In Defense of Soldiers
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.
Posted by b on February 6, 2007 at 17:20 UTC | Permalink
I do'nt understand why the legality of the order itself is not legal, as an argument in his defence. Seems he is being punished only for refusing to ship out and behavior unbecoming. Neither of which should amount to much (in themselves), were they unconnected to his public statements. If the government can deny him the il/legality connected to his actions it should also remove that issue from inflating the criminality of the lesser charges. But of course that aint gonna happen, because the military knows full well that it must jury-rig, trump-up, cherry-pick and inflate the evidence into an unambigious crystal clear message to both the military and the public, that only we have the right to behaviour unbecoming -- and only we have the right to call it truth and justice.
Posted by: anna missed | Feb 6 2007 20:01 utc | 4
first of all, Bernhard and anyone else who took offense of my liking the military to the mafia, this was never intended to slight you or belittle your service. I think nearly all of us who served in the military honestly believed that we were doing the right thing and accepted our responsibility of defending our country and fellow citizens. that is what men do who care about others.
the mafia reference comes from the cynical manipulation of the military by the powers that be who use the might of the armed forces to enrich themselves, such as the repeated excursions of US Marines to central America to install compliant puppets for United Fruit or Domino Sugar. Gen Smedley Butler spoke of being a gangster for the Brown Brothers and stated that Al Capone was a small time gangster who ran three districts in Chicago whereas Butler operated on three continents.
Watada made a statement and will pay for it, of this there is no doubt in my mind. Was it wise? probably not because it will do nothing to stop the war in Iraq. I think it will also discredit all those who support him as everyone I have spoken to about this has no sympathy for him. I believe this to be the general consensus among US citizens. Watada has no situational awareness otherwise he would have seen how the rightwingers savaged Kerry who served out his tour in the military and THEN protested the war in Vietnam. If a man who fulfilled his obligation completely can be treated so badly, what on earth did Watada expect to accomplish? I recall a scene in an old movie where a soldier could not bring himself to execute some "terrorists" his squad came upon. His squad leader or commanding officer ordered him to shoot the prisoners. He refused and went and stood with the prisoners. his fellow squad members then shot him along with the "terrorists". That left a lasting impression upon me and I still have trouble figuring it out.
to Bea, I took no offense in your statements. you presented your case well and all I hoped to do was point out a couple of things from my own perspective. the discourse was remarkably civil for such an emotionally charged topic.
I doubt you will find anyone more conflicted about military service than me. I strongly dislike the imperial part of it yet I did my very best when a member because I thought it was right to present a strong image to our adversaries. I believed that if others thought we were invincible they would not dare attack and that was the best I could hope for. I still believed that our government was made up of basically good people. I don't believe that anymore so it gets more difficult for me. I am starting to believe there are no good people left in the military anymore either, at least on top. the leadership from "Paths of Glory" is ever more evident in the upper ranks. perhaps it was always so, I just didn't see it before.
Posted by: dan of steele | Feb 6 2007 22:02 utc | 5
what on earth did Watada expect to accomplish?
Peace of mind, a clean conscience, ..., he does not try to become president.
I recall a scene in an old movie where a soldier could not bring himself to execute some "terrorists" his squad came upon. His squad leader or commanding officer ordered him to shoot the prisoners. He refused and went and stood with the prisoners. his fellow squad members then shot him along with the "terrorists". That left a lasting impression upon me and I still have trouble figuring it out.
"Either you are with us, ..."
Funny we discussed such a case in school before I joined the military. His only chance would have been to shoot his leader was our conclusion. A lively discussion on the morality of doing that followed.
BTW: Today I would not sign up for the Bundeswehr. It is now restructured as a supporting troops for US imperial projects. The only thing to defend Germany against is, for now, U.S. influence. That is not to be done by an army.
dan
soldiers are members of a civil society too until they cross that line & become the willing executioners goldhagen & browning have spoken of
but it is true that the civil society in the united states is complicit - in the death of the arab people - until it brings down the monster - because it can live with the wholesale murder of the other & has done so for a long time
& yes, i know that civil society can bring the beast low, if not down
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Feb 6 2007 23:27 utc | 7
"But I know now that there is not a chance in hell of America becoming humane and reasonable. Because power corrupts us, and absolute power corrupts us absolutely. Human beings are chimpanzees who get crazy drunk on power. By saying that our leaders are power-drunk chimpanzees, am I in danger of wrecking the morale of our soldiers fighting and dying in the Middle East? Their morale, like so many lifeless bodies, is already shot to pieces. They are being treated, as I never was, like toys a rich kid got for Christmas."- Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
(h/t blondesense)
Posted by: beq | Feb 7 2007 0:39 utc | 8
ô beq, the vonnegut cruel, truthful & sublime & infinitely sad
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Feb 7 2007 0:46 utc | 9
The judge in the case against the first U.S. officer court-martialed for refusing to go to Iraq barred several scholars on international and constitutional law from testifying yesterday about the legality of the war.
