Hooray For "60 Minutes"!!!

On Sunday, 25 February, 2007, CBS "60 Minutes" aired a segment on the almost 1400 or so active duty troops that have signed An Appeal for Redress from the War in Iraq petition that speaks out against the combat occupation of Iraq.

The petition is not the important part of this story. The important part of the story is that in addition to veterans returning from Iraq speaking out against the way things are being done in Iraq, as well as almost 40 retired generals and field grade officers, almost 1400 active duty Army, National Guard and Reserve troops have joined their voices in opposition to the "war" in Iraq.

Americans in the military have been asked to make extraordinary sacrifices in recent years, particularly in Iraq, where the casualties are mounting, the tours are being extended, and some of them have had enough.

Correspondent Lara Logan heard dissension in the ranks from a large group of service members who are fed up and have decided to go public. They’re not going AWOL, they're not disobeying orders or even refusing to fight in Iraq. But they are doing something unthinkable to many in uniform: bypassing the chain of command to denounce a war they’re in the middle of fighting.

These troops are not cowards that are seeking to avoid duty in a combat area, nor are they standing on principle to avoid rotating back to the combat zones (like Ehren Watada), but are folks who are (or have) occupying boots on the ground in Iraq. In fact, three of the soldiers interviewed for this segment were already back in Iraq for a second or third rotation in the combat areas. It is not easy for any soldier, sailor, airman or marine to speak out about such things. It is atypical that they would do so via a petition that circumvents the usual chain of command channels, and they risk ostracization by their fellow soldiers, as well as career retaliation at some point in their military career. But they stood together with cause and principle to speak out against the way things are being done in Iraq, the way troops are being put in harm's way without justification, and the way our troops are being wounded, disabled or killed without justifiable cause.

"As a patriotic citizen who served two combat tours in Iraq, I just feel like this war, it's simply just not working out anymore, and soldiers are dying there everyday," says Specialist Kevin Torres.

Torres didn’t always feel that way—he enlisted in the Army right out of high school, after 9/11. He has twice served in Iraq, patrolling the mainly Kurdish north of the country, and carrying out combat patrols and goodwill missions.

"I joined because I just wanted to make a difference. I wanted to be a part of our generation's war," Torres says.

"You've been on two deployments and you didn't always feel this way. Was there a point at which, you know, something you experienced that made you think," Logan asks.

"Yeah. In January, we were doing routine presence patrol through the city of Hawija, and one of our trucks was hit by a roadside bomb, an IED, and it killed four of the soldiers out of the five that were in the truck. And during the recovery of the fallen soldiers all the debris outside of the truck. And we just had the truck was loaded with school supplies and soccer balls and crayons and notebooks and coloring books. We just wanna help. And it was just a really eye-opening and frustrating experience. Because we're still getting killed out there," he says.

It’s a sentiment echoed by all of the service members who are part of this protest.

Listening to Torres speak, I could hear how difficult it was for him to say these words. He was torn between his loyalty to God, country and right, and speaking the truth of matters in Iraq. He is speaking because our troops are not getting a fair shake from the Pentagon, the DOD or the White House. He is speaking out because his fellow soldiers are being killed and we have not given them proper armor, equipment or even a just cause for their sacrifices. Still, Torres and his fellow soldiers are there serving with honor, duty and good faith to their oaths of service.

Torres and others are clearly stating that the "stay the course" plan, with or without the planned surge, is not working and is not likely to work in the future... and the troops on the ground know it to be true. If Torres, et al, were a handful complaining about the conditions, we could chalk it up to soldiers' grumblings. But these troopers are not complaining for the sake of a grumble, which many people consider a soldier's right, but are speaking with authority and expertise: our plan for Iraq is not working and was poorly planned and executed from the onset.

"It's not about speaking out against the military or speaking out against the war. It's just, we're here four years down the line and there's not an end to it," Sgt. Evans, one of the dissenters, tells Logan.

"What are we trying to accomplish over there? I mean, what is what are we trying to do in Iraq?" another soldier, Sgt. Ronn Cantu asks.

What does he think?

"I don't even know anymore," he tells Logan.

"Well, what would you say to the people that say, 'Alright, it's clear that the war in Iraq is incredibly difficult and life is really tough both for Americans and for Iraqis, but pulling out's not the answer. It's only gonna get worse. There's gonna be all-out civil war,'" Logan asks.

"How does that become the default? Either someday, we have to leave. We can't stay in Iraq for the next thousand years," one soldier remarks.

Asked if there's a possibility that Iraq might be better off if American troops stay and finish the job, Cantu says, "But then our lives are hanging in the balance of a flip of a coin."

"That doesn't seem worth it to you? Those are not good odds?" Logan asks.

"Yes. I mean, we volunteered to make a difference, not just be part of an experiment," he replies.

