(WOULDNT FIND A MARINE PULLIN THAT SHI*)

ONLY THE ARMY I GUESS

THIS GUY WILL GO TO PRISON AND IF HE DOESNT GOD I HOPE SOMETHING BAD HAPPENS TO HIS ASS!

GUESS WHAT?! HE SIGNED THE DOTTED LINE! HE VOLUNTEERED! NO ONE PUT A GUN TO HIS HEAD. HE KNEW WHAT HE WAS DOING, AND WHAT COULD BE EXPECTED OF HIM. NOW HE WANTS TO SIT BACK AND B**CH ABOUT IT?! FINE! GOOD! I WOULDNT WANT HIM NEXT TO ME. AS GOOD AS DEAD IF HE WAS! THROW EM ALL IN PRISON! LAW DONT GIVE ABOUT YOUR "FEELINGS." ITS THE LAW, AND YOU ARE BREAKING IT. MAYBE NEXT TIME YOULL THINK BEFORE YOU SIGN THE DAM* PAPER.

I KNEW WHAT I WAS DOING WHEN I WENT. MARINES DONT FEAR, WE ARE FEAR ITSELF!

OOOOORRRRRAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!

You men have a real problem to evolve in peace for the good of all.
May you learn to look and learn in humility and to listen and feel with love, instead of cutting this man's peaceful descision. If you wannna go fight in a war for ill men who are caught in thr trap of greed and fear, then go die there yourself, on your own responsibilty and live and let live! listen to the earth and it's native peoples! Take care of our veterans and their families. Get new honest leaders and find alternative energies which are regenerative and eco-friendly before the shit hits the fan. And stop the embrassing propaganda please! Jeez where are we, in a totaliarian state??? support peace and get busheneyreps out. obama for prez, keep emsafe and honest! support the usa and the land and wildlife for a better world. plant a tree today in love. no more pain and atrocities and lying.

Sgt.Chiroux,
As a member of Military Families Speak Out, I support your decision not to redeploy. I also supported my son when he chose to deploy when his Marine Corps Battalion was activated.
You've already heard so much from so many; you already know what's going on over there. Contractual responsibilities is too thin a justification to go back. As someone has already noted, Nuremburg made clear that "just following orders" is no longer an acceptable rationale for war atrocities.
Good luck, Matthis, and I hope you have excellent representation.
We will march for you too when Military Families Speak Out marches in honor of all who've served on Memorial Day.

Pete Townsend a pop music star? Now THAT is funny. There goes the old credibility. A spirited defense of elistism on your part though. "Billions of willfully ignorant fools?" Wow, now that's a powerful visual pneumonic device, a billion people all intentionally embracing ignorance. Who knew!

I'm also not playing your version of the Sean Hannity challenge. It doesn't matter what benevolent power has existed or didn't exist . . . not interested in a frustrating debate over whose definition of benevolent we are going with.

Me thinks you wear suede patches on your tweed jacket.

WNW, the problem with analytical contemplation is that 'real people' (by which you mean those of middling intelligence and attention span) choose not to think that way, and choose the path of intellectual least resistance rather than engage the world in a curious and reasoned manner. The 'elites' whom you blame for all the world's ills are aided and abetted by billions of willfully ignorant fools, without the support of which your 'elites' could not run a Quik-E-Mart. So long as a plurality of voters are more concerned with Paris Hilton's underwear (and the timeliness of their trains) than they are about the third world, this will not change.

Why do humans (or chimps) compete? In small groups, dominance does seem at first to be its own reward, but is probably tied to mating competition and access to food. An abstraction like 'power' is a wildly insufficient reason for global conflict. If your theory held, the US would invade any weaker country simply to have 'power' over it regardless of strategic or economic incentive. By your logic, the fact that Iraq contains the 2nd largest oil reserve on the planet is merely a coincidence.

BTW, since you seem to fancy yourself a reasonable person, I advise against quoting pop music stars in your geo-political analysis.

Your comment about the third world begs the question: In your honest opinion, would the leaders of any country you can name (Liberia, maybe, or Somalia) act any differently than the US, or the USSR, or any other recent empire, were they blessed with the same power? Why do you seek an answer for the brutality of our species only in the character of your own nation? I re-issue my challenge of an earlier post: name me ONE benevolent hegemony, one moral, gentle, just and peaceful POWERFUL state, any time in history. If you can't do that, name me one empire that acted with less brutality than ours.

This argument is not a justification for violence, but an explanation of its cause. The cause transcends national boundaries, national interests, and the evil machinations of the 'elites' you speak of; it is as intrinsic to our being as our hands, feet, and the fact that we nurse our young.

When I joined the Marine Corps in '91, all contracts were 8 years long. The most common contract is 4 years active service, 4 years inactive service. During the inactive time, you can get called up for duty. That's how you can get called back for duty.

