June 20, 2006
I read your letter in the Honolulu Advertiser and, as a military spouse whose husband is set to deploy in the next few weeks to do the job you so conveniently have chosen not to do, I feel it is my duty to point out a few discrepancies in your arguments. I would not want you to go to trial with such a lacking defense. You might find yourself with a one way ticket to uptown Fort Leavenworth and that would be unfortunate.
Your assertion that your responsibility is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States is correct. However, you cannot pick and choose what articles or amendments you wish to protect and defend. You must protect and defend all of them. And that includes Article I, Section 8 which states that Congress has the power “To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;” At this point in time, United States forces are currently in Iraq according to the mandate set by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1637 which was passed unanimously and considered at the request of the Iraqi government. Our troops are in Iraq in full compliance with both international and domestic law.
As an officer in the United States military, you do not have the authority to decide what is legal and what is illegal. And your DUTY, with regard to unlawful or illegal actions or orders is to report up your chain of command or to JAG. Have you done either, sir? Last I checked the media is not in your chain of command. Last I checked the media is not the entity that will decide what is lawful and what is not. Your DUTY was to take your concerns to your chain of command or the JAG. To do otherwise is to shirk your responsibility as an officer of the United States military.
You argue that the war in Iraq is “unlawful and immoral” and that there was “never any just cause”. I beg to differ Lieutenant. If you will refer to the Coalition Provisional Authority’s webpage which discusses UNSC Resolution 1546 (HERE) you will read “Following is the text of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1546, adopted unanimously June 8, which endorses the new interim government of Iraq, allows the multinational force to provide security in partnership with the new government, sets out a leading role for the U.N. in helping the political process over the next year, and calls upon the international community to aid Iraq in its transition:
Recognizing the request conveyed in the letter of 5 June 2004 from the Prime Minister of the Interim Government of Iraq to the President of the Council, which is annexed to this resolution, to retain the presence of the multinational force,
Recognizing also the importance of the consent of the sovereign Government of Iraq for the presence of the multinational force and of close coordination between the multinational force and that government,
Welcoming the willingness of the multinational force to continue efforts to contribute to the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq in support of the political transition, especially for upcoming elections, and to provide security for the United Nations presence in Iraq, as described in the letter of 5 June 2004 from the United States Secretary of State to the President of the Council, which is annexed to this resolution,
In addition, our current presence in Iraq is legal in international terms based solely on Saddam Hussein’s failure to comply with the armistice agreements made following Desert Storm back in 1991 and his repeated and continued violation of FOURTEEN separate UN resolutions over a twelve year period. Never any “just cause”? I don’t think so.
Whatever your argument against our mission in Iraq and its legality, those statements should smooth your moral fiber and allow you to return to work immediately. Otherwise, what you are doing is illegal and my hope is that, while my husband does the duty he was sworn to uphold and that you are refusing to do, you will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.