Archive for the 'War & Warfare' Category

I talked with a friend tonight about the Haditha incident.  His perspective (somewhat embellished here by me) is what I believe to be the perspective of most common men in America.

The common man tires of hearing the endless drum beat of anti-American slander and propaganda from the far left.  It is to him — well, let’s go ahead and say it — not manly.  To be sure, he is a part of or has a family, and asked in the abstract, would have no part of killing unarmed non-combatants just because of rage.  However, he doesn’t believe that this happened.  Not in Haditha, not anywhere in Iraq … not until proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.  The United States Marines are our finest, and they deserve not only our respect (which is easy), but our forbearance and patience.  They deserve grace.

See, in the abstract, we go to work, wrestle with our bosses and co-workers, stop at the grocery store on the way home, hug our wives, eat our meals, knock around the house for a while and then sleep until it is time to do it again.  Answers to moral questions are easy when we sleep in comfortable beds after eating tasty dinners in a protected home.  In reality, the Marines do not know if they will live or die tomorrow.  They do not know what awaits them around even the next corner.  They eat MREs out of disposable containers.  They go on patrols to find an enemy that may be among the very people they are trying to protect.  They know at any time, an IED might explode and turn over their Humvee, instantly killing the gunner and maiming some of their brothers.  Tomorrow they might face bullets coming their direction having left the muzzle of the enemy’s rifle at two thousand feet per second.  They might get to see their loved ones again, and they might not.

They do it all for us … because of love and service and protection and honor and courage and commitment and family and religion … and all the things that make America great and the U.S. Marines the very best of a great nation.  To say that we owe them a debt of gratitude is to make an understatement to the point of embarrassment.  It is because of the Marines that we are free.

Bad things happen in war.  Horrible things.  It sounds like something terrible happened that day in Haditha.  Families died who should otherwise be alive.  But based on what we know about the insurgents, and most importantly, based on what we know about the Marines, we strongly suspect that the America-hater’s account of things is just not quite right.  We suspect that there was a fight that day, and we suspect that the Marines defended themselves.  Further, we expect Marines to defend themselves.  We would not have it any other way.  When a Marine feels threatened, we do not expect him to act in any other way but to attack the enemy and defend his brothers.

When these Marines defended themselves, we strongly suspect that whatever collateral damage was done, was done by the insurgents.  We do not for a moment believe — especially without evidence — that the Marines wantonly created collateral damage.  And regardless of what happens tomorrow with this case, we believe that the Marines deserve grace.  After all, bullets were flying, explosions were happening, Marines were being hurt and killed, and tired, hungry and battle-weary Marines reacted as they are taught to.

At any rate, this is what we suspect.  And this is our perspective.  We are the common man in America.

I discussed Staff Sgt. Wuterich’s claims that the Marines followed the rules of engagement, as reported in the Washington Post on Sunday, June 11.  I pointed out how absurd it is to believe that the Marines acted in the way they are portrayed as acting (this does not predispose anyone to take any position on the events other than to say that it is highly improbable that the events unfolded as we have heard):

Wuterich’s version contradicts that of the Iraqis, who described a massacre of men, women and children after a bomb killed a Marine. Haditha residents have said that innocent civilians were executed, that some begged for their lives before being shot and that children were killed indiscriminately.

Wuterich told his attorney in initial interviews over nearly 12 hours last week that the shootings were the unfortunate result of a methodical sweep for enemies in a firefight. Two attorneys for other Marines involved in the incident said Wuterich’s account is consistent with those they had heard from their clients.

Kevin B. McDermott, who is representing Capt. Lucas M. McConnell, the Kilo Company commander, said Wuterich and other Marines informed McConnell on the day of the incident that at least 15 civilians were killed by “a mixture of small-arms fire and shrapnel as a result of grenades” after the Marines responded to an attack from a house.

In my post I rely somewhat on experiences and discussions with my Marine son (recently graduated as a Boot and currently in SOI) about his training.

It has become apparent that two members of the clergy were ministering to the unit that was involved with Haditha that day: Rev. Ben Mathes, and Rev. Christopher Price.  Neither reported Marines telling them about any massacre.

I also discussed Time Magazine besmirching of the character of the Marines who were involved with absolutely no evidentiary support (and then printing a small retraction at the bottom of the article).

