Is AWOL better than extra tour of duty?

[thedrifter]

Deseret Morning News, Tuesday, October 03, 2006

Is AWOL better than extra tour of duty?

'Refusnik' ex-Marine speaks at UVSC of his 1991 decision

By Laura Hancock
Deseret Morning News

OREM — What is noteworthy about military personnel who go absent from the military are those who have already served a tour of duty in Iraq and yet are being asked to go back up to four times, according to a former Marine who gained notoriety by becoming one of the first U.S. Marines to refuse to fight in the Gulf War in 1991.


"That's why you can see more and more people are going AWOL," Jeff Paterson said Friday during a lecture at Utah Valley State College.


Paterson, who calls himself a "refusnik" for being one of the first conscientious objectors to fighting the war, was a corporal in the Marine Corps four years after he graduated high school.


As he prepared for civilian life at the end of his contract, he received a "stop loss" order that prohibited him from leaving the military — an uncommon practice in the early 1990s.


With 150,000 servicemen and women in Iraq, "it's very common today," he said.


Paterson's opinion of U.S. military presence in foreign countries grew negative in the four years he served, he said.


Paterson, an artillery man, lived in Japan, South Korea and the Philippines. He said that prostitution was common and local people were not respected. And he did not believe that Iraqis would benefit from a U.S. invasion.


"It's really easy to get out of the military," Paterson said.


He said people can get thrown out for doing drugs, announcing they're gay, finding a "friendly doctor" who will find a medical condition that disqualifies a person from military service or, if the service member is female, getting pregnant.


"(But) there's no harder way to get out of the military than a conscientious objector," he said.


The military acknowledged he was sincere in his beliefs, Paterson said, but ultimately determined he was not sincere enough and ordered him to Iraq.


"For lack of a better plan, I simply sat on the runway" as 300 people filed past him to board planes headed to the Middle East, he said.


Paterson served time behind bars but was never convicted of any crime. The military discharged him within a year.


Last summer, Paterson visited Vancouver, Canada, where he met numerous armed-service members who fled to avoid serving in the current war in the Middle East or time in prison for disobeying orders.


Paterson wonders if the military would respond differently to the conscientious objectors of the current war than it did to him.


"They (the military) see it as an affront to their way of life," he said.

E-mail: lhancock@desnews.com

Ellie

[crate78]

Interesting dilemma.

About ten years ago, I wrote a thesis on "Ethics of the Medical Profession". While doing research, I came upon a female medical doctor in Kansas City, Kansas who had joined the Army Reserve for no other reason than military service was a tradition in her family. She never dreamed she would ever be called up.

Along came Gulf War One. Her unit was activated. The lady was then torn between her military obligation and her loyalty to her patients, some of whom she continued to treat even though they had no insurance or other means to pay. When her unit shipped out, she failed to appear.

The Army did not take it lightly. She was court-martialed for dereliction of duty, just short of open desertion. Ironically, the situation occured only a few miles from the Federal Penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas. She recieved a dishonorable discharge, although she spent no time behind bars.

The Kansas Medical Licensing Board also reacted by suspending her medical license on grounds of conduct unbecoming a member of the medical profession. I'm not sure her license has ever been reinstated.

The lady learned a harsh and costly lesson, legally, financially, and socially.

Granted, this is a situation far different than someone simply heading for Canada and getting a job. But, my thoughts are once you are sworn in, performing your duties to the best of your abilities is by far the simplest result and most honorable result.

SF
crate

[jryanjack]

It is an interesting dilemma - On one hand we have an all volunteer military - so we had to make a choice to enlist, we were not forced, therefore, in my opinion, we lost the right to object when we swore the oath.

On the other hand, as 17/18 year olds do/did we fully understand what we were doing? For the most I'd say yes, we did to some degree; however, I think that there are also many who did not fully understand. I just read an article on ************* about a soldier who enlisted in 2003 and deserted after being notified that his unit was going to redeploy to Iraq (he had already served one tour). He enlisted during a time of war, he knew that he was going to fight (he was combat arms) and to say now that he is a CO is nothing but BS.

[USMC-FO]

I have heard of Paterson before. In my mind he is one of the few I feel has earned his "ex" Marine title. Personnally I am not sure his conversion to CO status is at all believable, as it seemed highly conditional and situational. He did his time in the brig and was booted ..fair enough.

We all have at one time or another had to make difficult ethical decisions I do not think that going over the hill (AWOL) is warranted to avoid Iraq service as discribed above. You take an oath and make a committment you follow through on your oath.

This article--which by the way is poorly written--does touch on a very serious issue however and that is the in and out mutipal rotatations to a war zone of limited warriors. Points to the fact--undisputed in my mind--that we simply do not have enough men in arms to manage our comittment to fight an amorphous trans-national cultural and religious war. One way or another we must address that fact. These Jihadists are not going to simply go away unless we're willing to committ sufficient force to move them along in their pusuit of the 72 virgins.