"This trial will be as fair and impartial as Saddam Hussein's"
In court Monday, Watada also agreed to the accuracy of his statements attacking the war as illegal, the Army for committing war crimes, and the Bush administration for deceit. The Army contends these statements represent officer misconduct that could result in an additional two years in prison, while the defense counsel says his remarks represent protected free speech.
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Feb 7 2007 1:04 utc | 10
We are comparing metaphors in this discussion. Frames of reference.
Soldiers as 'firemen' defending the citizens . . .
Soldiers as 'hit men' taking out the business competition . . .
Any individual soldier, in any individual action, may operate in either one of these modes, so no blanket statements about soldiers hold water. Any individual soldier may find that what he thought was one mode turned out later to be quite another, as General Butler describes.
You enlist, you shoot some people, and the question remains within you for life -- was it done for the purpose given? Was it noble? Or a racket? The one thing certain is that there's no going back. Those people are dead.
The hard heart kills, not the weapon in hand. It takes some serious rationalization, some serious disassociation, and some serious moral certainty to pull the trigger. If that certainty fades, even years later, it is a big problem for a veteran. The ghosts get up and walk through your mind, asking questions you can't answer finally. Who would wish that on anyone?
Lt. Watada is correct to view the Iraq invasion as illegal in its entirety, under military, US, and international law. He is correct in refusing what he sees as an illegal order to deploy there and partake of that crime.
The situation is not that simple. He's engaged himself against immense institutional and bureaucratic forces, and on their terms, and under their rules. His case is lost as it begins, under the rules the judge allows.
But then the legal case, and its outcome, are almost beside the point. The case is really being tried in the court of public opinion, and Lt. Watada is Everyman now, standing in for each of us who want the crime in Iraq ended by any and all available means at hand. He is everyone's martyr.
Soldiers are the toys of businessmen and politicians, they are the "dumb beasts" Kissinger describes them as, until such time as they lose their hard heart and moral certainty. Then they are very human. The vets I've counseled over the years share a common trait; they torture themselves quite immensely until they can forgive themselves for being fooled, for being conned, for being played. Only after that do they put themselves back together. Getting to that humiliating admission is a rocky road for some.
Lt. Watada wants his moral certainty back. He wants to stay in the Army. He wants to go to Afghanistan and kill people he can truly believe are out to harm America. When he finds out some day that the name for that nation, around the White House, is Pipelinistan he will be a tad wiser than he is already.
The wars over there are resource wars, business wars. Lt. Watada's noble pursuit of moral certainty fits in a box. That entire box fits in Henry Kissinger's breast pocket. The con is still in place for Lt. Watada.
Posted by: Antifa | Feb 7 2007 1:30 utc | 11
Antifa@11,
I feel for Watada, and I wish he would read your post.
Posted by: jony_b_cool | Feb 7 2007 2:06 utc | 13
I was neutral (dumb) when I went to Vietnam.
I participated with an open mind.
I had no preconcieved ideas about it.
I witnessed that it was a lie. Through and through.
It killed millions for a temporary political fix,
at best.
It continues to rot those in its wake,
especially those who were "believers".
I've done the best that I could, eversince, to resistance
the maddness of especially, wars of choice.
Antifa is right, Lt. Watada is doing this first for himself.
But, as a soldier, he is preforming his duty to us.
And standing up in defence of the constitution.
Honorable sacrifice, if there ever was such a thing.
Posted by: | Feb 7 2007 2:21 utc | 14
Thank you for your truth anna missed, and Antifa, thank-you both, for your clarity.
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Feb 7 2007 4:51 utc | 16
Antifa.....As a vet,I was going to comment on the LT"s case,but you have said much of what I would have.I have to think that his stance is well thought out and not conflicted.I will give him credit for that and not try to overthink his views.I then must support him and realize that he will sadly have to pay for his views.........Would you tell me what you mean by"The con is still in place for Lt. Watada"
Posted by: R.L. | Feb 7 2007 6:42 utc | 18
anna missed, i have thought about this many times and wanted to share it w/you. here is as good a place as any. over the years, you, more than anything or anyone, have changed my concept of american vietnam veteran.