The Haditha story that the anti-American press so badly wants to exist (and is trying to create) seems to be evaporating.  It now appears that there was quite a fire fight going on in and around the area.  Captain James Kimber reports that this particular time was a period in which Marine units were encouraged to escalate their use of force in dealing with insurgents.  He further reports that:

Nov. 19 unfolded like many other days in Iraq, Kimber said, with reports of violence. A rocket-propelled grenade was launched toward the compound of Kimber’s unit, in a school in central Haqlaniyah, a few miles south of Haditha. Other nearby units also were taking mortar and small-arms fire.

On the radio, Kimber said, he heard the report from Haditha of the blast from a roadside improvised explosive device, or IED, and the death of one Marine there. He also could hear an unfolding gun battle.

Over at Townhall, Mary Katharine Ham reports (from her sources) that:

As the situation developed, the Marines at the initial ambush site were isolated for a period of time in this hostile city and they had every right to fear for their lives.  A group of about 15-20 foreign fighters were believed to be in Haditha that day, supplemented by local insurgents.  Knowing that 6 Marines had been surrounded and killed in Haditha before help could reach them just three months before, the isolated Marines had to fear the worst as they responded to the first attack.

One Marine’s father reports that:

after the car bomb exploded the Marines took a defensive position around his son’s battered vehicle. Insurgents immediately started shooting from nearby buildings, and the insurgents were using women and children as human shields

Brit Hume picked up a story on the suspect nature of the alleged Time magazine videotape of the aftermath of the Haditha incident.  It appears that the budding young journalism student is not quite what he seems, and has a “dog in this fight.”

As this story is studied, inconsistencies and problems become apparent.  CNN reported that:

Suspecting that the four students in the taxi either triggered the bomb or were acting as spotters, the Marines ordered the men and the driver, who by then had exited the taxi, to lie on the ground. Instead, they ran, and the Marines shot and killed them. 

But do “students” really take taxis to school in Haditha, Iraq?

With the mention of “students” who ride taxis to school, little has been said about the nature of the Haditha that the Marines have seen over the last months.  Here is a good primer on the city:

Hardly mentioned at all in the hysterical coverage of Haditha is the nature of this city hard by the Syrian border. If you think Fallujah was a hornet’s nest of insurgency, you should take a look at Haditha and what the Marines have been facing there.

There is good news coming from Haditha too, even as accidently reported on CNN:

There’s been a lot of progress in Haditha, and I’ve been going back there pretty much for a year and a half. My last trip was a month before this incident. And Haditha, at the beginning of 2005 was very violent. U.S. troops would not even enter the city. And little by little, after a series of operations, and finally the last operation was before the operation in Haditha, a certain amount of stability was brought to the area, of course, that is stability on the Iraq barometer of stability. But it’s all relative. And they have brought the city under control to a certain degree, and they have set up fixed bases, both Iraqi and U.S. Army fixed bases to try and build up this relationship with the civilians. They have started the process of trying to clean the city of these roadside bombs that were just about everywhere, and trying to do these sweeping operations to clear out the city of insurgents and bring a certain amount of stability to it. 

There is a good Marine Corps Times article on Staf Sgt. Wuterich (a more personal side).  On an editorial note, it seems to me that it is entirely consistent that unarmed non-combatants were begging for their lives, while at the same time Marines were shooting (with the Marines being innocent of murder).  The reports are consistent that the insurgents used the women and children as human shields.

The Washington Post reports from a lawyer of one of the Marines that:

“There’s a ton of information that isn’t out there yet,” said one lawyer, who, like the others, would speak only on the condition of anonymity because a potential client has not been charged. The radio message traffic, he said, will provide a different view of the incident than has been presented by Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) and other members of Congress. For example, he said, contrary to Murtha’s account, it will show that the Marines came under small-arms fire after the roadside explosion.

Finally, there is still something very wrong and inconsistent with this whole picture.  The Washington Post reported on May 27 that:

“A U.S. Marine and 15 civilians were killed yesterday from the blast of a roadside bomb in Haditha. Immediately following the bombing, gunmen attacked the convoy with small arms fire. Iraqi army soldiers and Marines returned fire, killing eight insurgents and wounding another.” 

