Skip to main content

Our Hero Watada

Hey, it sounds good ya know, officers doing their duty to evaluate the situation and refuse to serve if they don't agree that the cause is a just cause.

It might make running the military a bit difficult but is that really a *bad* thing? If politicians can't count on blind obedience from the military they might not involve us in unpopular wars, or any wars at all, for that matter.

So what is this guy complaining about?

Believe it or not, Lieutenant, were you to be upheld in your assertions, it would set exactly the wrong precedent. The one where the soldiers (worse - the Officers) decide what is right and good in their employment. Exactly one of the things the Founders feared, regarding a large standing Army.


If an officer can make up his or her own mind about who's lawful orders to obey (and folks, lets be clear here, calling the war in Iraq illegal does not make it illegal, strong feelings and profoundly held beliefs do not create legal precident,) then why obey the president and civilian leadership at all?

Congress can take a hike and the President can stay home because it's no longer up to them, it's up to the individual conscience of individual military officers. Oh, Congress may still hold the purse strings, but they can't make anyone fight. In the face of an emergency, who wins that standoff?

How long until the officers realize that they can force a change in leadership at will? Make it a condition to fight and they can appoint their own. If not a military dictatorship, we'd at least be looking at a system where the President served only at the leave of the military leadership.

There is a REASON that our military subjects itself to civilian leadership. That reason is far more important than Watada's little PR prank.

And the fact is, you who think Watada is so brave don't really have to worry about military dictatorships because the rest of us *do* understand why we obey the orders of the civilian leadership even if we think the guy is a prick and likely to get us killed for no reason.

Because the alternative is worse.

And if the Democrat canidate prevails in 2008, the 3/4ths of the military who can be expected to vote Republican will NOT go home or begin to refuse orders or "pull a Watada."

And you can thank them for that.

Comments

Anna said…
What is even more funny, Watada's first name is German and means 'honor.'

He has lots of honor. /sarc

Popular posts from this blog

Tyranny.gov vs Tyranny.com

Compulsion is Compulsion, no matter who does it.  This is Brilliant Theft is Theft, no matter who does it. Freedom of Association has no room in it for *private* action   that takes that away Freedom of Association. If I have a business and have voluntary associations such that I choose to serve some people and to not serve others, that might make me a jerk and it might lose me business, it might make me smart and it might gain me business, but it's got to be my choice.  If I would normally serve the current disliked minority in my shop except for the fact that if I'm SEEN to serve them by the wrong people I'll have a private campaign against me as those people do everything possible to ruin me by preventing me from doing business physically or by attacking my customers or suppliers, then I am NOT free to make those choices. Does it really make a difference to losing my CHOICE to voluntarily associate if there's a law that says I may not serve "those people" o...

Some times some people.

 

What Cancel Culture is NOT

  Maybe we should talk about what cancel culture isn't. It's not a boycott.  It's not deciding to no longer go to a business. It's not giving a bad review for bad service. It generally involves two things. First, the offense is a matter of opinion. Second, secondary or even tertiary targets are threatened. Cancellation does not need to be successful, and often with very famous and wealthy people it is not successful. But it serves as a warning to vulnerable people who are not in a position to weather that kind of attack. The goal is terroristic in that it's about forcing social behavior in people who are not currently the subject of the attack. The message is always, this could happen to you. And the tactic invariably includes seeking out vulnerable people to threaten in order to put pressure on businesses or on the target of the attack. So it works like this: JK Rowling is invulnerable. But they can try, right? So what they do is they find out who works for the pub...