U.S. soldier refuses to serve in 'illegal Iraq war'

Saturday 17th May, 02:24 AM JST

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Latest 15 of 37 Total Comments Show All

Loki520 at 02:32 PM JST - 17th May

RJD, a vast VAST majority of his critics have also volunteered and done their time.
SezWho2 at 03:16 PM JST - 17th May

Yes, but do a vast VAST majority of those who have volunteered and done their time also criticize him?
sailwind at 05:01 PM JST - 17th May

Betcha he got in with a felony waiver that I've been hearing so much about from other posters on this site.
adaydream at 05:08 PM JST - 17th May

Nope he didn't. Read the article.

Hell, there's some posters here that would have him shot.

He served his time and got out, then went into the reserves.

He should have to pay back his training, what for? He served his enlistment honorably and got his honorable discharge.
sailwind at 05:29 PM JST - 17th May

adaydream, nowhere in the article does it say he didn't get in without some sort of waiver. He may very well had a juvenile record for something stupid such as shoplifting at 14 or whatever and did require a waiver to get in, or he may very well have been a pristine recruit who knows. My point is if he did get in a waiver no poster from the left would cry the normal cry they do if this article was about a soldier that committed a bad act while in the service. They would ignore that and never claim this guy shouldn't have been allowed in the service in the first place.

Second point, your both right and wrong, he did do his active duty obligation on his contract with honor, however his contract is the standard one for all first term enlistees which means he is signed up for 8 years total. Four years active and four years inactive reserves. Inactive reserves can be called back on active duty if required, it was done that way so that if there was ever a national emergency that required mobilization of all the armed forces there will always be a ready pool available to call upon to support the active duty contingent. He is a civilian now but he is still in his eight year window of his contract so I will agree to a certian extent he's getting screwed in one way since he did serve his time and did get out with honor, however that was part of the gig when he signed up and he knew that as all of us did when he originally enlisted, that we could be called back at anytime during that 8 year window. I really don't have much sympathy for him as this to me is more of a young man that is now angry that he has go back then a conversion to the anti-war cause.
Loki520 at 06:06 PM JST - 17th May

Sezwho,

Yes, a large percentage of those that have done their time are also critical of him. Most of us, at least close to 100% that I've talked to, think he's a buttwipe. His tenure in the reserves is absolutely NO different that his time on active duty. None at all.

Whether he is in the reserves to finish out his initial active duty enlistment, or he actually completed his initial enlistment and then joined the reserves, matters not one iota.

His whining started upon his notification of deployment to Iraq. So, he's obviously not a C.O. I believe that he actually believes what he says, and that is his reasoning. However, me believing that does not change one simple fact. Him and a truckload of others like him, at no time in the past, ever signed a document or had an agreement that stated they would only participate in campaigns that THEY deemed necessary, legal, or otherwise. The contracts, for all branches, active and reserve simply state that they WILL follow the legal orders of their superiors at all times. His belief that it is an illegal war is NOT the defining factor of legality. He needs a MUCH larger mandate of legality, one which would be carried out on capitol hill. While they may eventually declare the entire effort "wasted" or "lost", they have yet to call it an illegal war.
SezWho2 at 06:56 PM JST - 17th May

Loki520,

A large percentage is not the same as a "vast VAST majority". Additionally, a large percentage of those who have served in the all-volunteer military is not the same thing as a large percentage of those who have ever served.

I just have trouble believing, for example, that the WWII crowd, for example, is going to come down very hard on a guy who has already done a tour in Afghanistan and who has spent 25% of his short life in some form of continuous military service. I have a tough time believing that a majority of Vietnam draftees are going to take him severely to task. Enough is enough.

I agree with you that him calling the war illegal does not make it so. However, it is enough that he believes it and that he is willing to bear the consequences of his belief.
Loki520 at 10:57 PM JST - 17th May

Sezwho...

Don't try and mix the message. A VAST majority of his critics have done their time. A large majority of those that have done their time are also criticizing.

TWO separate groups of people. Your not gonna find a glory hole with me by comparing two separate statements and trying to make them into one.

