PDA

View Full Version : Is AWOL better than extra tour of duty?



thedrifter
10-03-06, 08:02 AM
Deseret Morning News, Tuesday, October 03, 2006 <br />
<br />
Is AWOL better than extra tour of duty? <br />
<br />
'Refusnik' ex-Marine speaks at UVSC of his 1991 decision <br />
<br />
By Laura Hancock <br />
Deseret Morning News <br />
...

crate78
10-03-06, 09:18 PM
Interesting dilemma. <br />
<br />
About ten years ago, I wrote a thesis on &quot;Ethics of the Medical Profession&quot;. While doing research, I came upon a female medical doctor in Kansas City, Kansas who had joined...

jryanjack
10-04-06, 07:13 AM
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
10-04-06, 08:07 AM
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.