Question to those who have served or are serving

[Clair]

This question is specific and limited to those of us who have served in the Military or are currently serving in the military.  Sorry to exclude those of you who may have opinions on this, but I'm only looking for thoughts from those of us who have served.  I would greatly appreciate it if you have not served that you not post.  It is not that I am not interested in your opinion, but if you haven't served then you don't have the same perspective as those of us who have served.  It is that perspective I am looking for.  So only post if you have served.

Also, I request that this thread stay on topic and NOT turn into a political thread or anything like that.  Okay?

Please state your military time and MOS, let's us know where you're coming from.

Here's the question:

conscientious objector   ...  Can you really be one if you've joined the military?  Can you become one over time?  What are your thoughts on this?

[Clair]

USAR, '81-'87  95B Military Police

Here's what prompted this ... I read the headline (forget where) where a soldier was discharged as a conscientious objector  based on his religion.  And it got me thinking about it so I wanted to ask your opinions.

I"m pretty damn liberal on most things.  Flaming Left for most of you.  But I did my time.  Granted it was Reserves. The only active duty time I saw was the 2 weeks a year and a weekend a month.  I never saw combat and am very grateful for that.  I never had to shoot or kill someone, and am grateful for that.  However, when I enlisted I understood fully that at any time I could be activated and that I may end up in harms way.  I hoped and prayed every day that it would not happen, and I was lucky enough that it did not occur.

However ... I joined the US Army. DId my basic training at Fort Dix, AIT at Fort McClellan in AL.  I learned how to fire a variety of weapons ... rifles, pistols, etc.  I fully understood that the purpose of this was to enable me to SHOOT AND KILL another human being if I was sent into Combat.  Not something I'm thrilled with, but that is what the military does ... you learn to KILL.  You have to, it's the job, it's waht war is about.  It's awful, wrong, all that, but it is what it is all about.  I knew there'd be violence.  I may have to wound, maim, or kill.  I was getting training in that. I accepted that .. this was the Army after all.

Each of us goes through this with our training, be it Army, Marines, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard. Some get it mroe than others it can be argued, but we do get trained for combat.  We get MOS's specific to military duty and every US Army Soldier understands that his / her primary MOS is infantry, regardless of what we get certified in.  Clerk Typist?  You're in the infantry.  Cook?  Infantry.  Medic?  infantry.  When the time comes we fight.

So ... this is a voluntary military.  We chose to join.  IF we didn't understand this before joining, our initial training teaches us what it's all about.  Thus ... how can one become a conscientious objector ???  You knew what it was all about going in!  You got the training to maim and kill others.  It was never a surprise.  Thus, I'm not sure one can really be a conscientious objector, at least not after you've done your AIT (or equivalent)  and are assigned duty.  If after AIT you suddenly have the epiphany and realize this isn't for you, then fine, be a conscientious objector   and get out, but after that ... no, I don't buy it that you now become a conscientious objector.  Suddenly it's wrong?  After weeks, months, years in the military?  Sorry, don't buy it.  You may want out, may not like it, may be afraid you'll see combat, I can understand that, but also tough sh$t.

So, for the most part (not every case but most of them imho), I think conscientious objector  is more of a way to get out of your commitment, rather than really being a conscientious objector.

[jerome_oneil]

No you can not.   You might become one, but from what I've seen, most people in the service that seek C.O. status do so right before they're deployed to a combat zone.

[atypical1]

USA - 87 - 91. 1stBn 69th Armor (19D)

US Marines - 96 -00 1/2 Marines and 2d Mar Regt HQ (LogO)

I guess that it is possible for someone to change their religion or their moral beliefs but don't think that is the norm. Also not sure that the soldier, Marine, airman, etc. should not have some repercussions attached to that status (i.e. dishonorable discharge).

james

[dm_gsxr]

Please state your military time and MOS, let's us know where you're coming from.

USMCR May 75-Jun 76
US Army Jun 76-Dec 82

MOS... Hmm, 0311 originally. I stayed that MOS even though I was with a HQ company in Baltimore MD and did surveying. In the Army I was a Military Policeman and then transitioned into being an Illustrator and Graphics Artist before not being allowed to re-up because I was 5 lbs overweight.

Here's the question:

conscientious objector   ...  

Can you really be one if you've joined the military?

No (Edit: I read this as "can you morally join the military knowing you were a CO" as the next question would ask and answer the spirit of this question ).

Can you become one over time?

Sure, as you mature you can better form opinions and beliefs which would let you become a CO.

What are your thoughts on this?

