Soldiers' right to refusal
By STEPHEN BARTLETT
Staff Writer
PLATTSBURGH — Defense Secretary Robert Gates has tacked on at least three more months to the tours of soldiers already dodging bullets and roadside bombs in Iraq.
Probably not anything soldiers wanted to hear, though they are bound to uphold the constitution and obey all lawful orders from their commander-in-chief.
Well, depending on who you listen to, that oath may provide them with the option of refusal.
Soldiers must uphold America’s constitution — it’d be tough to justify Iraq on those grounds — and they have to obey “lawful” orders.
Consider that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, but an empire’s policy inspired it, and Saudi Arabia had more ties to the tragedy in 2001 than any other country; the president’s family has business ties with Saudi Arabian royalty, and Iraq has its share of oil; and Halliburton, a company with ridiculously strong ties to Dick Cheney, is raking profits over the remains of innocent Iraqi men, women and children
.
Suddenly, the order to invade a sovereign nation doesn’t seem lawful anymore. In fact, it seems there’s a bucket of conflicts of interest at the White House, and the only positive that has come from what is now a bloody civil war is corporate profits.
The negatives are soldiers, forced to leave behind families, bearing witness to gruesome atrocities and losing their lives. If they return alive, some are disfigured and missing limbs, and many are wrecked psychologically.
I’ve been unfortunate enough to witness firsthand the tragic results of such psychological and physical horrors.
When I served in the Army, stationed at Fort Riley, Kansas, I befriended a Vietnam vet who couldn’t work, 100-percent psychologically disabled. He would sit on his sweat-stained couch in a smoke-filled living room, a pair of tweezers on the coffee table to remove slivers of shrapnel rising to the surface of his skin as blisters on his beer belly.
I worked under supervisors at Fort Riley who served in Desert Storm under orders of our president’s father. It remains unexplained what happened to them, though there are many theories.
But theories matter little to adults who sweat profusely, suffer memory loss, are often overly fatigued and have children who are physically and intellectually far behind their peers. These soldiers don’t want theories, they want somebody to repair what happened to them.
Yet, these brave men and women march on; soldiers like Sgt. First Class Thomas Nunn, who told a New York Times reporter, “The way I look at it, you get bent out of shape about stuff you can do something about.”
I wonder as I write this, will Sgt. Nunn return home alive and in one piece?
Meanwhile, profits pour in, the war machine fills its belly, and the glaring consequences are thousands of dead American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of murdered Iraqi civilians.
E-mail Stephen Bartlett at:
sbartlett@pressrepublican.com
Search

Comments
The question is why Iraq? They posed no threat to the United States. Our country ( Canada) continues to fight the war in terror alongside NATO forces in Afghanastan where your country should have never diverted troops to Iraq.
The 'reckless' actionsof your current administration has tarnished the image of the USA.
Posted by: norm stotland | April 28, 2007 8:53 AM
It makes me wonder how much our government knows about the golf war syndrome. It doesn't set right with me that it can't be explained. This is the first time I've heard this syndrome is also affecting the soldiers children. Sounds fishy to me!
Our currnet deploymet sould never have happened. I remember watching our soldiers roll into Iraq on CNN and thinking we shouldn't be invading. Iraq was no direct threat to our safety. Why hasn't the american public held the Bush administration accountable for lying about the weapons of mass destruction? I'm proud to be an american but discouraged with the american public for having an it doesn't affect me attitude when it comes to this subject.
Posted by: Philip Brochu | May 6, 2007 9:56 AM