Question to those who have served or are serving

[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