The problem with over-analytical contemplation of historical minutia is two-fold. One, real people don't think that way. Two, comparisons of different eras often offer nothing except a false start. The elitists that pareticipate are the ones that cause most of the misery in the world. A street thug bent on satisfying his addiction or greed takes out a couple of people, countries like the US take out millions in their pursuit of their completely subjective "right way". You say that we shouldn't forget that empire brings benefits to many. Tell that to the third world; and Mussolini's trains ran on time.

We are not competing for territory and resources as you say, we compete for power. In the words of Pete Townsend, "I want it, I want it I want it. Can't have it".

Keeping one's word is not all it's cracked up to be. Changing one's mind when you know you were wrong is.

No empire lasts forever, and no empire was ever withdrawn from the world by its own people. China in the 15th century did become radically isolationist, but that was the doing of the leadership. Yes, China (and the world) will eventually drive the United States from its pedestal. This weeks Newsweek has a good cover story on this. But will anything be better? Is a world of expansionist regional hegemonies (Russia, China, et. al) necessarily better than one dominated by an occasionally violent, but relatively restrained, global colossus like the US? Let us not forget that for all of its brutality, empire brings benefits to many.

Nature is such that when too many members of the same species are competing for the same resources and territory, conflict is inevitable. Humans are more egalitarian than most animals, but greed, cynicism, and fear remain all-pervasive social forces. For all our powers of reason and abstract thought, creativity and ethics, technology and progress, we are little more than chimps with guns.

To hell with contractual responsibility you say. Well, good for you. But your statement can be easily reduced to 'the hell with doing what we say we are going to do even if it turns out we do not want to.' I know a few 8 year olds who routinely make this argument about bedtime and eating their vegetables, and a few adults who feel like telling it the IRS every April. Without contractual responsibility, the fabric of obligation that weaves complex societies together would unravel. Hence, we have laws to ensure contracts. Mathis broke them, so he'll go to jail. Period. And well he should.

Of course, so should Bush. But that is a story for another day.

Dan an intriguing and accurate perspective up until your last paragraph. The hell I say with "contractual responsibility". That is meaningless in the context of where we are now in Iraq. Matthis is a hero and someone to be respected and looked up to. I have no such feelings about others that go voluntarily to Iraq to occupy a Muslim nation and kill it's people for no reason whatsoever. Why should they be respected? They can absolutely make the moral decision not to join, or to leave once there.I am not comparing the two but illustratively, Nuremburg proved once and for all that following orders is not excuse for war crimes. How many millions of Iraqis must die and be maimed for nothing; based on lies before we call what's happened in Iraq war crimes.

This millitaristic, imperial hegemony must stop. If it doesn't China and others will stop it for us. Do we really want to confront the world?

Tess, it is unnecessary to amend the constitution. Sufficient international law exists, established by the allied victors of WWII at Nuremberg, within the UN charter and declaration of human rights. The problem is enforcing these dictates on an unwilling empire. A United States truly committed to the universal moral precepts of non-aggression, peaceful arbitration of disputes and so on would not be a threat to world peace. Unfortunately, every president since Truman has violated them in one way or another. Our most recent president is the heir to a long tradition of near-imperial executive impunity. The American public (let alone the powerful interests that carry far more weight in democratic politics) will never abdicate sovereignty in favor of international authority. So on it goes.

Iran, 1953. Vietnam in the 60's and 70's. Nicaragua and El Salvador in the 80's. Support for Hussein, Jihadists in Afghanistan, the Saudi monarchy, and a rogues gallery of brutal dictators worldwide. Care for a less recent history lesson? Florida, the Southwest, and the rest of the continental expansion. Hawaii, Cuba, and the Philippines. If acts of aggression and dubious alliances aren't enough, consider the slave trade and a century of Jim Crow. Our nation has much to answer for.

But please, before we burn the flag, can anyone name a moral hegemony that existed any time in human history? Is there a precedent for a powerful state acting morally toward weaker states when its interests, real or perceived, are at stake? "The strong do what they may," the Athenians told the Melians in 431 BCE, according to Thucydides, "and the weak suffer what they must." The idea that might makes right, it seems, is an old problem.

Tess, you make a good point in saying that because we hire our own leaders, this could all change tomorrow. So why don't the American people simply say, "enough," and put an end to all of this? Ignorance of history, cognitive dissonance, misguided patriotism, the clever manipulation of political fear by leaders and their media toadies, the machinations of powerful interests, and sheer carelessness all suggest themselves; whatever, the empire rolls on at untold human and financial cost Meanwhile the public, with more than sufficient evidence at their disposal, re-elects George Bush. Cry for us, Argentina.

Jason, Mathis was not discharged from his service obligation, which typically extends a minimum of two years (but usually four) after discharge from active duty. He is in the IRR, or Inactive Ready Reserve, subject to activation at any time until full discharge. This is made abundantly clear, in large font, when one signs his service contract.

