Redefinitions.

[theweaselking]

Given a mere 60 years,
"Hero"
becomes
"Coward"

From brian_berlin

EDIT: this is not current events. I didn't realise the date on the article was in 2004. This changes things somewhat.

Comments

[rgovrebo.livejournal.com]

"Hero" is the guy who suffered through conscription and found a way to serve his country without compromising his convictions.

"Coward" is the guy who volunteered, got an education and a promotion, then refuses to serve.

[dilickjm.livejournal.com]

Gotta go with RG here, weasel-boy.

I served with a CO back during the first Gulf War -- he was a CO from day 1. Part of your induction process specifically ASKS if you are a CO. The guy you labelled "coward" frankly, does strike me as a coward. He is gaming the system for personal benefit.

I'm not sure what path you can take to avoid serving in a war that you don't support, but I submit that it will involve jail time. If you are going to take a stand, fine. Freedom of choice involves freedom to take the consequences of your actions, though.

[desdenova.livejournal.com]

I find it hard to work up too much outrage over a guy who voluntarily joined the military without considering that he might have to fight in a war he disagrees with.

That being said, military service in this country has not been sold as "going off to shoot people/be shot at because the government says so" for some time. Even now, when it is a nigh-certainty that anybody in the regular military or the reserves or Nat'l Guard will be deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, recruiters are big on downplaying the fact that there's a war (or two) on.

On the third hand, we're going on our 5th year of war, now, so even the dumbest recruits should have noticed.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

He signed up in *2000* and was conscripted via stop-loss in 2004.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

"Hero" is a guy who is *allowed* to serve without compromising his convictions in a war for what he felt to be good reasons. "Coward" is a conscript who cannot serve without compromising his convictions, in a treasonously begun war for lies.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

> I'm not sure what path you can take to avoid serving in a war that
> you don't support, but I submit that it will involve jail time.

That would be the path he is on, yes.

And I find the concept that he's expected to have known in 2000 that not only are all the recruiters lying (they always are), but that he would be *forced* to stay in the Navy when his hitch was up and asked to serve as an oppressive occupying force as the aggressor in a "war" started for the personal benefit of the CIT and company.

He appears willing, if not happy, to serve the Navy in a respectable, legal role. He's refusing to follow orders and walk into an illegal and morally reprehensible action.

I can respect being willing to go to jail over being a member of a violent oppressive occupying force.

[dilickjm.livejournal.com]

Enh.

Here's the thing: you are required to obey all lawful orders of your superiors. "Board this vessel on this date and time and report for duty" is a lawful order, even if said vessel is heading to take part in/support a war you personally feel is unjustified. You can refuse to follow specific orders that you can make a case for being unlawful, and, quite honestly, you are REQUIRED to. There is no way he can get that ruling out of even a favorable court in this case.

Also, why do you think he was stoplossed? Most Naval enlistments are 6 years, and I saw no reporting in your link to indicate that this was anything other than a duty station transfer.

[harald387.livejournal.com]

Nothing in the article says he was stoplossed.

[harald387.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't call him a coward, but nobody in the article is doing so, either. In fact, it looks like the military is walking on eggshells around this guy because of the media attention he's received.

As was said, it doesn't look like he was stoplossed - if he had been, I imagine he wouldn't still have been in Japan 'until now'.

Desmond Doss served with distinction and honor while standing up for his beliefs. Pablo Paredes spent nearly six years doing everything the Navy told him to do, then quit outright when given an order he objected to. I might not call Paredes a coward, but he's definitely not in Doss' league.

-K

[vagabond27.livejournal.com]

Wouldn't you assume from this that in 60 years the "coward" would become a "hero"?

[missysedai.livejournal.com]

I've read about a dozen articles about this guy; nowhere has "stop-loss" been mentioned, and even if it was stop-loss, it still doesn't make him a hero. Stop-loss measures are outlined in your damned contract, they're not a secret, and you agree to this possibility when you join the military. (And unless I'm misremembering from my days as a Navy girlfriend, isn't the standard Naval tour of duty 6 years, anyway?)