And this isn't about his tour in 'stan or the percentage of his life in military service. This is about an individual who enlisted in the military, and raised the B/S flag when he decided he had enough and no longer desired to participate. It is not likely that your gonna find any WWII vet feeling any sympathy to him for his FAILURE to HONOR his COMMITMENT. Draftee's may very well feel differently. But you'll have a hard time finding vets of a volunteer force that do. You'll certainly find them, but not as many as you think.

You focus on what he's done. The focus needs to remain on what he is legally obligated to do. What he has agreed to do. What he was trained to do. It does not matter what he HAS done. He's recieved ALL the benefits of the enlistment (Training, GIBill, etc.). And now he's backing out when he's asked to fulfill his part of the bargain.
jambon at 11:15 PM JST - 17th May

Yet another AFP editorial. When was the last time one saw a Medal of Honor recipient grace these pages?

Chiroux is an aberration of the American fighting man and typical fodder for the Leftist Media.
SezWho2 at 02:14 AM JST - 18th May

Loki520,

I don't think anyone is trying to mix the message. You claimed that a majority of his critics have done their time. I don't doubt that.

My question was whether a majority of people who have done their time also criticize him. You claim this is so. You offer no proof.

I don't have to leave my paternal home to find a former marine officer and WWII veteran who has sympathy for him. Where there is one, there is another.

The focus does not "need" to be in any particular place. He is fully aware of what he is legally obligated to do and he is prepared for the consequences. You wish to focus on the legal obligation. That's fine and that is a legitimate focus.

It's just not the only focus. Another focus is individual conscience. And it is not for you to determine the depth or strength of his convictions.
RomeoRamenII at 02:51 AM JST - 18th May

He served in Afghanistan, Germany, Japan, and the Philippines

This guy went through basic, AIT and served in Afganistan, Germany, Japan and the Philippines all within in six years? After reviewing the DA requirements for military assignments what Chiroux claims is impossible to do: a minimum 18-month tour of duty is required in Afganistan, minimum two years each in Germany, Japan and six months in the Philippines . Also, a soldier is required to have to have at least a two-year stateside break between overseas duty stations (A person can sign a waiver to do back-to-back overseas assignments but not four OCONUS assignments in a row).

This "story" has so many holes in it a person could drive a semi-truck through it. Doesn't the media (oh, I forgot: this is from AFP) and Congress vett these people who are going to testify?

jambon, this isn't an editorial. It's a BS propaganda piece.

RR
adaydream at 03:29 AM JST - 18th May

So Sgt. Matthis Chiroux is such a bad guy for speaking out against the war.

So do we also say that retired Army lieutenant general Ricardo Sanchez also un-American and should have to repay all his training? I mean Criroux just spoke for a few minutes, Sanchez wrote a whole damn book.
Eulji_Mundeok at 04:55 AM JST - 20th May

So Sgt. Matthis Chiroux is such a bad guy for speaking out against the war.

If he is who he says he is, he should be taken out and shot for not following a direct order from his civilian superiors. The way I understand it, American soldiers are in the military to serve and protect the civilian populace of the USA, and not the other way around.

It'll be a cold day in Hell before I submit to any tin pot generalissimo- Burmese or otherwise.
adaydream at 05:14 AM JST - 20th May

Eulji_Mundeok

You sound as if you've never served any military.

Then that explains your reply.

Also, you're not an American. That explains the rest.

But you only touched half my post.

I guess it's perfectly fine for Retired general Sanchez to speak out against the government and fault those very same civilian leaders for being inept.

Do you follow inept leaders?
Eulji_Mundeok at 10:00 AM JST - 20th May

I guess it's perfectly fine for Retired general Sanchez to speak out against the government and fault those very same civilian leaders for being inept.

It's "perfectly fine" (Sanchez being retired), but like George Tenet's book, it's a bit pathetic.

Do you follow inept leaders?

More importantly, do I vote for them in the first place??

I of course think there should be exceptions in the case where your commanding officer orders you to rape an entire village in Southeast Asia (and I don't think military criminals should be paid "compensation" and have their ringleader put on the cover of Life Magazine).