Did you know that 15 civilians were also killed in this IED blast?  I have seen this reported only in the Washington Post.  Further, did you know that Iraqi soldiers were with the Marines?  Additionally, this story is consistent with the other reports of an intense fire fight.  Strangely inconsistent with this account is the statement of one Iraqi:

In the first minutes after the shock of the blast, residents said, silence reigned on the street of walled courtyards, brick homes and tiny palm groves. Marines appeared stunned, or purposeful, as they moved around the burning Humvee, witnesses said.

Then one of the Marines took charge and began shouting, said Fahmi, who was watching from his roof. Fahmi said he saw the Marine direct other Marines into the house closest to the blast, about 50 yards away.

Hmmm.  Either there was a fire fight or “silence reigned.”  Which is it?  Logic says that it cannot be both.

Are the editors at the Arizona Republic wife-beaters?  Do they also engage in sedition, extortion, drug-trafficking and and felony robbery?  But pehaps this post is merely humor masking as serious journalism.  And perhaps the ridiculous cartoon below is a lie based on innuendo and without any substantive support in fact.

Here at the Captain’s Journal, we may be a small blog, and we may not spell words correctly from time-to-time, and we may be charged with being jingoistic, but at least we are not liars.

PFC John Jodka III is in shackles for charges with respect to Hamandiya.  I will try to follow this story — for right now, Jodka says “I’ll walk out a free man.”

Time Magazine besmirches the character of the U.S. Marines in the Haditha incident without evidence for the chain of events that they profer. The Time story currently reads like this:

One of the most damning pieces of evidence investigators have in their possession, according to a U.S. military source in Iraq, are personal photos, taken immediately after the killings, by a marine who emailed a snapshot back to a friend in the U.S.

This paragraph makes no sense. Damning evidence from a photograph after the fact by an individual who was there? In fact, the teeth have been removed from this quote due to bad reporting. At the bottom of the page, the following correction appears:

In the original version of this story, TIME reported that “one of the most damning pieces of evidence investigators have in their possession, John Sifton of Human Rights Watch told Time’s Tim McGirk, is a photo, taken by a Marine with his cell phone that shows Iraqis kneeling — and thus posing no threat — before they were shot.” While Sifton did tell TIME that there was photographic evidence, taken by Marines, he had only heard about the specific content of the photos from reports done by NBC, and had no firsthand knowledge. TIME regrets the error.

Right. A retraction makes everything okay, doesn’t it? So when this was first printed, they literally charged the Marines with forcing women and children onto their knees, allowing a fellow Marine to get a snapshot of them with his cell phone, and then executing non-combatants after their brother had taken a picture of the victims.

Okay. The gloves come off on this one. We still do not have all of the fact on this incident, but it does no good to traffic in contradiction and myths so outlandish and preposterous that even the most stolid person can tell that something is wrong. Here is what someone named Matthew Cooper (the reported with Time) apparently believed (we can only suppose that he believed this account — he authored the story).

1. After an IED explosion, the fire team (and perhaps the entire squad) had the time to go after civilians and execute them.
2. During the events subsequent to the IED explosion, the fire team so lacked the command and control by superior officers that they felt the freedom to kill unarmed non-combatants.
3. There is no protocol for how the Marines respond to a situation like this — they are all on their own and can take whatever action they deem appropriate.
4. The fire team was separate from the balance of the unit.
5. Upon arrival at the home, they forced the unarmed non-combatants to kneel.
6. Prior to the execution of unarmed non-combatants, another Marine “brother,” rather than trying to stop the execution, instead took out his cell phone and captured an image of the unarmed non-combatants just prior to execution (“Hey mom, just wanted to let you know how things were going in Iraq today”).

All the while, (a) a Marine brother is either wounded or dead, (b) they have received fire from adjacent houses, (c) their vehicle has been destroyed, and (d) they feel threatened by the situation.

If you believe this, then Santa Claus, the Tin Man, and the Easter Bunny do exist after all!

Just a bit more background to this assessment. One of the things that you are taught in boot camp is control of potential rage and anger. You are taught this on the rifle range, with pugil stick combat, through drill instructor harassment, and in many other ways throughout your training. On the other hand, young Marines are taught always to protect other Marines. From the very beginnings of their time in the Corps, they do “fire watch,” 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, for as long as Marines are together in a single location. It is the “Guardian Angel” concept. It “is expected to be ingrained to the point that it becomes a continuing action for Marines at all levels and in all circumstances.”

