There is quite a discussion around my last post on Lt. Watada. Let me try to explain my position on several of the points made therein by looking back at my time in the military.
It was 1979 in West Germany and the cold war was still a war. Millions of soldiers were positioned on both sides of the east-west border. Germany had (and still has) a draft, though it was easy to claim conscience objection and do civil service instead of military duty.
A lot of my friends did so even though their objections were mostly not genuine. I decided not to object. I shot rabbits to eat them. Given a defensive need, I was sure to be able to shoot a person too.
I ended up drafted into a tank company and after four months decided to voluntarily sign up for two years (instead of the 15 month draft) and an officer career. It was for better pay, a less boring time and a small advantage in getting a university place later on.
After those two years my reserve position was in a tank battalion east of Hamburg about five miles from the eastern border. In case of a hot east-west war the survival time for that battalion was estimated to be some 20 minutes. I had no reason to question the defensiveness of that position.
I did not and do not regard such voluntary soldiering as immoral. There was a contract I signed, but the contract was not about selling my soul to the devil. It included my right and my duty to stick to the law.
During my time I was given several unlawful orders. In two cases I rejected them.
The first one was during some infantry training at a tank shooting range a few yards away from live shooting battle tanks. The commanding sergeant ordered us to do away with our ear plugs so he would not have to scream too loud. I rejected his order to disregard safety regulations and to unnecessarily endanger my health. When he tried to punish me, I wrote a formal complaint. He was reprimanded and his promotion was put on hold.
The second rejection was to my Captain when I was a platoon leader. He ordered me to order my platoon to attend a field church service. His order was obviously illegal. If I had followed it, I would have given an illegal order myself. So I rejected it and together with most of my platoon skipped the service. There were no formal consequences on either side.
The military is not necessarily an aggressive instrument. There are lots of historic situations where nations are in danger of being attacked by outer forces. A credible defense force is certainly a basic necessity for most states.
It is not the primary task of soldiers to kill. Soldiers are to achieve a nation’s political objectives by military means. Those means can include killing.
There are political objectives that are definitely legal. Article 51 of the UN charter guarantees states an "inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs." To compare for example the Swiss soldiers who manned these bunkers to mafia members is to me out of bounds.
There are also illegal political objectives. In the international realm wars-of-aggression are illegal. This is acknowledged by the U.S. and through its signing of the UN charter part of U.S. law. The Bush doctrine of preemptive war is regarded as illegal, though David Addington will argue differently. In view of international law the war on Iraq is certainly illegal.
Knowingly taking part in an illegal land robbery is against the law. To have been ordered to do so does not matter. The Nuremberg Defense does not hold. The order must not been followed.
In the case of Lt. Watada the judge denied to hear about his motive, the illegality of the war:
“The accused’s motive not to deploy and his belief about the lawfulness of the Iraq war are not elements of the offense. Motive is, therefore, irrelevant on the merit. Even had the defense been granted the full hearing they requested, the decision would be no different.”
To disregard motive is quite an evasive and wrong ruling.
Imagine breaking the door to your neighbor’s flat because there is smoke and screams coming from it. Would the motive be irrelevant in a judgment on your offense of breaking and entering? Certainly not as there are even legal obligations to do so in cases of emergency.
So in my view, Watada is not to be morally judged for signing up to the military. There are legitimate motives to do so and he is neither a complete idiot nor a psychopath. He made a difficult, long and informed decision to disobey what he regards as an illegal order.
To deny him a hearing and judgment on his motive is bending the law. I hope this will be corrected.