Another deserter jailed

| December 4, 2008

Tony Anderson a 19-year-old from Wilkes-Barre, PA was sentenced to 14 months confinement and dishonorably discharged for “desertion with intent to avoid hazardous duty” and “disobeying a lawful order.”He blames everyone, even his father for forcing him to sign his own name in his own hand on the line promising to act like a man;

Anderson says that he was never very attracted to military life, but joined the service at the behest of his father, who had always regretted not joining the military himself. Once in the ranks, Anderson realized that he had made an unfortunate decision. During basic training, he found himself ethically opposed to taking a human life in a military conflict.

Anderson had vague thoughts about filing for conscientious objector (C.O.) status but was discouraged from doing so by his commanding officers, who told him that it would not be possible for him to obtain, and even falsely informed him that he was “not the right religion.” Anderson was led to believe that filing a C.O. application would be futile.

Yeah, well there are alternatives for filing for CO status without getting permission from your commander. But think about it – what commander wants a pacifist in his unit that claims he won’t fight? Why would the commander just delay the inevitability of dealing with the problem of a dolt who refuses to defend himself?

But Anderson isn’t done making excuses yet;

“I know this may be hard to believe, but I never really thought about the idea of hurting or killing another human being before I joined the military. And then in training, it just didn’t seem real. I knew I could be deployed someday but I just never gave it much thought. But when I got to Ft. Carson and heard that I would be going to Iraq, I realized that this was something I would have to resolve.”

He knew he was supposed to be a killer, but he didn’t think the Army was serious about making him kill. the hippies, who just don’t know any better, claim that Anderson enlisted as a fire fighter, but the evil Army switched him to the MPs. I guess the hippies don’t know about the contract the Army signs with folks guarenteeing their career training.

Of course the hippies think having an organization of 1200 people is significant (out of millions) – and a whole 12 are stationed at Fort Carson (a post with tens of thousands) where Anderson absconded;

Anderson is not alone: a growing number of U.S. troops are refusing to fight in the so-called “war on terror.” Army soldiers are resisting service at the highest rate since 1980, with an 80 percent increase in desertions, defined as absence for more than 30 days, since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, according to the AP Press. Over 150 resisters have come out publicly against the war, and some cases, such as Lt. Ehren Watada, the first army officer to refuse to deploy to Iraq, have garnered widespread support and attention.

Meanwhile, an increasing number of active duty G.I.s have been joining Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW), an organization comprised of over 1,200 U.S. veterans who have served since September 11, 2001. With 12 active duty members at Anderson’s base alone, IVAW has taken a position of open support for G.I. resisters.

A “growing number” – a number they don’t mention, by the way. A growing number could one more than last year, couldn’t it?

Yeah, and that 80% desertion rate story is over a year old and it was for statistics gathered from Oct. 1 2006 – Sept. 30, 2007.  Why would they choose that set of numbers? Well because desertions had been falling until Democrats took control of Congress in 2006. Of course, the media hasn’t bothered to write about desertion rates since the surge started working in Iraq. In fact, a search of the internet turns up scads of results for the 2007 AP story – none about the rate for this year. In fact news stories from only a few months ago still refer to the 2007 article. I wonder why.

Category: Politics

7 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
YatYas

It would be wrong, but I almost wish we would brand people like this as was once the custom. Maybe it would be more humane to just tattoo a big “D” on their foreheads. That way everyone would forever know them for the losers they are.

streetsweeper

Have to admit, I didn’t need to read much before knowing this dude is IVAW.

defendUSA

Yes, remember the sneetches? Put a star on them with a line through it.

ArmySergeant

Actually, its fairly common for commanders not to support CO status. A lot of commanders feel the same way that you do about it. There’s this attitude of “If they want out, by god, we’re not going to give it to them”. There may also be a perception that having COs out of your unit looks bad on the unit. Admittedly I haven’t gone through the process myself, as I’m not a CO by any means, but I’ve heard commanders talk about the whole “not going to give them what they want” principle for other types of discharges, even negative ones. It’s why we had a 300 pound female at one of our units for over a year, because she wanted to get out on a weight control failure discharge and the command didn’t want to give her what she wanted. It was ridiculous.

Raoul

“…why we had a 300 pound female at one of our units…”

Per regulation, that mandates group sex because anything over 40 lbs is a two man lift.

pmm

I had a soldier float the CO thing prior to a deployment to Iraq and wound up having to read into the regulation. The regulation makes it clear that the soldier has a positive proof to make–that they are in fact a conscientious objector. It’s actually a fascinating read as it’s obviously written with the draft in mind. In an all-volunteer force, it’s nearly impossible to get CO approved, since the joe would have to demonstrate that he underwent a conversion in belief since signing the contract.

ArmySergeant

Raoul:

I’m going to be furiously scrubbing my eyes with lye. I’ll be in the corner. Twitching.