Hmm, tough call. You should serve out your time and leave the military. If you are in a combat position where it interferes with your objections, you should be transferred to a unit where you can continue to serve and then leave the military at your next opportunity. In either case, you should not benefit (no "GI Bill" or whatever it's called now, no medical, etc...) and you should get a General Discharge.

That's my immediate answer and thoughts without reading through the thread. Well reasoned arguments might change my mind or refine my thoughts as I follow the thread

Carl

[Yankee Dog]

US Army; 4 years 11B, 8 years 18A.

An ethical person cannot join the military if they are a CO.  A non-ethical person could not be a CO as ethics is what CO is all about.  

Of course a person could change while in the service.  But that person should take immediate action to leave the service and not wait for deployment before bringing the whole thing up.  There are channels for that sort of thing.  But if you wait for deployment, sorry then you get what you deserve.  

Yankee Dog

[gundog]

Army 20 years 11B and 19D

1.  No

2.  Yes but your motives will be questioned

3.  Being granted a CO status does not come easy. My last several years
were as a senior NCO, where I dealt with this subject a couple of times.
The investigations were long and thorough and
in all but one, the request was denied.
Personally, I believe in this day of an All-Volunteer force,
CO status should not even exist.

[Mac]

Navy 10 years 89-99 AT

I recall when I originally enlisted, I was asked point blank if I were a CO.

I feel that a CO should not be allowed to enlist or if allowed they should be designated a specialty that would incur no combat.(ie mess specialist)

If someone somehow becomes a Co while in service, give them the option of an other than honorable or dishonorable(dependant on Commanding Officer's recomendation) discharge or change of duty to non-combat des with loss of rank (1 or 2 grades) and perhaps more years added to their enlistment.

[lizard]

USMC 1984-1991 HAWK anti-aircraft missile system electronics tech

1) A person who is a real CO couldn't join our current all volunteer military. They would be a hypocrite by joining an organization dedicated to what they object to. As stated, the military exists for the sole purpose of being prepared for WAR! If you're not in one, you are training for the next one.

2) Yes, I think somebody could become a CO while serving, as they mature and grow as a person but it would be unlikely because the military isn't about maturing and growing as a person in the "touchy feely" kind of way that might produce a CO. Again, if they become a legitimate CO they should try to get out because any position in the military would be supporting what they are against. Any legitimate CO would not re-enlist or stay longer than their current obligation.

3) I think 99.999% of people declaring CO status are just trying to get over on the system. They never thought they'd actually have to do what they committed to when they joined the military. They joined for the educational benefits or job skills or such and just want/expected the free ride without having to fulfill their obligation. Now that they are staring that obligation in the face, they are looking for a way out! "Send Lawyers, Guns, and Money...Dad, Get me out of this!" --Warren Zevon

[Johnny Monsoon]

Soldiers/Airmen/Sailors/Marines are all Americans.  Americans enjoy the freedom to believe what they want, and to arbitrarily change their minds as their experiences stack up.  As such, I believe that you can join the military as a CO.  Yes, you are trained in combat, and our mission (as an absolute last resort) is to be proficient in the art of armed warfare.  Our PRIMARY mission is to be a peacekeeping force, and it should be clear to anyone with two brain cells to rub together that we are more of a humanitarian, peace-keeping force than a war machine for nearly all of our functions.  In that regard, I believe you can ethically join the military as a CO.

As our conflicts change, it would be very easy for a military member to be very supportive of a military action when they join, however to change their minds and become a CO in a different situation.

13 years USAF; 2A5X3C, Electronic Warfare.

[atypical1]

I think that disagreeing with a particular conflict and being a CO are two totally different things.

Also, being a CO by its very definition kinda means that you can't join the armed forces.

james

[Johnny Monsoon]

I think that disagreeing with a particular conflict and being a CO are two totally different things.

Also, being a CO by its very definition kinda means that you can't join the armed forces.

james

Untrue, in fact that was the first question asked at my BMT inprocessing.

As for disagreeing:  I see policy changing over time.  The changing scope of US policy concerning particular conflicts changes our outlook on how we act as a military; to that end, I think it is absolutely reasonable for a dedicated military member to become a CO over time when the direction of our policy treads into the realm of unacceptable actions to the individual in question.

[atypical1]

I don't see how a CO could join the military to begin with. It is not logical to me at all.

I also have a hard time with someone becoming a CO because they disagree with our foreign policy. In other words I would question if they were truly a CO and disagree with all conflicts or just the present one.