The idea for this protest by active duty and reserve service members came from two enlisted men who served in the war: Marine Sgt. Liam Madden, who got to Iraq during the battle of Falluja, and his military commitment is up this winter, and Naval Petty Officer Jonathan Hutto, who serves on the USS Theodore Roosevelt, which was deployed in the Gulf during Operation Iraqi Freedom.

"I'm not anti-war. I'm not a pacifist. I'm not opposed to protecting our country and defending our principles. But at the same time, as citizens it's our obligation to have a questioning attitude, you know, about policy," Hutto says,

"Just because we volunteered for the military, doesn't mean we volunteered to put our lives in unnecessary harm, and to carry out missions that are illogical and immoral," Madden adds.

That last quote speaks volumes about what is, and has been, going on in Iraq. The troops in the boots--those pounding the sand, facing the heat, and suffering the sacrifices--are being asked to do things that are, for lack of a better term, un-American. These troops are telling us that we are not defending our nation, not liberating the oppressed, not standing up for liberty and justice. They are telling us that our own conduct in Iraq is questionable, not just in those cases of abuse (i.e. Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo), or of illegal and immoral assaults (i.e. the several cases of rape and murder that we are dealing with), but also in the everyday conduct of the missions.

"A senior officer in the Marine Corps said to me when I asked him about the Appeal, what was his opinion – and he served in both Iraq wars – he said, 'I have a hard enough time getting young men to put themselves in harm’s way, without having to have men in uniform tell them it’s not worth it,'" Logan remarks.

"We’re not telling young men and women that it’s not worth it, to serve their country. We’ve served our country. The men and women who have signed the appeal have served their country. So those, we’re not saying it’s not worth it. We’re saying that, if you have reservations about it to communicate it. That’s simply what it is," Hutto says.

In my experience, any member of the military that brings up issues is automatically labeled as a trouble maker, disloyal, disgruntled or otherwise unfit. It will not be a surprise if we see that those who signed this petition retaliated against by their commanders... but it will be in ways that offer plausible deniability. In fact, for those that are rotating back to combat, I wouldn't be too surprised if they get assigned the most hazardous and risky assignments. This is a risk they were willing to take to tell us that things stink in Iraq and the garbage needs to be taken out.

"There are gonna be a lot of people who don't like what you’re doing," Logan says.

"By volunteering we've done more than about 99 percent of the population. And anybody who joined after 9/11 when the country was at a state of war, it's my opinion that nobody has the right to question that soldier's patriotism, nobody," Cantu replies.

"There are going to be a lot of people listening to this who say that, 'You're a traitor. You're betraying your uniform. You don't deserve to wear it,'" says Logan.

"I hope there aren't people that think that," says Lt. Commander Mark Dearden.

For him, going public has been one of the hardest decisions of his life. He’s a combat surgeon who served during Operation Iraqi Freedom, returned for a second tour and now treats soldiers at a Naval hospital in California.

"The decision to come here for me personally was not an easy one. And I don't expect it was for anyone. Last night I was with my family in the park in our town and it hit me that 'At this very moment, while I'm standing here, people are fighting and people are dying.' I've seen it with my own eyes. And I can feel it in my chest," Dearden says.

Dearden acknowledges this is very hard for him and he also admits that it isn't so much a protest as a plea.

Here is an officer that just about tanked his Navy career, whether he can see that or not. No officer in the US Navy Medical Corps that voices such concerns is likely to make the next pay grade, never mind receiving fitness reports that support his or her retention in the service.

So it is a matter of principle and a courageous act to speak out and sign the Redress petition.

According to a recent Military Times survey, many in uniform feel the same way. The poll found that for the first time ever more US soldiers oppose the president’s handling of the war in Iraq than support it.

The Military Times is an independent military-focused media outlet. It does not have a particular political agenda, except perhaps to focus on those issues that concern the troops, the military leadership and the overall readiness of the military. This particular poll actually uses data collected in 2005 and reinforced by data collected in 2006.

Support for President Bush and for the war in Iraq has slipped significantly in the last year among members of the military’s professional core, according to the 2005 Military Times Poll.

Approval of the president’s Iraq policy fell 9 percentage points from 2004; a bare majority, 54 percent, now say they view his performance on Iraq as favorable. Support for his overall performance fell 11 points, to 60 percent, among active-duty readers
of the Military Times newspapers. Though support both for President Bush and for the war in Iraq remains significantly higher than in the public as a whole, the drop is likely to add further fuel to the heated debate over Iraq policy. In 2003 and 2004, supporters of the war in Iraq pointed to high approval ratings in the Military Times Poll as a signal that military members were behind President Bush’s the president’s policy.

The poll also found diminished optimism that U.S. goals in Iraq can be accomplished, and a somewhat smaller drop in support for the decision to go to war in 2003.

It is clear that the views offered by those that signed the Redress petition may also be shared by many other active duty troops who are reluctant to go on the record or express their views in a public forum. But why would such a dramatic shift in the views of our troops occur?

