by Richard A. Cheatham, Press Media Group, LLC

Well, it’s finally happened. An officer in the United States Army has refused to be deployed to Iraq arguing that the war is at odds with the United States Constitution that he swore an oath to protect against all enemies, foreign and domestic. First Lieutenant Ehren Watada has served in the United States Army for three years.

This brings up all sorts of questions. Is Lt. Watada a traitor or a patriot? Is the oath taken by all who serve the United States important and to be considered seriously by those who swear it? Is the understanding of that oath by the person taking it important? Must the person making the oath live by it to the best of his ability, regardless of the consequences? Let’s consider the wording:

“I, ________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

Lt. Watada explained, “It is my duty as a commissioned officer of the United States Army to speak out against grave injustices. My moral and legal obligation is to the Constitution and not those who would issue unlawful orders...My oath of office is to protect and defend America’s laws and its people. By refusing unlawful orders for an illegal war, I fulfill that oath today.”

All soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen swear to support and defend the Constitution, not to prosecute the foreign policy of a particular administration, especially if that policy is in conflict with the Constitution. The individual soldier must be the person who makes these determinations or his oath means nothing.

In fact, officers above you might even be “domestic” enemies of the Constitution. It’s happened before! Commanding General of the United States Army during Lewis and Clark’s expedition, James Wilkinson, was a traitor. Wilkinson was a secret agent in the pay of Spain. He actually recommended to Spanish authorities that they “stop” the Lewis and Clark expedition. Spanish authorities sent at least three unsuccessful military patrols to intercept Lewis and Clark’s United States Army expedition. To say this could never be the case with any other officer would be absurd.

I’m sure Lt. Watada knew the possible consequences of his actions. To say that he’s wrong is one thing. To say that he’s a traitor or a coward is very much another. Heroes are precisely those who stand up for their values regardless of the consequences, not those who do any and everything they’re told. An army filled with soldiers of the latter type would be dangerous indeed.

©2006 by Richard A. Cheatham. All rights reserved. Mr.Cheatham is a professional speaker/writer and is syndicated through Press Media Group, LLC. Contact him through, Living History Assoc., Ltd., at www.LHALtd.com or DrawBackVeil@aol.com.