There are those who provide security; the question is “who will protect the protectors?” The answer: Marines protect their own. They do it with well-rehearsed skills, rules of engagement, and machine-like precision. This is what they are taught. The notion that some of the Marines would have gone off on their own, without clear guidance, and in the middle of a fire fight (with fire teams being expected to lay down a field of fire) and knowingly and purposely executed unarmed non-combatants is so ridiculous that it needs the utmost of proof for me to believe it.

The charges are so serious that no one should make them or even provide information that alleges them with the utmost of proof. Slander is a very real thing, and the media engages in it on a regular basis. It would appear that this Time story is one instance of it. Time should apologize to the Marines whose character they have maligned. Even if it turns out that the incredible did happen (and I am wrong in this post), there is still no hard evidence of it (and in fact, contrary evidence is beginning to announce itself).

Finally, with U.S. Marines, it would be equally ridiculous to expect that they not respond to protect their own. If they were being fired upon, then you can rest assurred that they responded. And here at the Captain’s Journal, we expect for them to have that right.

Good reporting is the order of the day. Trash stories are the things that trash publications publish.

Staff Sergeant Wuterich (Squad Leader) says, through his lawyer and as reported by the Washington Post on Sunday, June 11, that his fire team followed what they understood to be the rules of engagement.  Read the entire story for yourself.  This marks the first time that someone involved (I guess it turns out that the pathetic DNC lackey John Murtha should have kept his mouth shut) has told us what happened.

Now, let me be clear.  The death of non-combatants is tragic.  I do not want to downplay the importance of having well-rehearsed, well-developed and wise rules of engagement (more on this in a minute).  Further, one has to make sure that the stories are all consistent — although it appears right now that they are all consistent from the fire team members.  This case might also have to be adjudicated through the courts in order to exhonerate the individuals involved.  This is not quite over yet, and more information might come out on this incident that causes me to repudiate my current position.

The attorney for Staff Sgt. Wuterich says:

“It will forever be his position that everything they did that day was following their rules of engagement and to protect the lives of Marines.”

If it is true that the Humvee took fire from the home that they went to, and if it is true that they rules of engagement under those specific circumstances included using a fragmentation grenade following by clearing rounds from an M16A2 or M4, and if it is true that the Marines involved felt threatened by the occupants of the house, then here at the Captain’s Journal we agree with Staff Sgt. Wuterich.  It will forever by my position that they Marines did what they had to do, sad as this incident is.

I do not for one moment believe that a U.S. Marine … any U.S. Marine … would intentionally or knowingly fire upon non-combatants or take pleasure in the death of women and children.

As to the rules of engagement, who but an imbecile would refuse the Marines the right to defend themselves upon taking fire from a home?  Do the rules of engagement include stepping into the home (from which they have been fired upon) to see if there are any non-combatants?  If so, then pull our boys out now; we cannot win the war.  We are doomed.

Update, 6/12/06: Hat tip to the California Conservative who points out that there was a Presbyterian Minister who was with the Marines in Haditha.  This is a MUST READ!  The minister said nothing about Marines who felt guilty over any alleged intentional massacre.

Over at the incomparable Michelle Malkin’s home page she hat tips “Alarming News” for catching the Baltimore Sun for scolding for “inappropriate glee” at the death of Al-Zarqawi.  Well, sign me up for some … and for some more too.  My son will not deploy for another half year or so, but I had already prayed for the death of Zarqawi, hoping that Iraq would be a safer place for him and his brothers when he gets there.  In case you have forgotten what an imprecatory prayer is, go catch Doug Giles on this subject.  We should be praying more of them.  In fact, here is a short one right now.

Lord, please allow us to succeed in killing the enemy.  Root him out from his hiding places, cause him to starve, to experience misery, to fail in all of his evil intentions, and to become a laughingstock to the world.  Lord, give us success in smiting our enemies with a great blow so that this evil will be removed from us.

Glee?  I am overjoyed at the death of the terrorists.  Whew!  Perhaps I will pray more of these imprecatory prayers!

Various blogs have turned logic on its head (especially over at the Daily Kos) by implying that it was better that Zarqawi was be alive because other leaders will just take his place and he will turn into a Martyr. Okay. Think about this argument for a moment. The argument is essentially that it is better not to kill the enemy because there might be more of them. What kind of contorted logic wins a war by keeping the enemy alive? Wonder what General George Patton would have thought of that argument?

