One-on-One with 1st Lt. Ehren Watada

By Carolyn Aoyagi-Stom, The Pacific Citizen. Posted September 12, 2006.

It's been just a little over a month now since 1st Lt. Ehren Watada followed through with his decision to refuse deployment orders to Iraq after offering to serve in other areas of the world and rendering his resignation. Now the U.S. Army has officially charged him for his actions, and he faced a pre-trial hearing on Aug. 17.

From Fort Lewis, Washington, where he is currently stationed and working in an administrative position, Watada spoke with us. Although he now faces three charges -- missing troop movement, conduct unbecoming an officer, and contempt towards officials -- he has no regrets.

Reflecting on the impact his decision has had both personally and for the larger Japanese American community, we get a rare glimpse into the reasons behind Watada's controversial decision.

Pacific Citizen: How has the response from the Japanese American community and the larger Asian Pacific American community been since you announced your decision in June?

Ehren Watada: Just by reading a few of the comments, the response has been fairly polarized. I didn't expect a large proportion of Asian Americans or Japanese Americans to rally to my side. To be honest, I didn't know what to expect. I feel relieved that all Americans, regardless of race or creed, including AAs have lent their support. This really shouldn't be an issue about race. Yet, it is curious to note that the majority of soldiers who have voiced their support in person, have been minorities. Whether they see me as giving a voice to minorities in the Army or simply fighting for minority rights I don't know.

PC: How have you been doing since the charges were announced? Any regrets?

EW: No regrets. How could I regret making the moral choice? How could I regret refusing to participate in something I believe is illegal? How could I continue to be silent -- condoning the continual violation of laws by our nation's leaders?

To understand my position, you first have to ask yourself what you believe is the role of an American soldier. Is he or she a mercenary -- obliged by a signed contract to follow all orders without question? Or can he or she be a freethinking, educated, and rational person, given the opportunity to discern between lawful and unlawful orders?

Not surprisingly, the prevailing attitude whether assumed or reinforced is "yes" to the first question. The Army has always strongly relied on the authoritarian command structure where orders are followed without question and the assumption is that those issuing the orders are trusted and honorable. Yet, my experience tells me that those who issue the orders are not infallible, including our civilian leadership. Reliance on an unquestioning, blindly obedient Army is a slippery slope which can only lead to the likes of Abu Graib and many other atrocities that will never be known by mainstream America.

So then we go back to the role of the American soldier. The ability and responsibility to question is not a foreign thought even in the Army. Just a month before my former unit deployed, a battalion commander (lieutenant colonel) was relieved of his command. This came about because his subordinate commanders formed a consensus that he nurtured a negative command climate and voiced their dissent to the battalion commander's boss.

According to my detractors, this would constitute mutiny! Surely, these captains should have waited for this lieutenant colonel's command time to end (after Iraq) -- after all, he had trained with these men for over a year. But these men committed no such crime, because fortunately for them and their men, there exists a system of accountability. I would hope that your readers can take this example and apply it to my situation.

PC: As you know, the JA community has long revered its war vets, especially its WWII vets. Do you think your decision has had a negative impact on their accomplishments?

EW: The 442nd Infantry and 100th Battalion are one of the most decorated units in American Army history. Many Americans who have served or are serving in the military will never know this fact. The JAs who served during WWII fought a two-front battle. They fought against the Germans, Italians, and Japanese. They also fought for their civil rights and that of their families. Some even saw it as fighting for their honor and loyalty as Americans.

Participating in the war in Iraq shows neither honor nor loyalty. If my family was behind barbed wire today, I would not fight in Iraq. This is a war based upon deception of the American people and conducted in full violation of the Geneva Conventions, international humanitarian law, and the laws of land warfare. This is not a WWII fight against German or Japanese aggression. In this war, we the Americans, are the aggressors.

Caroline Aoyagi-Stom is the Executive Editor of the Pacific Citizen.

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