5 Deployments
Tweet
Sometimes you have to question orders.
Army Reserve Sgt. Erik Botta has been sent to Iraq three times and to Afghanistan once. He thinks that’s enough.
Botta wants a court to block the military’s plan to deploy him for a fifth time Sunday, most likely to Iraq. He isn’t against the war – but he thinks he can serve his country better now by working for a defense contractor and pursuing his education.
“This has nothing to do with protest of the war … I have nothing but respect for the people on the ground,” Botta said Friday, one day after he filed his petition in U.S. District Court in West Palm Beach. “But I feel I do need a fair decision and a fair review.”
32 Responses to “5 Deployments”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
Calling PFC Dugger! Please volunteer to take this guy’s slot. Time to become a man, Dugger
But according to Dugger, the invasion’s gotta go on for at least another 10-15 years before we’ll know if it was the right thing to do.
The soldier has to serve five tours so Young Republicans don’t have to serve once.
“This has nothing to do with protest of the war … I have nothing but respect for the people on the ground,” Botta said
I protest the war and have respect for the people on the ground. No contradiction there, I hope.
“This has nothing to do with protest of the war … I have nothing but respect for the people on the ground,” Botta said
I protest the war and have respect for the people on the ground. No contradiction there, I hope.
It’s Tom DeLay redux:
“So many minority youths had volunteered…that there was literally no room for patriotic folks like myself.” –Tom DeLay, explaining at the 1988 GOP convention why he did not fight in the Vietnam War.
Guys like this taking so many tours that other Republican heroes can’t get their turn.
So when he took the oath, he really didn’t mean it right? When he swore to obey, he had his fingers crossed,. Typical progressive hero. If man makes a commitment, he sticks to it. This joker didn’t. He has actually served less than a year in Iraq.
“Typical progressive hero.”
If you aren’t serving in Iraq right now, you should fuck off and die.
Actually, you should say this bullshit right to Sgt. Erik Botta face, I’m sure he could help you with that last part. And I’d be more than willing to donate to his defense fund.
Dugger,
Are you saying that if someone is dumb enough to sign up, we can abuse his patriotism and even kill him?
After all, he was dumb enough to sign up. Society won’t miss him.
Okay, you hate the troops, because they were dumb enough to ask for it.
Just so we’re clear.
The oath is not a one-way street. Botta agrees to obey orders and his superiors agree to give orders that are competent, well-considered, and reasonable. The Commander in Chief does not have absolute power over the troops. He cannot, for example, order every sixth man to castrate themselves with a melon baller. Even the lowliest PFC would be within his rights to question such an order.
As it becomes increasingly apparent to the troops that their president does not know what he is doing, that he has no clear plans even to bring the chaos under control, much less foment a winning strategy, there will be more of this man.
All five of his deployments add up to less than a year, and the current deployment is to Ft. Jackson S.C. probably to work at a Mobilization Station for people heading out to theater. Inconvenient? Yes. Outrageous? No. I have a gunner who is 24 years old, has been to Afghanistan once, and is on his second Iraq tour, and is now divorced. His “deployments” are each a solid year or more. Things suck, but when you volunteer, you are saying that you are willing to be a tool….I’m one too. I am glad to hear that he will report if they don’t exempt him.
Unfortunately, the guy is hosed. He signed up and a contract is binding. But I would object as to whether this is “outrageous.” It is. We’ve gotten so out of bounds in our state of perpetual war that 4-5 combat deployments is no longer considered outrageous.
Botta agrees to obey orders and his superiors agree to give orders that are competent, well-considered, and reasonable’
Doesn’t work that way, of course. Botta volunteered. Signed on the dotted line. He wasn’t given a caveat that he could pick and choose what orders to obey or that he had to ‘like’ the orders before he would obey them.
.
I see. So your position is that a military superior DOES have the right to be obeyed if he were to order every sixth man to castrate themselves with a melon baller.
But let’s talk about oaths, shall we?
Our man Libby swore an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Instead, he broke this oath and was found guilty of perjury. His reward for breaking this oath is a commutation of jail time and a possible full pardon down the road.
Our man Bush swore an oath to preserve, protect, and uphold the Constitution. And then he proceeded to ignore, disparage, or otherwise declare himself above said document.
Yet you tell me, in an America like that, that the oath sworn by a military man is sacrosanct and cannot be challenged, even in the face of, for example, an insane order such as castrating oneself with a melon baller.
(Which is not the case here, I’m aware. But you seem to say there would never, ever be a case where you would side with the offending soldier over the rule of his superiors.)
In 1984 George Orwell wrote of constant war being just normal routine. When I read the book in high school I didn’t think war would one day become a cornerstone of Republican foreign policy. It’s time for Congress to force the WH to enter all Iraq expenditures in the fiscal year budget, to be evaluated for their impact on our deficit. No more ‘special’ funding is necessary for this chronic boondoggle.
Now would bush have any reason to veto that?
