The Nation:
For the first time since Vietnam, an organized, robust movement of active-duty US military personnel has publicly surfaced to oppose a war in which they are serving. Those involved plan to petition Congress to withdraw American troops from Iraq.
Jonathan Hutto, a navy seaman, launched the Appeal For Redress website some seven weeks ago. So far the petition has--
...already been signed by nearly 1,000 US soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen, including dozens of officers--most of whom are on active duty. Not since 1969, when some 1,300 active-duty military personnel signed an open letter in the New York Times opposing the war in Vietnam, has there been such a dramatic barometer of rising military dissent.
The signers are obviously taking some risks in adding their names to the document:
All of their names will be made available to Congress when the Appeal is presented in mid-January. Signers have been assured they are sending a communication to Congress protected under the Military Whistleblower Protection Act. The Pentagon is powerless to take official reprisals and has said that as long as active-duty personnel are not in uniform or on duty, they are free to express their views to Congress.
There are of course other, subtler risks involved. The military command exercises enormous power through individual reviews, promotions and assignments. But that hasn't kept a number of signers from going public with their dissent.
The Military Whistleblower Protection Act cites the following provisions:
(a) Restricting Communications With Members of Congress and Inspector General Prohibited.—
(1) No person may restrict a member of the armed forces in communicating with a Member of Congress or an Inspector General.
(2) Paragraph (1) does not apply to a communication that is unlawful.
(b) Prohibition of Retaliatory Personnel Actions.—
(1) No person may take (or threaten to take) an unfavorable personnel action, or withhold (or threaten to withhold) a favorable personnel action, as a reprisal against a member of the armed forces for making or preparing—
(A) a communication to a Member of Congress or an Inspector General that (under subsection (a)) may not be restricted; or
(B) a communication that is described in subsection (c)(2) and that is made (or prepared to be made) to—
(i) a Member of Congress;
(ii) an Inspector General (as defined in subsection (i)) or any other Inspector General appointed under the Inspector General Act of 1978;
(iii) a member of a Department of Defense audit, inspection, investigation, or law enforcement organization;
(iv) any person or organization in the chain of command; or
(v) any other person or organization designated pursuant to regulations or other established administrative procedures for such communications.
The text of the Appeal is this:
As a patriotic American proud to serve the nation in uniform, I respectfully urge my political leaders in Congress to support the prompt withdrawal of all American military forces and bases from Iraq. Staying in Iraq will not work and is not worth the price. It is time for U.S. troops to come home.
One of the signatories is Arizona highschool graduate Brian Hill, medic with the Army National Guard:
"The doctors, nurses and physician's assistants, we questioned what was going on," he said. "That had nothing to do with our mission. We completed our mission and we did a great job. It has no bearing on our work ethic and our patriotism."
...What we're trying to do over there, obviously, is not working. Our military presence is part of the problem. It antagonizes folks to act the way they do over there."
"We don't even know how many Iraqis have died," he said, and the U.S. death toll has become "a number and no one remembers names."
Another is Sgt. Liam Madden, a 22-year old Marine from Maine:
"I went to war opposing the war and came back opposing the war. It was because of information any citizen could be aware of. It wasn't traumatic events. It was the weapons of mass destruction that were not there, the links to al-Qaeda that were never established."
...He also urged those against the war to pressure their representatives in Congress. He said he believed it was the duty of the new Congress to open an investigation into the start of the war.
"We need to hold the people responsible for the past responsible, or we're condoning it," he said, causing the room to erupt into applause. "These investigations don't need to be witch hunts. We don't need to be tearing down the gates of the White House and throwing people in jail. We need to pull strings and see where they'll go — and they'll go places."
From The Nation article, "Rebecca" a returned Iraq war vet with the 101st Airborne:
I think it is safe to say that the majority of soldiers are wondering what this grand scheme is that we keep hearing about from those above us but that is never translating down to the ground level.
Some politicians are starting to see that not only a majority of Americans oppose to this war. Now they see this very powerful statement of soldiers who have already been on the front line and who are still in uniform and are also opposed. None of them have been where we have been, none of them have seen what we have seen. It's time they do.
Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal reports this:
The Bush administration is leaning toward temporarily sending as many as 20,000 additional U.S. troops to Iraq, even as the Democrats taking charge of Congress demand a drawdown of forces.
U.S. officials say the increase is needed to make a new push to stabilize Baghdad and to bolster efforts to train the Iraqi army. The emerging plan is facing opposition from Iraqi officials adamant that more U.S. forces aren't the answer. U.S. military commanders in Baghdad have drawn up plans for the country that don't require any new personnel. The debate over whether to send additional U.S. forces to Iraq is the most visible manifestation of the high-level tumult roiling the Bush administration as it works to find a way forward there ahead of a presidential address to the nation early next year.