I'm with dilickjm here. COs disclose their status right at the outset - before basic training, even. I find it suspect that he only decided he was a CO after he was told "Hey bub, you've won a trip to Iraq!"

If you're philosophically opposed to war, you don't voluntarily join the military - where being asked to fight is simply not an unreasonable expectation - then try to get out of your obligations when push comes to shove.

[missysedai.livejournal.com]

Actually, he only spent four. Check the date of the article - December 7, 2004

[missysedai.livejournal.com]

That would be the path he is on, yes.


All he got was demoted and restricted to base for two months. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pablo_Paredes)

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

I thought he was stoplossed because:
4 year enlistment (obviously not correct - I didn't know the Navy kept you for longer)
2000 enlistment.
2006 news article (also not correct - I've edited the original)
... and in 2004, they were conscripting Vietnam veterans and grandfathers. Stop-lossing a young soldier, as long as he's not into buttsex? A no-brainer.

It appears that the stop-loss was a bad assumption on my part. That does significantly change the situation.

[kali-kali.livejournal.com]

Agreed for the most part. However, at least this guy who is refusing to serve is staying there and willing to accept the consequences of his actions, unlike several US army deserters we've got hanging out up here in Canada.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

There's a big difference between "you might be forced to stay in if we need you" and "you're staying in because we've started a war of aggression".

Especially when the 2004-era requirements tended to be "You have one year left on your hitch. You can volunteer for another 4 years, or you can spend that years on the front lines of Afghanistan/Iraq and then we'll stop-loss you." This was explicitly what people who signed up before the Chimperor staged his coup were being told.

[kali-kali.livejournal.com]

If you're philosophically opposed to war, you don't voluntarily join the military - where being asked to fight is simply not an unreasonable expectation - then try to get out of your obligations when push comes to shove.

Word. Main reason you're never going to find me anywhere near a military uniform.

[dolston.livejournal.com]

I see no mention of a stop-loss in the article.

[dilickjm.livejournal.com]

Wow.

The military must be hurting on the PR front, they usually do a LOT more than that.

BTW, none of my comments should be taken as support of the war or the military's practice of stop-loss. I just felt like I needed to explain why I felt this guy didn't strike me as a "hero" (or hell, even as a CO). He just seemed to be fine with his military service until it morphed into the non-peaceful form.

[missysedai.livejournal.com]

There's a big difference between "you might be forced to stay in if we need you" and "you're staying in because we've started a war of aggression".

And that difference would be...what? If we're at war (justified or not), it's a pretty good bet that our military personnel are needed. Regardless, nothing I've read indicates he was stoplossed. (And again, even if he was, stop-loss is clearly outlined in your contract, so he can't claim it was a surprise.)

In 2004, Paredes still had two years left on his regular tour of duty - unless things have changed, initial Naval enlistment is six years. In your six years, you go where you're told to go, period. He signed his name on the line, raised his hand, swore the oath, and served merrily along without EVER disclosing to his commanding officers that he was a CO until his ticket for the Arabian Gulf got punched.

I'm sorry, but no. Comparing the likes of him to men like Doss is revolting.

[missysedai.livejournal.com]

Yup yup.

I'm no war supporter either, but neither am I afraid to call a spade a spade.

[ryusen.livejournal.com]

yeah, beat me to it...

[spartonian.livejournal.com]

A guy who objects, but still goes, gets his legs busted up while serving on the front line, and probably saves a bunch of lives is in some way comparable to a guy who objects, doesn't go to his safe, air-conditioned, job on the ginormous boat with movies playing all-day, a fitness club quality gym, and 4 free meals per day? (If you want more insight into the life of a sailor when they aren't on watch, let me know....)

Yeah, ok.

Despite his initial enlistment not being over, and that having been mentioned several times already, you are still subject to recall for a certain length of time after you leave active duty. Yes, some of the people contacted was just plain idiotic, but he would still be in hit twenties.

He violated mutliple UCMJ articles* and is lucky he a Bad Conduct Discharge, one of those things that follows you for life.

*Article 86: Absent without Leave
Article 87: Missing Movement
Article 90: Willingly disobeying a superior commissioned officer

He probably could have been hit with Article 134 too.