarck said (I translate) "Battlefield-courage is common among us, but far too many of even the most respected people fail to demonstrate social/ethical courage". The 'refuseniki' demonstrate that latter courage in great measure.
It is, I suppose, a measure of the depths to which American media have fallen that so few Americans are aware of how many resistors there are. There are hundreds of them. My chapter of VFW [and other chapters] work to help them whenever we can, but we are close to the Canadian border. Some of them [e.g. Lt Ehren Watada] have won their battles in court.
So good to hear of this news from our sisters and brothers in London! Resisters from within are key players in the coming struggle. We heard Matthis Chiroux speak in Boston last Sat. Video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uu4302kIcE0
My grandfather returned from WWI with his health broken and a message for the future generations: there are no good wars. Don't let them tell you differently. He died before I was born, but his son passed it on to me. So far no one in my generation or the next generation has joined the military. Thank you, grandpa.
Resist!
it was Ron Kovic (born on the fourth of july) who opined that the draft dodgers were the truly brave.
this Joe has courage to admit he was duped.
I thought I had balls but I'm not in Joe's class.
I guess Common Dreams does censor those comments it thinks too radical. Sorry for suggesting that we need a revolution, and that the military must be a large part of it.
I guess Common Dreams does censor those comments it thinks too radical. Sorry for suggesting that we need a revolution, and that the military must be a large part of it.
The following article by Dahr Jamail is about dissenting U.S. soldiers and veterans; the soldiers, right during their tours in Iraq. Perhaps others serving in Afghanistan are also doing the same cyber activism, but I think to recall that the people specifically referred to in the article are all in or veterans of the war in Iraq.
"Cyber Resistance", by Dahr Jamail, Oct 23 2009
http://www.truthout.org/10230910
It's good to see that there's yet another British soldier who's dissenting and doing so by publicly speaking out. I haven't read about more than one or two, very few, before, but another one today is to definitely be welcomed.
Joe's had his adventure holiday.
Now he's against the war.
No more Wog-killing for Joe.
People who evidently have sneakers for brains as you do should read the article by Dahr Jamail that I linked to. Some of the west's soldiers deserve to be thought of derogatively, but as the soldiers or vets Dahr Jamail quotes indicate, enough never wanted to go to Iraq to begin with, but went to stand with their units and once in the war zone, they served as eyewitness-knowledge collectors and/or compilers. One or more of those Dahr Jamail referred to used his camera for filming events and evidence in Iraq, and a few or more of those that he refers to started using email and, I believe, blogging while in the war zone. Some troops sent to Afghanistan will likely do this too, if they haven't already started.
These [are] our best of witnesses for trying to get the people in the U.S., U.K., etcetera who still think the wars are justified to possibly wake up. If the accounts from the best witnesses our countries have can't get these dummies among us to wake up, then I guess nothing will; nothing short of a miracle anyway.
As the soldiers Dahr Jamail quotes indicate, not all soldiers who have accepted to serve in these wars went to these zones will ill will and some were opposed to the war before going to the war zones; becoming more certainly opposed from their experiences there.
I would not call such soldiers "Wog killers".
Quote:
wog (wg)
n. Chiefly British Offensive Slang
Used as a disparaging term for a person of color, especially a person from northern Africa or western or southern Asia.
End quote
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/wog
I would not think of Iraqis or anyone else as wogs, either, for they're human. This evidently doesn't really apply with empty people who have sneakers for brains.