[rockwells]

AF, 21yrs, K11470 (Instr Loadmaster, C-130 & C-5)

 One should know what one's getting into before signing on the dotted line.  IMHO, used to be a lotta folks signing up just for the training and benifits.  Lotz of them got busted during the first Gulf War. Probhably not so many nowadays.  Yes, one can change one's opinion as one ages/becomes more educated/religous/etc.  In that case, as others have stated, that person needs to seperate from the service ASAP, or apply to crosstrain into an MOS/AFSC more compatable with their new beliefs, i.e: coreman, chaplin's assistant, etc.  One that just wants out, period, should get a general or dishonorable discharge, and no benifits.  My .02

[baldheadeddork]

Building on this question: What if you believe the war is based on an illegal order?

[Johnny Monsoon]

I don't see how a CO could join the military to begin with. It is not logical to me at all.

I also have a hard time with someone becoming a CO because they disagree with our foreign policy. In other words I would question if they were truly a CO and disagree with all conflicts or just the present one.

The military is more often like the peace corps than an armed force in over 90% of its 'missions'.  From things like Habitat for Humanity to Toys For Tots, and a host of other more specific US functions.  They also provide a huge humanitarian service abroad and during times of national disaster.  The military is very well funded and has a lot of liberty with how it uses those funds.  In that regard, a person interested in acting as a humanitarian with the option to join in a low-deploy job would probably see more immediate and well-thought out (or well funded) humanitarian missions/functions than those who joined more traditional avenues.  The military doesn't need you to be willing to kill someone to process payroll, but you sure as hell need someone to process payroll to get anyone to be willing to fight.

My job took me very close to font lines in one facet, and kept me very well guarded in another (though the latter was also a much more jucy target).  An avionics electronics tech probably doesn't expect to see, and will only in the most extreme of situations experience combat.  Even MASH units, near front lines don't expect to see any real combat (my father supported these in the Army) despite being decidedly more exposed.

Now, let's get back to policy changing.  Let's say our next Prez slipped a little further into a fascist state.  Let's say we start having our houses bugged and decide that the UN has betrayed us for the last time.  We start moving toward a 'V For Vendetta' state and take world matters into our own hands.  For as fictitious as this may sound, we've skirted this threshold many times in our history, and often during the course of a normal military career.  It is reasonable, I think, that policy could change to such an extent that you could no longer execute your duties on a military level.

However, all that aside, military members are still Americans, and as such, have every right to become COs.  I defended the FREEDOM of Americans to do things that I disagreed with (like burning flags, supporting the very dastardly KKK/black panthers, neo-nazis, or even being COs).  Can't have freedom without allowing people to be free.  Military members do not need to think  just one way, or to have just one perspective to be protectors of freedom.  Remember, while the military *protects and guards* freedom, it is the American population who keep it alive.  Arguably, military members have less freedom than any other American citizen.

[toodles]

Ya! I was in the Navy from 1959 to 1965 and liked most all of it. I was on a ship for some of the time and spent some time in Nam. That was not alot of fun! I do believe there should still be a draft. I'm sure that statment will get a few comments. However I think this mess we in now sucks! We have no business being there at all. Bush is a war  maker and I'm afraid he is not done yet. GT

[jerome_oneil]

Building on this question: What if you believe the war is based on an illegal order?

You follow your orders.  Believing the war is illegal isn't really an argument that will hold water.

[protondecay123]

I'll bite on this one. USN 86-92 ET rate (Dc'd ET2)

My time in the Navy made me very anti-military. I was in the first gulf war in the Red Sea helping blockade Aqaba, Jordan and supporting the Eisenhower.  I sucked it up, but I can see how someone can change their mind about it.

Life is change. The one sure thing you can bet on is that you will die.

[jerome_oneil]

 I do believe there should still be a draft. I'm sure that statment will get a few comments.

You might be surprised.  There are valid arguments for it, and the number of people that believe in compulsory service is probably broader than you think.

[jerome_oneil]

I'll bite on this one. USN 86-92 ET rate (Dc'd ET2)

My time in the Navy made me very anti-military. I was in the first gulf war in the Red Sea helping blockade Aqaba, Jordan and supporting the Eisenhower.  I sucked it up, but I can see how someone can change their mind about it.

Life is change. The one sure thing you can bet on is that you will die.

I was a DS on USS Ranger during the same time period.

Totally different outcome, though.  Made me appreciate the military even more.

[atypical1]

The military is more often like the peace corps than an armed force in over 90% of its 'missions'.  From things like Habitat for Humanity to Toys For Tots, and a host of other more specific US functions.  They also provide a huge humanitarian service abroad and during times of national disaster.  