It is always better in war that your enemy be dead than alive (unless you need intelligence from him and you believe that you will not increase the chances of escape while attempting to capture him compared to outright killing of the enemy). Further, they (i.e., Al-Qaida in Iraq) have lost their prince (as Usama called him), the top leadership available to the increasingly desperate group. It is also not at all obvious – even if Zarqawi had already designated his replacement – that this new leader will be able to hold them together. Only recently coalition forces captured documents believed to be the work of senior Al-Qaida leadership in the Baghdad area. These documents show a fractured, disorganized, ill-equiped and demoralized group of terrorists. They do not sound like an organization which is enjoying the loss of its membership, especially its senior leadership. Nor does it sound like an organization which will easily be able to bounce back. Don’t count them out, but right now it appears that they are on the mat. While the entire document is worth reading, selected quotes follow:

It has been proven that the Shiites have a power and influence in Baghdad that cannot be taken lightly, particularly when the power of the Ministries of Interior and Defense is given to them, compared with the power of the mujahidin in Baghdad. During a military confrontation, they will be in a better position because they represent the power of the state along with the power of the popular militias. Most of the mujahidin power lies in surprise attacks (hit and run) or setting up explosive charges and booby traps. This is a different matter than a battle with organized forces that possess machinery and suitable communications networks. Thus, what is fixed in the minds of the Shiite and Sunni population is that the Shiites are stronger in Baghdad and closer to controlling it while the mujahidin (who represent the backbone of the Sunni people) are not considered more than a daily annoyance to the Shiite government. The only power the mujahidin have is what they have already demonstrated in hunting down drifted patrols and taking sniper shots at those patrol members who stray far from their patrols, or planting booby traps among the citizens and hiding among them in the hope that the explosions will injure an American or members of the government. In other words, these activities could be understood as hitting the scared and the hiding ones, which is an image that requires a concerted effort to change, as well as Allah’s wisdom. The strength of the brothers in Baghdad is built mainly on booby trapped cars, and most of the mujahidin groups in Baghdad are generally groups of assassin without any organized military capabilities.There is a clear absence of organization among the groups of the brothers in Baghdad, whether at the leadership level in Baghdad, the brigade leaders, or their groups therein. Coordination among them is very difficult, which appears clearly when the group undertake a join operations.The policy followed by the brothers in Baghdad is a media oriented policy without a clear comprehensive plan to capture an area or an enemy center. Other word, the significance of the strategy of their work is to show in the media that the American and the government do not control the situation and there is resistance against them. This policy dragged us to the type of operations that are attracted to the media, and we go to the streets from time to time for more possible noisy operations which follow the same direction.This direction has large positive effects; however, being preoccupied with it alone delays more important operations such as taking control of some areas, preserving it and assuming power in Baghdad (for example, taking control of a university, a hospital, or a Sunni religious site).At the same time, the Americans and the Government were able to absorb our painful blows, sustain them, compensate their losses with new replacements, and follow strategic plans which allowed them in the past few years to take control of Baghdad as well as other areas one after the other. That is why every year is worse than the previous year as far as the Mujahidin’s control and influence over Baghdad.The role that the Islamic party and the Islamic Scholars Committee play in numbing the Sunni people through the media is a dangerous role. It has been proven from the course of the events that the American investment in the Party and the Committee were not in vain. In spite of the gravity of the events, they were able to calm down the Sunni people, justify the enemy deeds, and give the enemy the opportunity to do more work without any recourse and supervision. This situation stemmed from two matters:First, their media power is presented by their special radio and TV stations as the sole Sunni information source, coupled with our weak media which is confined mainly to the Internet, without a flyer or newspaper to present these events.Second, in the course of their control of the majority of the speakers at mosques who convert right into wrong and wrong into right, and present Islam in a sinful manner and sins in a Muslim manner. At the same time we did not have any positive impact or benefits from our operations.The National Guard status is frequently raised and whether they belong to the Sunnis or Shiites. Too much talk is around whether we belong to them or not, or should we strike and kill their men or not?It is believed that this matter serves the Americans very well. I believe that the Committee and the Party are pushing this issue because they want to have an influence, similar to the Mujahidin’s. When and if a Sunni units from the National Guard are formed, and begin to compete with the mujahidin and squeeze them, we will have a problem; we either let them go beyond the limits or fight them and risk inciting the Sunnis against us through the Party’s and the Committee’s channels.(Salah), the military commander of Baghdad (he used to be the commander of the Rassafah County and still is) is a courageous young man with a good determination but he has little and simple experience in the military field and does not have a clear vision about the current stage and how to deal with it Most of his work at al-Rassafah County is to take cars to the Jubur Arab Tribes, convert them into booby traps and take them back inside Baghdad for explosion. And the more booby trap cars he makes, the more success he has. This alone is not a work plan and we do not benefit from it in the medium range let alone the long range.

