In Captain Ed’s post titled “Hinzman For President in 2036!“, he covers the story of Jeremy Hinzman, who went AWOL from the 82nd Airborne and ran to Canada, claiming to be a conscientious objector. From Ed’s post (His post references Michelle Malkin’s Townhall column here):

However, as Malkin points out, the conscientious-objector status was designed for draftees, not those who enlist of their own free will. Its implementation recognized that the involuntary nature of the draft swept into uniform a number of people who truly opposed military action of any kind, regardless of provocation or circumstance. Those with CO status received clerical, stateside postings instead of combat assignments.

Hinzman did not get impressed into service; he joined the Army of his own free will, fully knowing that war always remained a possibility. As Malkin says, he “happily cashed in his Army paychecks” until that possibility became a certainty with the 9/11 attacks. He tried to argue that he opposed the Iraq war for reasons of conscience, but that’s not the way CO status works — and the voluntary enlistment makes that argument moot.

Malkin’s column mentions Petty Officer 3rd Class Pablo Paredes, who refused to board his Navy ship on Monday because he had ethical issues with the war in Iraq. It’s a telling comparison, I think.

From the NBC Sandiego story on Paredes:

“I’d rather do a year in a prison in the military than do six months of dirty work for a war I don’t believe in — and not many people believe in — and get Marines in harm’s way,” Paredes told NBC 7/39. “It’s sad to me that some people don’t understand what I’m doing, don’t understand that this fight takes a lot more courage and that I’m fighting for the very people that they’re putting in harm’s way.”

Paredes said he has opposed the war since its inception. Until recently, the weapons-control technician said he did not feel he had a direct role in the war. Two weeks ago, however, he said he was involuntarily transferred to the USS Bonhomme Richard, which ferries Marines to Iraq.

Paredes volunteered for the military. He did his duty until he felt he could no longer do so ethically. At that point, he faced a choice. Either he could take the snivelling coward way out and run to Canada, or he could stand up and say, “I know I’m breaking the law, and that I may face prison time, but I feel more comfortable with that than this.” Paredes, to the best of my knowledge, didn’t call home to his mommy asking her to get him out of trouble. He didn’t go running to Canada. He stood up and said, “This is where I stand. I can’t do what you’re asking me to do — what I’m obligated to do — and I’m willing to face the consequences of not doing it.”

As I think I’ve made obvious here in the past, I disagree with Paredes assertion that this war is unjust (and I wonder about his justification for believing not many people believe in this war… Didn’t the candidate who insisted we were doing the right thing win this last election?). His method of expressing his displeasure, however, deserves no small degree of respect. Whereas Jeremy Hinzman’s flight to Canada to avoid both obligation and punishment, after he had cashed paychecks that we were giving him to defend us, was simply self-serving cowardice, and deserves our scorn.

Like every other member of our military, Paredes and Hinzman both voluntarily signed up. Regardless of their personal reasons for doing so, they signed up to take a job serving the United States of America by fighting to defend the nation in war. I disagree with any ethical dilemmas they have with this war, but if they feel so strongly against it that they simply cannot bring themselves to fight, well, there’s a right way and a wrong way of dealing with that. Paredes took the right way. Hinzman did not.