Four facts about the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq are not in dispute:
1. The Constitution required a congressional declaration of war against Iraq as a prerequisite to invading the country.
2. Congress never issued a declaration of war against Iraq.
3. The U.S. government had no legal authority to enforce WMD resolutions enacted by the United Nations. Only the UN had legal authority to enforce its own resolutions.
4. The Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal made it a war crime for one nation to initiate a war against nation.
Given this set of undisputed facts, there is no question but that the U.S. war on Iraq was illegal, both under our form of governmental structure and under the principles against “aggressive war” set forth at Nuremberg.
Every U.S. soldier takes an oath to support and defend the Constitution. But as I have long maintained, that oath is a sham. In reality, when soldiers take the oath, they are actually pledging loyalty and fealty to their superior officers, including their commander-in-chief. In blindly and loyally following their orders, soldiers convince themselves that they are supporting and defending the Constitution simply because their commander-in-chief has been democratically elected by the nation.
The case of Army Lt. Ehren Watada confirmed this phenomenon perfectly. Watada concluded, correctly, that the U.S. war on Iraq was illegal. Under U.S. law and the principles set forth at Nuremberg, every soldier is required to disobey illegal orders. Thus, in 2006 he refused orders to deploy to Iraq, citing his obligation to refuse to obey unlawful orders.
What happened then? Did the military establishment respect and honor his decision? Did his superior officers commend him on fulfilling the oath he had taken to support and defend the Constitution?
Actually, they went after him with a vengeance, targeting him with a court-martial and the possibility of many years in a military prison for refusing to obey lawful orders and for conduct unbecoming an officer. They said he was a very bad and disloyal soldier for refusing to obey orders to deploy to Iraq, a country that never attacked the United States or even threatened to do so.
Ultimately, after a mistrial, the military decided to surrender and simply rid itself of Lt. Watada by giving him a less-than-honorable discharge. In the process, they demonstrated that notwithstanding their oath to support and defend the Constitution, U.S. soldiers are expected to blindly and loyally follow the orders issued by their commanding officers and the commander-in-chief. As the Watada case showed, woe to any soldier who dares to question or challenge the legality of orders issued to him.