Posted by: annie | Feb 7 2007 9:48 utc | 19
The con in place is the Lieutenant's belief that by deploying to Afghanistan to destroy the Taliban movement, or at least keep them from governing in that country, he is avenging or defending America from the 9/11 terrorists. The con in place is that the Lieutenant feels morally certain about killing Taliban personnel on sight as a defense of America. When he finds out that the Bush White House views a trans-Afghanistan pipeline as its only strategic goal in that country, and all else as bargaining chips, he will feel conned.
What will his thoughts be on the morning (likely this summer) when he hears that Bush has come to a power sharing arrangement with the Taliban, allowing them to enter and dominate the Afghan government in exchange for quietly signing a pipeline contract with Shell or Exxon?
What will he think on the day he realizes that the Taliban merely harbored Osama bin Laden in exchange for his money, (and were willing to surrender him on demand to avoid a war,) whereas the Saudi princes -- the very men Mister Bush kisses on both cheeks and holds hands with to this day -- funded Osama then, fund Osama now, and protect him? Osama is free because he is off limits to our Dauphin, by order of the Saudi family.
What will the Lieutenant think, in 2021 say, when some future "Warren Commission" finally looks back twenty years to the strange events of 9/11 and decides "officially" to revise history and admit that there is no way some half-trained Saudis could fly those airliners at all, much less perform the flawless, corkscrew aerobatics people witnessed on the morning of 9/11, and that someone, somewhere is lying about what really happened that morning?
It's particularly essential to a military mind to be able to say what is, and what is not actionable information. It's unsettling to see bogeys become friendlies overnight, but that is as much the nature of modern war as bleeding is. When the Lieutenant finds, as he will someday, that he was killing and operating on false feed info, on a bright, shining lie, it will be small comfort to know that he did so honestly and to the best of his ability. Ghosts will get up and walk through his mind, and they won't lay down for that answer.
What a mess it is to untangle when you go shoot some people you are sure need killing, only to find out before your dying day that they no more needed it than you do. That some clever fellows made money off your field of honor.
It will be humiliating to admit it, but he will have to shake his head and say, "Those effing Kissinger types, they used me like a tool."
The tragedy is that the Lt. could think it through to that conclusion now, and spare himself the grief.
Eh, it's a wash. I don't think he's ever going to Afghanistan again. Not in uniform.
His war is over.
Posted by: Antifa | Feb 7 2007 10:23 utc | 20
For me, Watada is doing what I hope other members of the military will do if the order goes out to attack Iran. Perhaps it is self-serving for him, but courageous nonetheless.
Posted by: ww | Feb 7 2007 10:51 utc | 22
Antifa, Thanks for #21 (and everything else too), as to Vietnam vets, that was my era and even though I marched against the war I never felt anything but sorrow in regards to the vets. Some were my friends.
Posted by: beq | Feb 7 2007 13:31 utc | 23
Antifa at 20.........Thanks.I was curious as to what you meant by the con.I see now and agree with you.
Posted by: R.L. | Feb 7 2007 17:30 utc | 24
antifa, i bow low to you, very low indeed. this may sound overly dramatic, but it is the only way that i can express how i feel about your words reading them on the heels of a diary at kos. if lt. watada in any way is answering this man's call, he has done his duty. this is a perspective we do not often consider here.
Posted by: conchita | Feb 7 2007 18:11 utc | 25
from today's counterpunch
An Open Letter to America's Soldiers from the Ranks: The Looming Shadow of Nuremberg
How many of you recognize the name of Army Warrant Officer Hugh Thompson, Jr.?I do because he and I stood on and flew over the same ground nearly 40 years ago. Like him, I left a little blood and a lot of sweat in a Godforsaken place halfway around the world, earning four battle stars in 11 months. Plus some cheap tin and ribbon medals made even cheaper by the good friends who never came home with me. Thompson did, too.
Hugh was a helicopter pilot who aimed his guns at American soldiers--members of my brigade -- to keep them from slaughtering civilians in the Vietnamese hamlet of My Lai 4. Spotting massacred civilians around My Lai, Thompson and his two-man crew landed beside wounded civilians to give medical help as the infantry company commander and others present kept shooting the wounded. Thompson ordered his crew to open fire if the slaughter continued. No more civilians were shot.