I understand that part. I have taken part in those missions and agree with them. In fact I read where the naval services (Navy, Marines, and CG) want to do more of them thinking that the way to avoid war is to stabilize an area is to help it out.

I just don't get how a CO who is someone who is opposed to the Armed Services can join said Armed Services to begin with.

james

[F14Scott]

LT, USN, 1320, F-14A Tomcat RIO
eight years active duty, 91-98
thirteen combat hops over the box

I believe one's views toward the application of means to attain political ends can change.

I believe many service members, myself included, mature greatly while on active duty, in no small part because most are so young when they enlist.

I believe the military, being voluntary, should allow people to resign honorably if their beliefs are no longer compatible with military service.

However, comma,

I know that combat operations rely on people obeying orders, ones that may expose the receiver of those orders to extreme risk, up to and including death.  When your CO says, "rush that machine gun mount," he expects you to do it, and you expect he has a damn good reason to send you.

I also know that, in today's complex battlefield, you can't just rotate someone to a stateside admin job and get a replacement.  It's not just a body with a rifle, anymore.  Teams, and therefore lives, depend on technically qualified people.  It's challenging enough replacing them if they become casualties.

Therefore, if I were in charge, the rules would be as follows:

1.  No resignations within 90 days of the beginning of or while on a combat deployment.
2.  No voluntarily removing one's self from combat status in the same periods as #1.  This means no tactical med downs.  Self-inflicted incapacitating injuries, including accidents and pregnancy, would be subject to board review and penalties.
3.  Terms of committment would be tied to training expense.  While "paying" for training received, no resignations, subject to penalties.  After your initial committment, further reenlistment terms would be short.

[Yankee Dog]

..................Our PRIMARY mission is to be a peacekeeping force, ................

No offense, but where in the world did you get that idea.  The primary mission of the Army for instance is to "Win the Land Battle".  It is what they are taught, it is what they are trained for.  

Trying to make policemen out of soldiers is where half the problems come from.  

yankee Dog

[baldheadeddork]

You follow your orders.  Believing the war is illegal isn't really an argument that will hold water.

Under the UCMJ, aren't you obligated to not follow illegal orders?

I'm not trying to be cute. What is the difference between a Lt. Calley ordering you to shoot an unarmed non-combatant and a CINC who fabricated evidence to get us into the war? The UCMJ codifies the Geneva Conventions, which also have standing because they were signed and ratified by the US, and that makes the latter an illegal act.

[CannibalCrowley]

USMC 1999-2003
0311/0351

Can you really be one if you've joined the military?

Yes, there are plenty of non-combatant roles in the military.

Can you become one over time? What are your thoughts on this?

I can certainly see that happening; however, one should still fulfill one's end of an agreement. If you agree to be a grunt for 4 years and decide that violence is "icky" 6 months in, too bad. Apply for a transfer and you might get one; but you certainly shouldn't feel in any way entitled to a switch just because of a change of heart.

I don't see how a CO could join the military to begin with. It is not logical to me at all.

One of our Corpsmen would have been a CO had he ever been forced to become a trigger puller; but he saw nothing wrong with serving his country by being a medic.

[bomber]

USA -- 71/74 -- 26Lima (Mobile Micowave Tech) and 11Bravo (you know)

Of course a CO can serve -- medic, medevac pilot, cook, clerk typist -- so far as I know, the objection is not to service, but, rather, to taking lives

I once knew an A1 medic that served in the field -- he did great work, walked through fire like it wasn't there, and saved many lives and limbs . . . ..

I've know some people who I considered AS brave, but no one braver

[budah1]

USA -- 71/74 -- 26Lima (Mobile Micowave Tech) and 11Bravo (you know)

Of course a CO can serve -- medic, medevac pilot, cook, clerk typist -- so far as I know, the objection is not to service, but, rather, to taking lives

I once knew an A1 medic that served in the field -- he did great work, walked through fire like it wasn't there, and saved many lives and limbs . . . ..

I've know some people who I considered AS brave, but no one braver

Noting the timeframe you served do honetsly think a "cook/or clerk typist" is not put in harms way while deployed?   I have been in since 92 USA as a 42A/27D Personnel Specialist and paralegal NCO.  (Went overseas with a SOF unit on 9 OCT) and have a total of 41 months in the middle east throughout the career.

