Army Officer Refuses To Go To War, page 3

These days the whole military planning process is underpinned by lawyers who assess the legality of a whole raft of issues, from the initial invasion itself, through to rules of engagement for all forces, definitions of entities within the battlespace (what is combatant? What is a non-combatant? What is lethal intent? When does a threat stop being a threat?). At the end of the day, like any legal argument, there are grey areas, and it is entirely possible to argue both sides to a level that would satisfy a truly neutral observer. You can bet your bottom dollar that the legal advice to the President was "yes Sir, it falls within the requirements for self-defence, and we can invade Iraq". The self-defence requirement would be suitably worded along the lines of "has a reasonable belief that a real and immediate threat to the US exists, and without taking military action the lives of US citizens would be at risk." Note the words reasonable belief. The argument will be that the balance of evidence at the time indicated that Iraq had WMD, and was a terrorist sympathiser. Even though no WMDs were found, legally the US (and Coalition allies) have done nothing wrong because of the "reasonable belief". Now I'm sure another lawyer would be able to argue otherwise, however it is much easier to argue reasonable belief sitting behind a desk in the Oval Office, than when behind the dock in a court room (ask Saddam and a number of Nazis...).

So, from that point of view this man's argument won't stick (I'm not saying rightly or wrongly, just pointing out the lie of the land as it is). Also, under international law, occupying countries (as the Coalition is) have a responsibility to maintain security and services within the invaded country on completion of hostilities. So again, refusing to go on the basis that US forces shouldn't be there won't work either.

And finally, rules of engagement place legal obligations on all combatants. This includes both sides (not that insurgents seem to realise this, though a few Coalition soldiers will soon be reminded of the fact). If a commander gives an order to kill, say, a random school kid at the side of the road, and the school kid did not meet the definition of "combatant" "immediate threat" "military necessity" "proportionality", and a whole range of other considerations (most rules of engagements are in the order of tens, if not hundreds, of pages long), then he would have every right to legal disobey the order. So again, no real comeback to the "they will make me do unlawful things and I'll have to do them." If you equate a US soldier shooting an insurgent with a Nazi Officer gassing hundreds of civilians, then you really should consider your sense of proportion. The fact that US soldiers are being investigated for illegal actions suggest that the system actually works. Didn't see too many insurgents complaining about Zarqarwi decapitating civilians.

And finally, as has been mentioned previously, this guy joined in 2003. There was every expectation he would be sent to Iraq. You take the good with the bad in the military. I think he is quite simply using the anti-war bandwagon as an excuse to cover his own fears. In many ways his soldiers are better off that he has taken this course of action, as they will now get a leader who will hopefully put their troops interests first, rather than his own.