Thompson's story is critical because the march to a nuclear war against Iran has begun, and YOU will the ones carrying it out. There is no way to effectively "confront" Iran except with tactical nuclear weapons. Tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children will die outright or suffer lingering deaths from horrible radiation sicknesses. It will be murder, pure and simple. Look at the suffering around you and multiply it by hundreds.
No doubt you know that back home, 80 per cent of the American people voted in the last election to end the Iraq debacle, but no one in Washington listened. Our two-faced media watchdogs are a gaggle of neocon propaganda peddlers, corporate whores and New World Order shills who helped orchestrate and cheerlead the slaughter, and they sneer at your patriotism behind your backs.
Everything you've been told about Iraq is a pack of lies, and the powers that be seem to think we're all stupid enough to be conned again. We can't trust our elected representatives to carry out the will of the people. They're been bought and sold, and have just proven it. For all practical purposes, a coup d'etat has taken place.
strong letter that needs to be distributed to those serving
Posted by: b real | Feb 7 2007 18:34 utc | 26
the only doubt i have here, as someone who has seen american military power enacted - is how the pasolinean ideal of the soldier as just another worker - to being perpetrators in crimes that can exist only because of their existence
hearts & minds, vietnamisation & the phoenix program were conducted by soldiers & not planners & the effects of that was disastrous not only for the vietnamese people but also for this ancient culture
this current illegal war in iraq began (& not incidentally) with the sacking of all of iraqs cultural treasures (& those of the word) & the murder of intelllectuals & this was done with the full complicity of common soldiers
hilberg, goldhagen & browning have shown us very clearly how the german soldier participated fully in the genocidal actions of its leadership - they have taught us how civil society can also become one that aid & abets directly & indirectly - genocide
what is happening in iraq & to some extent in both afghanistan & somalia is the destruction of what would constitute civil life & its correspondant duties
when does a soldier become a willing executioner - not only of policy but also of people & culture - i imagine is what both dan & antifa are hinting at
i wish i could have paul virilio or our own theodor's help in the understanding of the rapid accumulation of events - the effect of the speed - on the crimes carried out by the empire
if i get so angry with slothrop it is because he always leaves out the details & specificity of these crimes. i imagine that he sees haditha, fallujah & basra as exceptions when we know it is the rule & we know that the events are carefully hidden from us & if we did not have bloggers, sites in iraq itself we would know a great deal less
what i am seeing tho that i can measure - what took years in vietnam is taking months & what were practices that were relatively exceptional in vietnam have become common practice in iraq
pasolini in the 60's supported the flics in opposition to the protestors because he saw in his mind that they were the real proletarians, of course this was idealism that was peculiar to pier paolo - but there is a truth in it that soldiers are no more than slaves of even more craven men
it is the children of the poor who are dying never the children of elites
under capitalism, the army like the police & the courts represents & protects interests & the slide to genocide has become faster
the same principle applies tho for the german armies in the east & the american armies in the middle east - they have constructed for their soldiers - an enemy who is 'not human', the 'unpeople' of these asymmetric wars
in lebanon, that the town of quana was hit twice in two different military invasions of israel (in both cases killing almost exclusively children) is only possibly because civil society & more importantly its soldier permits it to happen
i am not optimistic - i think the armies of the empire, as b real has pointed out with the african command are going to escalate their crimes not reduce them
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Feb 7 2007 18:51 utc | 27
For those interested, a "Citizen's Hearing" was held in Tacoma Washinton a week or so ago, reviewing the evidence that Lt. Watada hoped to present in his defense. The concluding statement is on their site and here (pdf). Some snippets:
A Citizens' Hearing on the Legality of U.S. Actions in Iraq was held in Tacoma, Washington, on January 20-21, 2007. The Citizens' Hearing was prompted by the refusal of U.S. Army Lt. Ehren Watada to obey what he believes to be an unlawful order to deploy to Iraq. Lt. Watada based his refusal on the grounds that he is fulfilling his oath as a military officer to support and defend the Constitution of the United States by refusing orders to participate in an illegal war of aggression. Testimony on Lt. Watada's assertions about the illegality of the war is not being allowed into evidence by the military judge in Lt. Watada's court martial....