@ Zadura
I don’t consider it to be outrageous because he has not even accumulated a year’s amount of time out of all five deployments. As it is now, you can expect 15 months in a given deployment so he is lucky. 11 months spread out over 5 deployments in the rear echelon is not so bad. There are worse tours. Additionally, it was noted that he volunteered for active status out of the reserve component. I mean, come on….one of his deployments was for 15 days….If I could intersperse trips home to see the wife and kids over a years time I would have NO complaints whatsoever. I don’t think he is wrong for asking for consideration, but there are many of us….me for example….who have a hell of a lot more deployment time than that.
“There are worse tours.”
That’s not saying much.
@ C.S. Strowbridge,
“That’s not saying much”…
Actually that is saying quite a lot…..especially for people who have been on those “worse tours”.
“Actually that is saying quite a lot…..especially for people who have been on those ‘worse tours’.”
So legally the military should be able to send troops away for as long and as often as they like just because someone else is getting screwed over more? Hell no. The military must have an obligation to the health and welfare of the troops.
Aren’t you reading? The military has no obligation whatsoever for anything. Once you sign the contract, you are required to do any and every cockamamie thing they tell you. Apparently.
Actually, even the military has the obligation to disobey an illegal order. I would be the first to advise this man to refuse on the grounds that the war in Iraq is illegal, the the C-in-C is a war criminal, and that consequently, his orders are illegal. If you think otherwise, you can take his place, bushboy.
Actually, even the military has the obligation to disobey an illegal order
But an individual does not have the authority to determine which orders are illegal.
You can only protest obeying an order while carrying it out, or after having done it.
There is only one exception: When the order is morally repellent. That is the only exception.
Private I | Jul 15, 2007 7:32:42 PM
“There is only one exception: When the order is morally repellent. That is the only exception.”
Like when prisoners are being abused?
Sgt. Botta is entitled to a fair review of his case. However, it’s worthwhile to note that his objection is one of hardship and not of conscience. He wants to stay home because he wants his life and his family.
Well, so do the men and women who are in Iraq right now. If the sergeant wants to try the “other priorities” argument, good luck to him. It worked well for Mr. Cheney and Mr. Ashcroft.
In his case, though, I have to side reluctantly with Dugger. Sgt. Botta made a commitment. As a matter of integrity, he’s duty bound to keep his commitment until his conscience leads him to an objection to all war.
Like when prisoners are being abused?
If you mean when you are asked to abuse prisoners — yes, you can refuse.
Is that a surprise?
And please note that Quaker in a Basement said, “until his conscience leads him to an objection to all war”
All war.
Actually anybody can disobey an order. But like Thoreau, they must be willing to pay the legal price. But it is is an all volunteer force and the military member has sworn to obey orders.
And while I acknowledge Quaker’s point about conscience, somebody has to speak up for simple scruples and common sense. If you join the military you should expect to be given orders to fight and possibly kill. If you can’t handle that, simple answer: Don’t enlist! But if you are OK with being a soldier (IE, fighting and maybe killing) but stipulate after the fact that the cause in which you are fighting must be one that fits your political prejudices, you are hypocritical, dishonest and maybe deserving of prosecution.
Dugger | Jul 16, 2007 8:06:53 AM
” … somebody has to speak up for simple scruples and common sense.”
Like invading a country with no gameplan?
@ C.S. Strowbridge
So legally the military should be able to send troops away for as long and as often as they like just because someone else is getting screwed over more? Hell no. The military must have an obligation to the health and welfare of the troops.
No, I think you are inadvertantly overlooking the fact that this guy’s five deployments don’t add up to the length of time of ONE of mine. Meaning that he has not been away from his family as long as the average Soldier who has only deployed one time. This is not my first, and it will more than likely not be my last. Bottom line, I volunteered, I don’t like a whole hell of a lot of things that I am ordered to do, but I volunteered and swore an oath. As long as the order is not one that is illegal I will follow it. Just because I think “it sucks” is not a reason to not do it. Just because the war is unpopular and is heavily disputed gives me no right to try and get out of an assignment or an order. Furthermore, I think he is wrong for going to the courts. What makes him so special that he doesn’t have to go. Air Force guys have shorter deployments than the Army or the Marine Corps, so some of them have been back and forth eight or nine times. The ultimate thing for a service member to remember is that if you don’t like the duty, get out when you “legally” can and don’t come back in. Service members have a different set of standards to live by, the luxury of being able to legally piss, bitch and moan about the government gets tossed out the window when you sign an oath of enlistment, or appointment letters as a commissioned officer. Civil disobedience is for civilians, it is called sedition or mutiny when you are wearing the uniform.
And while I acknowledge Quaker’s point about conscience, somebody has to speak up for simple scruples and common sense.
Quite so. I recommend the apostle Paul.
Quite so. I recommend the apostle Paul.
It’s a joke, I say, it’s a joke, son!
If you’re not recalling what you learned in Sunday School, Saul of Tarsus was sent out to rout the trouble-making Christian movement in Damascus. Along the way, he got a high-voltage change of conscience. He bailed on his assignment and began working under an assumed name.
Pimping for a war that one hasn’t the intestinal fortitude to fight is the height of hypocrisy, dishonesty, and is deserving of contempt.
Look up the military oath.
Would you rather be true to your conscience or to a war mongering president who illegally attacks foreign countries?