Still, critics claim the group is partisan, just out to boost Democrats who oppose the war.

"I'm certainly not liberal, and I doubt many of the members on this panel are liberal. It's not funded by any partisan organization. It's soldiers. It's service members. It's grass roots. It's us," says Lt. Kent Gneiting.

White House spokesman Tony Snow has dismissed the protesters as an insignificant minority. "It’s not unusual for soldiers in a time of war to have some misgivings. You have several hundred thousand who served in Iraq. You have reenlistment rates that have exceeded goals in all the military," he said.

Logan read to the group: "And then he goes on to say that it's unfortunate that people like you – and the quote is – are 'going to be able to get more press than the hundreds of thousands who have come back and said they are proud of their service.'"

Sgt. Cantu responds, "You got two right here who are gonna do multiple tours in Iraq and, you know, I'm reenlisting. I never said I wasn't proud of my service. I fit some of those statistics right there myself."

In a typical spin fashion, the White House unleashed its newest pet guard dog, Tony "Can't See The Truth Directly In Front Of His Eyes" Snow, to dismiss the courageous and risky act of going on the record against what is going on in Iraq. How can anyone with a lick of sense consider 1400 (and soon to be more) active duty troops as an "insignificant minority"? What kind of man uses statistics regarding enlistment to justify disrespecting the courage and principles of honest, loyal and dutiful soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines? Snow, and probably President Bush, seems to be able to dismiss anything that doesn't suit their entrenched views of the world, just like they dismissed the intelligence reports that didn't suit their desire to invade Iraq. It is not a matter of pride in service, it is a matter of principle and adhering to the oath or enlistment or commission.

For many in uniform, there’s an unwritten code of honor that says no matter how tough your situation is or whatever your private doubts about the mission may be, you just never speak out publicly against it, and so for them what the service members of this campaign are doing is nothing short of a betrayal.

"That’s not something I would do personally," a specialist remarks.

Logan spoke with soldiers from the 1st Cavalry who are currently serving in Baghdad. They acknowledged that the servicemen and women who signed the petition have the right to do so – but that doesn’t mean they should.

"I think every American soldier throughout history has wanted combat to stop," a major remarked.

"As an American soldier I feel like we took an oath to obey the orders of our Commander in Chief and officers appointed over us," Army Spec. James Smauldon adds.

I am going to suggest that Specialist Smauldon needs to go back and read his oath because he is not only obligated to adhere to the orders above him, but his primary duty under that oath is to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, with specific reference to defending it "against all enemies, foreign or domestic." Perhaps Spec. Smauldon fell asleep during that part of the lectures on Military Law that every enlisted person receives during boot camp.

Similarly, the training on military law received in boot camp covers the topic of lawful versus unlawful orders. Any order that contradicts, or is repugnant to, the Constitution is by its very nature is unlawful. The unlawful nature of orders to deploy to Iraq is why 1st Lt. Ehren Watada should have been able to bring that fact into evidence at his first trial, which ended up with a hung panel and a declared mistrial. So now he will face another court martial. Hopefully it will be with a different presiding military judge and the issue of lawful orders in an illegally executed invasion and occupation will be allowed as evidence. In case it is not, that will be the grounds for appeal to the SCOTUS.

"I know what I’m here fighting for, to give the Iraqi people some democracy and hope so I am 100 percent behind this mission. You don’t sign up to pick which war you go to," Army Capt. Lawrence Nunn replies.

What would Ronn Cantu say to that?

"We haven't said that we're not going to war. But the time this airs I'll be back in Iraq," he replies.

"We don't get to choose the mission. Our leadership gets to choose the mission. Congress gets to choose the mission. My Congressman is Lacy Clay. I would like to tell him as a constituent of his, "Is this really – is this it?" Staff Sgt. Matt Nuckolls says.

"What do you mean, is this it?" Logan asks.

Says Nuckolls, "Is the mission in Iraq really what you want us to be doing? And then he responds, yes. Okay, well we go back to Iraq and keep doing what we're doing."

"We volunteer to make a difference, not just throw our lives away," Cantu adds.

It says a lot when the troops--even an "insignificant minority" as it is viewed by the White House--feel that the missions in Iraq are not making a difference and that they perceive the entirety of affairs as throwing away lives.

What speaks volumes about these troops is that they have impeccable service records. These are not the "shitbirds" or shirkers that are speaking out. These are men and women with proven combat area experience and multiple tours of duty. These are not cowardly nay-sayers that are seeking to run away from the issues, concerns and problems. These are dedicated professional soldiers that know when the stink isn't right.

I would also point my readers to review the videos of veterans that have returned from Iraq and speaking out in videos like "The Ground Truth" or signing onto the Iraq Veterans Against The War movement, or the views expressed by Colonel Mary Ann Wright, or the accounts of combat experience in Iraq (and/or Afghanistan) by vets like Kelly Dougherty.