When I was giving a Combative class had one SSG that was a Supply NCO in the reserves he is getting for his third rotation. He was kind sluggish on some of the drills so asked one of his Soldiers from the unit if he was ok.  Turns out he received a PH from a stab wound and getting 8 teeth KO'd when his team was entering room.
 His mind set is wait till after the deployment then get new teeth

I think the biggest change in CO status is from personnel that have done their one/or more tour and have some "issues" upon returning.  Currently helping a NCO get together his Hardship paperwork after serving a tour with the USMC he is stil seeing some docs for issues.  He would not qualify got CO but I/Command cannot risk keeping him in for a possible future deployment and having him in charge of others.

Bottom line each person handles the stressers differently.  

[bomber]

bud

I had a series of conersations with the medic I mentioned -- HE said (caps as he claimed to be speaking for no one but himself) the he had no bones with serving, nor being put in harm's way (which, as a medic, happened often) -- he had prolems too large for him to overcome with the concept of taking another's life --

big distinction, and one he handled with honor, I believe (and, more importantly, he believed)

so, the answer to your question in, no, of course no one can serve without being in harm's way in one way shpe or form -- but, to my mind, and the medic's, this has little if anything to do with CO status

of course, other's milage may vary, yes?

[RexRider]

One of our Corpsmen would have been a CO had he ever been forced to become a trigger puller; but he saw nothing wrong with serving his country by being a medic.

USMC 83-85 Aviation Maintenance Data Analyst

Yeah, I was a wing wiper...    Cannibal nails it.  Many medics and Corpsmen are CO's.  It's not that they don't want to serve their country.  What they object to is having to kill for it.  They serve by trying to save the lives of their comrades, rather than taking the lives of the enemy.  In some ways they are the bravest of the brave, in that they face combat with nothing more than a med kit.  CO's often don't serve, but don't ever discount those that do, for it may be that CO with the med bag that saves your wounded ass when the fecal matter has impacted the rotational air movement device.  

[jerome_oneil]

Under the UCMJ, aren't you obligated to not follow illegal orders?

Absolutely.  If you were given orders to machine gun women and children, you'd have an obligation to not follow it.   But when your CO gives you orders to report for deployment, there isn't anything illegal about it.  This is why Lt. Watada  is in the poke.

I'm not trying to be cute. What is the difference between a Lt. Calley ordering you to shoot an unarmed non-combatant and a CINC who fabricated evidence to get us into the war? The UCMJ codifies the Geneva Conventions, which also have standing because they were signed and ratified by the US, and that makes the latter an illegal act.

The difference is who received the order.  Calley didn't get orders to invade Viet Nam.   Watada didn't get orders to invade Iraq.   The soldier's job is not to prosecute crimes committed by the CINC.  That's the Congress's job.

[atypical1]

Of course a CO can serve -- medic, medevac pilot, cook, clerk typist -- so far as I know, the objection is not to service, but, rather, to taking lives

I don't know if I agree with that. If one is truly a CO then they are opposed to war and would not support it in any way. Every job in the military is either directly combat related (trigger puller) or helps someone to pull the trigger. Even the typist or cook is supporting the violent actions of the military. If one is truly a CO then why not join the Peace Corps. Their mission has not violent aspect to it and it is definitely there to help others.

james

[Johnny Monsoon]

I think most of our military, at the present time, is absurd at best.  During the late '80s and early '90s they had a serious force drawdown.  That left only the least suited people to lead in the military.  They, of course, gained rank and became the movers and shakers.  The amazing fuck-tardary that exists in the military is beyond comprehension at the current time.  I've seen these idiots repeatedly force out the brightest and most dedicated of new recruits because they are so inept, socially retarded, and completely void of common sense.  In the face of all that, I can see the stream of COs becoming bigger and bigger.

Further, how is an entity so based in political correctness so hypocritical?  While I'm not a huge fan of the gay community, I'm not a homo-phobe either.  I can't understand how someone wanting to serve their country, and potentially risking their lives needs to be heterosexual to be effective.  This is the same sort of situation presented during segregation, and also for women in the military.  

I don't give a damn if my chow hall force can handle a weapon.  In my experience, the folks who were SUPPOSED to handle the weaponry were the worst shots and the worst in academics.  That's a blanket statement, but by in large it is true.

I could see a person joining the military, discovering these truths, and then becoming a CO purely on the lack of leadership ability and integrity of that leadership.  If you can't trust your bosses during peace, how in the world can you trust them during a conflict?

[atypical1]

I could see a person joining the military, discovering these truths, and then becoming a CO purely on the lack of leadership ability and integrity of that leadership.  If you can't trust your bosses during peace, how in the world can you trust them during a conflict?

