Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

War on Iraq

As More Troops Refuse to Deploy, Getting Conscientious Objector Status is an Uphill Battle

By Sarah Lazare, AlterNet. Posted October 8, 2008.


Soldiers who decide to become conscientious objectors face a major struggle, but it can also be "the most liberating thing ever."
Advertisement

"I don't feel that it's right to take someone else's life," said 19 year-old Tony Anderson, Private in the U.S. Army, in a quiet voice on the phone. "I felt that if it came down to it, I couldn't kill someone, in Iraq or anywhere."

Anderson was speaking while under the line-of-sight supervision of his commanding officer at Ft. Carson, Colorado where he is stationed. The young soldier, who refused to deploy to Iraq in July of this year, is under close restriction by the military and has been threatened with a prison sentence for refusing to fight. Despite these dire consequences, Anderson has decided to join the growing ranks of troops who are openly resisting service in the Iraq War.

After haggling with his commander, Anderson received permission to take the rest of his call in private. It was then that he shared his story.

Hailing from the small city of Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, Anderson says that he was never very attracted to military life, but joined the service at the behest of his father, who had always regretted not joining the military himself. Once in the ranks, Anderson realized that he had made an unfortunate decision. During basic training, he found himself ethically opposed to taking a human life in a military conflict. He was disturbed by seeing soldiers on his base return from Iraq deeply traumatized from their experience in combat. "I didn't want to mess myself up for the rest of my life doing something I didn't want to do to begin with," he says.

Anderson had vague thoughts about filing for conscientious objector (C.O.) status but was discouraged from doing so by his commanding officers, who told him that it would not be possible for him to obtain, and even falsely informed him that he was "not the right religion." Anderson was led to believe that filing a C.O. application would be futile.

When he was ordered to deploy to Iraq on July 1st, Anderson decided he could not go. Just hours before boarding his flight, he went AWOL, eventually turning himself in after 22 days in hopes of diminishing the severity of his punishment. On his return, Anderson was again ordered to deploy to Iraq immediately. This time, he simply refused, and he says, "they haven't tried to deploy me since then because they realize I'm not going to go."

Anderson is not alone: a growing number of U.S. troops are refusing to fight in the so-called "war on terror." Army soldiers are resisting service at the highest rate since 1980, with an 80 percent increase in desertions, defined as absence for more than 30 days, since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, according to the AP Press. Over 150 resisters have come out publicly against the war, and some cases, such as Lt. Ehren Watada, the first army officer to refuse to deploy to Iraq, have garnered widespread support and attention.

Meanwhile, an increasing number of active duty G.I.s have been joining Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW), an organization comprised of over 1,200 U.S. veterans who have served since September 11, 2001. With 12 active duty members at Anderson's base alone, IVAW has taken a position of open support for G.I. resisters.

The rising number of troops who do not want to join the war face a challenge because conscientious objector status is difficult to obtain. C.O.s must prove that they are opposed to war in all forms, that their objection is based on "religious training and belief," which can include moral or ethical training, and that their beliefs are "sincere and deeply held." The application process is arduous and includes written applications, a series of examinations, and a hearing with an investigative officer. A decision on an application can take up to a year, and in the interim a C.O. application cannot forestall deployment to a combat zone, although it can help ensure that applicants are assigned duties which conflict as little as possible with C.O. convictions. Applicants face pressures to drop the issue from commanding officers, who "accidentally" lose the applications, impose informal punishments on C.O. applicants, or give false information about the process, as in the case of Anderson.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: iraq war, ehren watada, conscientious objector, u.s. military, u.s. army, war resisters, robin long, courage to resist, tony anderson, andrew gorby

Sarah Lazare is the Project Director of Courage to Resist, an organization that supports military war resisters.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from War on Iraq! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Ehren Watada is not a CO
Posted by: Robin16 on Oct 8, 2008 11:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank you for writing about resisters. However, this author is mixing up issues. In particular she raises the case of First Lt. Ehren Watada when she writes, "Over 150 resisters have come out publicly against the war, and some cases, such as Lt. Ehren Watada, the first army officer to refuse to deploy to Iraq, have garnered widespread support and attention." in an article titled "As More Troops Refuse to Deploy, Getting Conscientious Objector Status is an Uphill Battle"

Clarification, Ehren NEVER sought CO status. He refused to apply for this status when he refused to deploy. Ehren refused to deploy to Iraq on the grounds the war is illegal per the Nuremberg Principles. He was willing to deploy to Afghanistan but was told he cannot pick and choose his assignments and then was court martialed in February 2007 (ended in a mistrial, now in a case of limbo as the military is seeking to try him again, there is a federal injunction which has yet to be settled)His website is ThankYouLt.org

A better example (if one to was choose only one by name) of someone who sought CO status and was turned down and also court martialed would be Agustin Aguayo.

Again, Ehren Watada is NOT a CO, and refused to seek this status.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why are they lying?
Posted by: rickiey on Oct 8, 2008 1:22 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When they sign up for the military, they are asked several times, (before boot camp) if they are COs.

They said no.

Did they ly about being a CO at enlistment, or now?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» How do you know they were asked. Posted by: wolfgangmo75
» RE: Why are they lying Posted by: Pop
They should be commended
Posted by: blynn on Oct 8, 2008 5:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In light of the current administration's history of lying and coverup, all those who come to their senses and choose to exercise their righth to not participate in murder, should be commended. In 1969 I decide that I could be no part on the effort in Viet Nam. I filed for a CO classification. With the aid of an anti-war group, The Friends, an Amish orginaization (I believe), I was granted a CO. As this classification did little to prevent my participating in an unjust war, I went a step further and with the aid of two psychiatrists (one of whom was the former head medical officer at Fort dix), I requested and and received a 4F based on sexual identity.
I've never regretted my decision to not participate in my country's misguided and misinformed military operations. Our political leaders are not always right, nor do they always have the best interests of our young men and women in mind when decidind policy.
It's my hope that such groups and idividuals as those who provided me with assistance, will again come to the forfront and offer assistance to those now trapped by an unjust policy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: They should be commended Posted by: rickiey
Lee
Posted by: FernLee on Oct 8, 2008 8:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm pretty sure that being a Quaker is the "right" religion to apply for CO status. Are there any others that seem to have an outright benefit such as Unitarian?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Lee Posted by: wolfgangmo75
I am thankful
Posted by: lil ole me on Oct 8, 2008 10:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That we have men and women who are in uniform that are willing to question what they are fighting for. Its too easy for someone in uniform to say they were only following orders. The Nazis were quite famous for that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Big Deal
Posted by: chcknhawk on Oct 9, 2008 9:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wow! 150 of more than 1.5 million deployed troops in the past 6 years have refused deployment. Is 0.01% really a noteworthy number? Sounds like there aren't "more troops" doing anything. The desertion rates were higher in Vietnam and WWII.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]