Some MOS's (Military Occupations Specialties) provide for nearly limitless reactivation; some doctors, out since the early 90's, were recently recalled. Interrogators, Arabic speakers, and others of great use can also be recalled. All it takes is an executive order. However, 'Stop Loss' orders and IRR re-activations are fairly common, and routine.

WNW, you are correct in stating that in the absence of a draft (an act of congress), anyone can chose not to join the military. We can also vote for leaders committed to the UN charter and the Nuremberg laws, universal human rights, billions for education rather than occupation, a balanced budget, separation of church and state, freedom of expression and right of conscience in personal matters, environmental stewardship, and a limit to the influence of private centers of power like corporate and foreign lobbies.

Unfortunately, there will always be a sizable balance of the population, predominantly non-college educated and often religious, who are easily manipulated into beliefs that do not cohere with the evidence. Iraq, a threat to white, middle-American Christian children? Bomb 'em. Global warming, unproven? Better to not regulate business then, because prices will rise. Attack on America? They must hate our freedom and way of life, surely we've never done but good in the world. And on it goes.

Mathis will not change any of this by abrogating his contractual responsibilities. The sorrows of empire and the lies of his commander in chief do not give him the right to quit his post, period. As a Catholic friend of mine, no stranger to un-reasoned beliefs, once said, "we live in a fallen world." Indeed.

Am I to understand that when you enlist and sign that contract Don Floros is so adamant about, that it's forever? That the government can re-invoke it any time they want to for as long as you live?

I ask this because Chiroux clearly states that he was honorably discharged. Saying he deserted is like a bank foreclosing on a paid for house; he fulfilled his end of the deal by serving his term of duty just as a home buyer fulfills his obligation when he makes the final mortgage payment. The only way he can be a deserter is if soldiers are never really discharged from the army, that it's a lifetime commitment.

If that's the case (and it sounds completely insane), I don't believe the military would ever get any business if potential recruits knew it wasn't for 4 years, it was for the rest of their lives.

Just like in Vietnam, the true heroes are the one's that refuse to go. Law's are man made and capricious; morality and the unwillingness to go kill those that never harmed you is a universal truth.

This is an all volunteer army and every soldier can make the decision not to join and not to go kill. Are there personal consequences? Yes. And those that make that choice are the heroes.

In the very first comment Dan Floros says:

"The constitution is not up for debate, Mathis. It is not a blank slate upon which each citizen writes his own Utopian vision, but a legal document subject to the interpretation of only nine individuals. You are not one of them".

I only have one question for this Dan Floros person, and that is "WE THE PEOPLE" is the very first part of our Constitution, "WE THE NINE" is not, do you think we need to Amend the Constitution? Is that what you are saying? I did agree with some of your comments, but we must remind people that we (the citizens) are the employers, and all government personel including our president are OUR employees, not the other way around.

You decision (and your choice to make a political statement with it) will doubtless provoke both criticism and praise. Since I am the first to weigh in, I hope to set the tone for nuance, if not erudition.

First, Mathis, you signed a contract, and you are abrogating that contract with the full knowledge that you are legally wrong. Your argument regarding the constitutionality of the Iraq war is irrelevant, as you are neither a Supreme Court judge nor a legal authority of any kind. The constitution is not up for debate, Mathis. It is not a blank slate upon which each citizen writes his own Utopian vision, but a legal document subject to the interpretation of only nine individuals. You are not one of them.

Some will surely accuse you of treason. They are wrong to do so. You are not a traitor, but a deserter, and as such you deserve to be punished to the full extent of the law. However, it is wrong to impugn your patriotism, since you clearly believe that you are doing what is best for your country.

Furthermore, your recalcitrance in the face of grave repercussions is a testament to your strength of character and conviction. Your actions will mean nothing in the greater scheme of things; perhaps you will inspire a few individuals to speak out, or to desert the service as you have; but on balance, Mathis, the gears of war will turn with or without you. You must know this, and it makes your gesture of protest all the more meaningful, because its ultimate meaning will be yours alone.

You will likely go to federal prison, and be dishonorably discharged. You life will change in ways you can scarcely fathom, and will remain irreparably so long after the sad adventure of the Iraq war passes into the annals of history. You will live on in the knowledge that you did what you knew was right, against a binding obligation to do otherwise. You are prepared to stand tall and accept your punishment. For that you must be held in the highest respect.

But for deserting the service, casting aside the obligation you willfully entered into, and cloaking it all in the dubious rhetoric of a higher moral calling, you must be held in the highest contempt. You signed the papers, Mathis, the same as I.

A contradiction? Not really. One can applaud your exquisite morality and fearlessness, and still recognize the personal failure inherent in one who agrees to do a job and then refuses to finish it. The dichotomy is problematic, but not illogical. In any event, you will have plenty of time to ponder it while you break rocks in Leavenworth.

Some on this thread will call you a hero. Others will call you a traitor. They will be equally wrong. You are simply a deserter, right in your heart and wrong by the law, and a moral human being.

I disagree with your choice, and your reasoning behind it, but I wish you the best, Mathis. Good luck.

df