(Salah): The current commander of Northern al-Karkh (Abu-Huda) is very concerned because of his deteriorating security situation caused by being pursued by the Americans, since they have his picture and voice print. Therefore, his movement is very restricted and he is unable to do anything here. We should remove him from Baghdad to a location where he can work easier; otherwise he is closer to become totally ineffective. I know nothing about his past military experience or organizational skills.

The killer is finally dead.  Here is a huge difference between Christianity and Islam.  Upon hearing of their leader’s death, Al-Qaida in Iraq said the following:

“The death of our leaders is life for us.  It will only increase our persistence in continuing holy war so that the word of God will be supreme.”

There you have it.  Radical Islam in all its glory.  The spread of their “gospel” by killing others.  No salvation … no forgiveness … no compassion … no teaching … no work by the Holy Spirit (because they do not know Him).  Just war and killing and more killing.

Update: The pretty pictures they are showing over at the major news outlets does not show the true story.  He met a violent end.  This should be the way of all such killers and terrorists.

Update #2: Hat tip to Right Wing News for the prediction on the Strategy Page that he would meet his demise soon.  Yesterday they predicted that Zarqawi would go out in a blaze of glory, become another martyr, and be out of the way of the organization because he had become a hinderance.  Just one problem.  If he has been a hinderance, then he has been so all along.  The beheadings, the violence to fellow Muslims, the sectarian fighting, the allegations and accusations against other branches of Al-Qaida, leading to the rebukes by Usama … these have been there all along.  Why now?  If he is a hinderance, then he hasn’t just recently become so.  I just don’t buy it – not yet.  I think that this is a win for the U.S. and a loss for Al-Qaida.  The organization becomes weaker as a result of this.  Unless I see evidence that the “real” leadership planned such a move, I will continue to believe that he was the head of the organization.  Besides, I just don’t think that they are organized enough to pull something like this off.

Update #3: Juan Cole notes the following:

… groups in Fallujah have launched attacks on Zarqawi followers there after the latter attacked the al-Husain Mosque in the Askari quarter two days ago, destroying the tomb of the founder of the mosque within it. (Salafis influenced by Saudi Wahhabism despise attendance at saints tombs, insisting on a Protestant-like elimination of all intermediaries between human beings and God. Many Islamists in Fallujah are actually Sufis, who value saints in the way rural Catholics do.) An attempt by the radical Salafis to destroy the mosque (on the grounds that it had been tainted with polytheism) was stopped by the “1920 Revolution Brigades,” a local ex-Baathist group. There was a running gun battle between the two.

Zarqawi’s group had also tried two days ago to attack a Fallujah police station, but they were repulsed by local tribal youth. The battle left two cars burned and 4 dead from the tribe of Al-Bu `Isa.

This makes better sense to me than the notion that his own people took him out by giving Centcom intelligence.  Zarqawi was the head of Al-Qaida in Iraq.  He was not the head of what the U.S. troops there call the “moog.”  On the other hand, there is indication that the Jordanians were also involved in this.  It will piece together over time.

Update #4: The video of the bomb that killed the killer is here.

I have a really dark daydream of a couple of grim-looking men coming to my door one day to inform me that my son has perished in Iraq (he has not yet deployed).  I will doubtless have a bumpy ride through this ordeal.  But I know what document my son signed as he enlisted.  I go into his room and look at it frequently.  It is called the “Oath of Enlistment.”  It has certain things that my son swore to do, and we had some serious discussions prior to him signing about what a solemn duty he was undertaking, with potential for loss of limbs or life.

An Army officer, it seems, has refused orders to deploy to Iraq.  I am sure that the anti-war zealots will hail him as their new poster boy.  In my opinion, he is a liar.  He swore to do certain things and then refused.  This makes him a liar.  It is as simple as that.