That does not make you a CO though. That makes you disillusioned but not a CO. A CO says that they are against violence.

james

[baldheadeddork]

I don't know if I agree with that. If one is truly a CO then they are opposed to war and would not support it in any way.

There is more than one definition to being a CO. There are some religious sects that allow serving in a support role, while others forbid any military service for the reasons you cite. It's the same with individuals.

[StacyT]

US Army 95B Military Police 83-86

I believe you have an obligation to complete your term even if you decide you are a C.O.  If you took the oath you need to live up to it even if you find it distasteful or objectionable.

[jerome_oneil]

I don't know if I agree with that. If one is truly a CO then they are opposed to war and would not support it in any way.

That is the military definition of it.  The services are war fighting organizations.   A true CO is opposed to war in all events.  The two are completely incompatible.

[jerome_oneil]

There is more than one definition to being a CO.

Not in the military, there isn't.  They have a very clear definition.

"a person who objects to participation in all forms of war and whose belief is based on a religious, moral or ethical belief system."

That's it.

[Johnny Monsoon]

Not in the military, there isn't.  They have a very clear definition.

"a person who objects to participation in all forms of war and whose belief is based on a religious, moral or ethical belief system."

That's it.

Were that true, then COs could not serve, and they do.  Therefore, the answer to the original question, as defined by the actions of the US Armed Forces is that yes, a CO can join, and the US Armed Forces will happily use you in whatever facet they can.

That you are a CO has absolutely no bearing on your term of enlistment, only on the job you do.

Now, let's go one further:  medics by their very nature are NOT supposed to bear arms at all!  It turns them into combatants and erodes the medic pool, which saps our force.  Therefore, one could argue that if you weren't a CO, you should NOT enter the military service with the expectation that you'd enter direct combat.  Likewise for clergy.

[Rigger]

Canadian Armed Forces ,  I first joined in 83 as an armoured crewman (tanks) in the reserves while still in high school,  then in 86 I went to the navy and although I loved sailing, I hated my time in the navy.  Then again in 86 I joined the airforce as an airframe technician, I worked on the CT-114 Tutor (including the Snowbirds aircraft-but not on the team) from 87-92.  Then in 92 I was posted to Canada's Fighter Town-COLD LAKE Alberta! I worked on the CF-18 Hornet and got 1 back seat ride (most fun I ever had throwing up). I left the airforce in 97 and worked civy street for 5 years.  I re-enrolled back into the airforce in March 2002 as an Aerospace Control Operator, this trade encompasses air traffic control and air defence. I was in North Bay from 2002 until July 2006 when I was posted back to Cold Lake, where I worked in the C.O.C.-Combat Operations Centre.  This summer I was promoted and posted to the mobile radar squadron here in Cold Lake  .   I love putting the uniform on,  I get a rush still to this very day, I love to serve not only Canada but our contribution to NORAD,  I have family who are Americans and I have friends too (all of you south of the border) and I am proud to stand up for all and what we love most of all,  our freedom.  Any kind of freedom from 2 wheels to our children laughing without fear of reprisal.  I could go on and on but you are all pretty smart and I am sure you get the idea. Freedom to think what we want!  I love it!

p.s.  Thanks for giving me such a wonderful part of the world to defend

[VAbikeguy]

I served eight years (JAN1996 - DEC2003) in the United States Army.  My first MOS was 31F (Systems Switch Operator Maintainer a.k.a. AT&T w/ a rifle) and I later reclassified to 74B (Computer Systems Analyst a.k.a. bitch boy with anything computer or network related).


In today's all voluntary military (in the U.S. that is), why would a CO join an organization who's very purpose is to fight wars for a nation?  

I agree that a CO can support the machine in some capacity, however sticking to the definition, they shouldn't do that either because its facilitating war.

[jerome_oneil]

Were that true, then COs could not serve, and they do.  Therefore, the answer to the original question, as defined by the actions of the US Armed Forces is that yes, a CO can join, and the US Armed Forces will happily use you in whatever facet they can.

No they do not serve.  People granted CO status by the military are discharged honorably.  Lots of people apply.  Most of those are told to STFU and get back to work.

[toddrod]

Have you considered....




 or  

[VAbikeguy]

People try that all the time ToddRodd.  It either doesn't work or gets them into really hot water.  Of course, there's always the fat boy program.  

[Johnny Monsoon]

No they do not serve.  People granted CO status by the military are discharged honorably.  Lots of people apply.  Most of those are told to STFU and get back to work.

