A brief comment on Colonels and Scumbags

On Colonels, we have the dismissal of charges against Lt. Col. Jeffery Chessani, USMC. Colonel Chessani, for those playing the Home Game, was the commanding officer of the battalion involved in the (so-called) Haditha shootings. After seven other Marines were charged with various murder charges, he was charged with failing to investigate the incident vigorously enough. However, now that the Government has dropped charges against five of the Marines for lack of evidence, tried to bring one to trial but was acquitted on charges, and has downgraded the charges for the remaining Marine to manslaughter, they realized this was not going to fly either. So his charges have been dropped.

Neener, neener, neener.

Bet that unless you read it on a blog, you haven't heard of this happening. Compare with the number of Old Media stories on the (fictional) incident when it allegedly happened.

Scumbags: IVAW shows its true colors again, as a member of that illustrious terrorist support network decided to not only deliberately miss movement, but do so in a publicly obnoxious manner designed to attract attention and boost the morale of al-Qaeda in Iraq.

SGT (and does THAT fact disgust me or what) Matthis Chiroux somehow managed to duck deployment while on active duty, serving a grand total of six days in Afghanistan (??? How did he do that?). However, he cheerfully collected a government paycheck while pogueing it out on bases in the United States, Germany, Japan, and the Philippines--how he did all that in a mere five years, I'd love to know. But as is common knowledge these days, all enlistments are for 8 years, which means he owed the remaining three years as IRR time, and the Army decided they needed someone with his particular skills in Theater. Boo-frickin-hoo. I weep. Seriously. Lots.

Six days in five years? I'm still baffled as to how he managed that, although I guess if he were Public Affairs support (Stars and Stripes describes him as a journalist) to an Important Person visiting theater, I could see how it happens.

Now, I'm on my third damn deployment, my wife's had one herself. I signed up for this job. I volunteered, as did dumb-ass Buck Sergeant Chiroux. I continued to volunteer, Buck decided he didn't want to play Army any more. I can respect that. But the IRR commitment is in the contract, and it occasionally bites folks in the butt. He could have stayed on Active Duty past the eight year mark to ensure it didn't--but that most likely would have meant a deployment. He chose to gamble, and he crapped out. It sucks--but this sort of whiny, self-serving aggrandizement to make a political point and directly support our enemies is bullshit.

He certainly isn't any use to the Army as a journalist. The informational side of this war is too important to have an outright terrorist sympathizer doing that job. He's already made it perfectly clear that he will not be professional in any sense of the word, but will grandstand and cause trouble and the Public Affairs shop is too damn sensitive a location to have a jackass who is a deliberate troublemaker.

But having said that, I sincerely hope that he gets dragged in front of a military judge who sentences him to a 455 day stay at Ft Leavenworth with a large cellmate on a life sentence.

Buck Sergeant Chiroux is NOT making the position of IVAW Spokesperson "ArmySergeant" any more plausible. She tried to argue in this blog that IVAW does NOT support al-Qaeda in Iraq, does NOT support mutiny, does NOT support desertion or missing movement, etc, etc, etc. Just honest, professional Soldiers who happen to disagree with the Government's policy. Setting aside the fundamental question of whether Soldiers who disagree with the Government's policy need to demonstrating in the streets and generally acting the fool in what I always was taught was an unprofessional manner, this sort of cowardly and unbefitting behavior is precisely what I keep bringing up in this little quasi-debate. I breathlessly await the explanation. Or not--I need to keep breathing to fulfill my professional duties as a noncommissioned officer--something armysergeant needs to start considering.

Discussion Question:

Article 94 of the UCMJ defines mutiny as:
"Any person subject to this chapter who-- with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, refuse, in concert with any other person, to obey orders or otherwise do his duty or creates any violence or disturbance is guilty of mutiny."

The elements of this charge are:

(2) Mutiny by refusing to obey orders or perform duty.

(a) That the accused refused to obey orders or otherwise do the accused's duty;

(b) That the accused in refusing to obey orders or perform duty acted in concert with another person or persons; and

(c) That the accused did so with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority.

The explanation is:

(b) Mutiny by refusing to obey orders or perform duties. Mutiny by refusing to obey orders or perform duties requires collective insubordination and necessarily includes some combination of two or more persons in resisting lawful military authority. This concert of insubordination need not be preconceived, nor is it necessary that the insubordination be active or violent. It may consist simply of a persistent and concerted refusal or omission to obey orders, or to do duty, with an insubordinate intent, that is, with an intent to usurp or override lawful military authority. The intent may be declared in words or inferred from acts, omissions, or surrounding circumstances.

IVAW encourages its members to refuse duty in Iraq. Should then an IVAW member who refuses duty in Iraq be considered to have done so "in concert" with other IVAW members, some of whom are on active duty and hence subject to the UCMJ?