We are the 12 members of the Panel of the Citizens' Hearing. We are a diverse group of U.S. citizens with grave concerns about the legality of the U.S. role in Iraq. Half our group are military veterans of World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and more recent conflicts. Several of us belong to military families, including a woman whose cousin was killed in Iraq, the father of a soldier who served in Iraq, and a high school student with two brothers who served in Iraq. Panel members come from all regions of the United States....
Officers in the U. S. Army take an oath of allegiance to the Constitution – not an oath to follow orders blindly regardless of their legality. According to U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (Section 509b), members of the armed forces are bound to obey only legal orders....
The oath to support and defend the Constitution implies that if in conscience a person believes an order to be illegal, he or she has an obligation to refuse the order....
Based on the testimony we heard, we find that the Iraq War is an illegal war. We, therefore, support the right of military personnel, who believe the war to be illegal, to follow their conscience in refusing orders to deploy to Iraq. We believe that a person of conscience, in accord with the Nuremberg Principles, should not be punished, but rather supported, for refusal to follow orders to deploy to an illegal war.
Posted by: PeeDee | Feb 7 2007 20:33 utc | 28
unfortunately the hugh thompson history is so rare. so, so rare
but it is an exceptional one & a courageous one because as i remember it - lt calley was prepared to include him in his little genocide
i think dan of steel or perhaps deanander linked to a large article on him
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Feb 7 2007 22:56 utc | 29
An AFhttp://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=FB071EF63C5B0C7B8EDDA80894DF404482> fighter pilot, Dale Noyd, who objected to fighting in Vietnam died in Jan, as noted in NYT Sun, Jan 28. Parallels to Watahda. Behind subscriber wall, so long excerpt here.
. . . He taught at the Air Force Academy. But after 11 years in the Air Force, he became deeply disturbed by the Vietnam War, which he regarded as immoral and illegal. In 1966, he wrote an eight-page single-spaced letter to the Air Force asking that he either be allowed to resign his commission or be classified a conscientious objector. Denied on both counts, Captain Noyd took his case to federal court in Denver in March 1967, saying he was motivated by humanist beliefs. The American Civil Liberties Union, which represented him, said it was the first lawsuit claiming conscientious objector status based on opposition to a specific war. In December 1967, the Supreme Court refused to hear the case, saying it belonged in military jurisdiction.At roughly the same time, the Air Force ordered Captain Noyd to train a pilot who was likely to be assigned to Vietnam. Captain Noyd refused and was court-martialed for disobeying orders.
... The panel did allow discussion of how Captain Noyd's humanist beliefs affected his character. In the sentencing phase of the trial, a theologian told the judges, all Vietnam veterans, that risking one's life for a core belief, as the officers had all done in battle, constituted a religious act. That was persuasive. The prosecutor summarized this view as ''two religions butting heads against each other.'' As a result, Captain Noyd was sentenced March 9, 1968, to a year in prison instead of the five years.
Times change. Hard to imagine Watada's judges being persuaded thus.
What changed Captain Noyd's world view were three years he spent at the University of Michigan doing graduate work in psychology. The Air Force paid his tuition in return for six more years of service.Charlotte Doyle, a fellow graduate student who is now a psychology professor at Sarah Lawrence, said in an interview that Captain Noyd arrived in class in a crisp blue uniform and rose whenever a woman entered the room. Quickly, though, he was swept up in intellectual conversations with other students.
''His whole intellectual framework changed,'' Ms. Doyle said in an interview.
The Air Force sent him to teach psychology at the Air Force Academy. He assigned readings of French existentialists and tried to encourage a liberal arts atmosphere.
...In the resignation letter preceding his suit, he wrote, ''My three-year assignment in an operational fighter squadron -- with the attendant capacity for inflicting terrible killing and destruction -- was based on the personal premise that I was serving a useful deterrent purpose and that I would never be used as an instrument of aggression.''
Same way many soldiers see their role, sometimes more than deterrent but always defensive. Not many soldiers, like most other citizens, really attempt to understand the politics and imperial imperative. Maybe they sense the dangers of the choices that would pose.
He went on to teach at Earlham College in Indiana for two decades, then built a boat and sailed it to Tahiti. He lived in Hawaii before coming home to Washington State when his health began to fail.Mr. Noyd kept two certificates on the wall of his study, his son said. One was his commendation for heroism, the other his dishonorable discharge.
Posted by: small coke | Feb 8 2007 2:12 utc | 30
The comments to this entry are closed.
thanks b for that
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Feb 6 2007 17:50 utc | 1