I've worked with 4 CO's over the time of my 13 years of service.  One at each duty station.  That's just one out of each shop I worked in, and I'm convinced that there are many more in many other shops & offices.

Sorry, your statement doesn't hold water and is completely untrue.

[jerome_oneil]

I've worked with 4 CO's over the time of my 13 years of service.  One at each duty station.  That's just one out of each shop I worked in, and I'm convinced that there are many more in many other shops & offices.

Sorry, your statement doesn't hold water and is completely untrue.

I highly doubt they were classified as COs.  There are a lot of people that claim to be COs.  Very few are actually granted that status by the military, and those that are are discharged.  There may be exemptions for chaplains, but I know of absolutely none.

It's the same group of people that will tell you with a straight face that the Geneva Conventions prohibit the use of .50 as an anti-personnel weapon.   It's a popular myth, and they even believe it, but it just isn't so.

[Johnny Monsoon]

I highly doubt they were classified as COs.  There are a lot of people that claim to be COs.  Very few are actually granted that status by the military, and those that are are discharged.  There may be exemptions for chaplains, but I know of absolutely none.

It's the same group of people that will tell you with a straight face that the Geneva Conventions prohibit the use of .50 as an anti-personnel weapon.   It's a popular myth, and they even believe it, but it just isn't so.

Nope, we had to make special allowances for them on the deployment rotations.  In fact, one of the reasons the first one I encountered was at my first base is that it was a training base, therefore out of the deployment rotation entirely.

[Z1_NESTer]

USAF '92-'96 3EO31 (Electrical Systems Apprentice) 374th AW CES Yokota AB, Japan

I will try to tell my opinion without repeating what someone else may have already said.I didn't read every post here.

First off, I served during the biggest changes of the military. The Clinton Years. During my time is when there was a big shift in foreign policy, national security and military budgets. My view is that Clinton and his Administration fucked it all up. He was and still is one of the biggest CO's ever to command our military. So I may be a bit brash in saying this but a CO is a pussy.

I joined during the Gulf War in High School at 16 years old without my parents knowledge. I knew I needed to become a man, learn responsibility and the necessary tools to be independent later in life. I felt the need to serve my country and feel a sense of accomplishment. It was mostly what I searched for.

When Clinton reigned we had the somewhat dismantling of the CIA, Somalia, the first attack of the WTC, the failed retaliation of that attack and the softening and downsizing of the military.

For example.... My base in Japan was attacked twice by Japanese domestic terrorists with homemade rocket bombs which both successfully landed on the outskirts of the airfield with only one exploding causing very minimal damage the other a dud. When this had happened it was said it was the dismantling of our overseas CIA operations, that would normally prevent this from happening, and allowed for some terrorist activities go unchecked. Now this may not be true but it has some validity to it.

So if a CO was in the military, let him go. Give him a Dishonorable Discharge and let him pay for his own way home.

I am a proud Airmen and will not ever let anyone take that away from me. The only reason I left and not make a career is that the standards during the change was for the service men/women who more book savvy then technical and were people that would make the new face of our Armed Forces. A  softer, gentler kind of military and I was told, in no certain words, that I didn't "fit" with the new changes. So I did my time proudly and went on with my life and continue supporting our Armed Forces no matter what changes are made or what our job may be.

[SuperHans]

USN 1989 - 1995 Boiler Technician

I think you don't run into CO's as much in the Navy as other branches. I do believe being a CO is something that can happen. Peoples view changes as they get older, when you join at 18 as most people do, you still haven't formed all your opinions on life.

That being said, seem's to me that most people that suddenly become CO's  are just trying to pull a scam. I've seen these types too many times, the guy that is always trying to get out of shit.

I did come across a guy in boot camp that was afraid of guns. We had to shoot some Gov. 45's converted to .22 and he didn't want to do it. All I could think is WTF is up with this guy? Didn't he think being in the military might require him to handle a weapon at some point?

[Strom Nasty]

13 years in.  First 5 as a Military Policeman.  All others, Field Artillery officer.  

Someone who doesn't want to pull the trigger but still wants to serve their nation is okay by me.  As long as they are put in the appropriate job.  

Once they are in and "decide" that they are CO's is another story.  Do your time and get out or deal with the whole investigation thing and then be told to do your time and get out.  Really, not much of a choice.  BTW- In my 13 years in the Army I have not met one CO personally.  I've heard that the stories about PVT so and so in other BDEs or BNs but never personally ran across one.  I don't think CO's are as prevelant as some others do.  

BTW- LT Watada is a disgrace to his uniform and to the officer corps.  I'd like to kick him square in the nutsack.  

[ninjadad66]

United States Air Force, going on 22 years now; 2R1X1 (Production Control), I've deployed twice and looking to my third this coming January.

I don't think you should join the military if you have "CO" beliefs, for you know at any given time you may be called to give your life for your country. After the Vietnam war, the U.S. Military had no issues with "CO" until Desert Storm kicked off, and then you had thousands who claimed "CO" and tried to beat feet when there country called them to duty.

It's possible for one to gain a "CO" belief once the've joined, but it's at that time that they should get out of the military.

It dosen't matter what carreer field you're in, at any given time you can deploy.

[Johnny Monsoon]

It's possible for one to gain a "CO" belief once the've joined, but it's at that time that they should get out of the military.

I completely disagree with this statement.  If people are willing to volunteer their manpower to help the overall mission, despite whatever their beliefs, the military can utilize them; and further, with the retention issues and manpower shortages, that manpower is critical.

In the end, you could say that a non-smoker should never, ever work for a cigarette company, or a non-smoking marketing specialist should never accept work for a tobacco company.  The truth of the matter is that the company (or military) gets what they need, and the individual's needs are likewise met.  If there's a special agreement between the two that need to be made, and both parties are agreeable to it, then it is mutually beneficial.

[ninjadad66]

I completely disagree with this statement.  If people are willing to volunteer their manpower to help the overall mission, despite whatever their beliefs, the military can utilize them; and further, with the retention issues and manpower shortages, that manpower is critical.

In the end, you could say that a non-smoker should never, ever work for a cigarette company, or a non-smoking marketing specialist should never accept work for a tobacco company.  The truth of the matter is that the company (or military) gets what they need, and the individual's needs are likewise met.  If there's a special agreement between the two that need to be made, and both parties are agreeable to it, then it is mutually beneficial.

But that's just it, the overall mission is inclusive of "WAR".  If you claim "CO" and beat feet, you're not helping with the overall mission. If you're a "CO" when war breaks out, then you should be made to suck it up (Stop Loss), I'm sorry if you don't want to have a part in killing today, you should of left when you developed the new outlook on life. This is war people, not collecting butterflies.  

"CO" by all means is your right, but the military should not be your profession. When you take that oath, you agree to defend your country against all enemies.

The non-smoker chooses to stay at that job, and dosen't beat feet when they find out the product being made is going to a smoker. But once a "CO" finds out a war is on the horizon they want to leave even though they new up front war is a possibility, that's not right IMHO.

[SteveG]

   US Navy 1988 - present.  Engineering. (was an MM, now an LDO).

I do believe people’s opinions can change over time based on events and what have you.  However, if you are TRUELY a conscientious objector, then you should get out when you realize it.  Not be WEAK and wait until deployment to throw that flag.  That is the problem I have with the  AF LT.  He is abandoning the people he claims to want to lead, and will force someone else (who may just be coming back from rotation) to go in his stead.  It is cowardice, pure and simple.  If he had these strong opinions before, he should have acted on them then.  

[SteveG]

I think most of our military, at the present time, is absurd at best.  During the late '80s and early '90s they had a serious force drawdown.  That left only the least suited people to lead in the military.  They, of course, gained rank and became the movers and shakers.  The amazing fuck-tardary that exists in the military is beyond comprehension at the current time.  I've seen these idiots repeatedly force out the brightest and most dedicated of new recruits because they are so inept, socially retarded, and completely void of common sense.  In the face of all that, I can see the stream of COs becoming bigger and bigger.

Johnny- I generally just stand by and let you talk about how fucked up the military is, but I am going to have to reply to this one.  You may be talking about your little slice of the AF, but don't paint the whole military with your view. The AF and the Army did RIF(force out) people.  The Marines and the Navy did not.  They offered cash incentives for people to retire early or get out with severance pay.  I am one of the people that didn't get out with the draw down.  I agree that there can be people in charge that are jacked up sometimes.  That happens everywhere, not just the military.  But I will take offense to the fact that you question why MOST of us stayed.  I stayed because I love my job, and I am damn good at it.  The people who get out at various times all have their reasons.  I applaud anyone who serves whether they get out at 2 years or 30 years.  I take great pride in the fact that I help to defend my country.  One thing from your post that I absolutely agree with is that I feel I defend everyone.  Normal, CO, gay, straight, flag burning, liberal, neocon, whatever, even people on bulletin boards who like to pretend they know everything about the military because of thier limited view of one section of it.