Marine IRR member fight for rights

The Marines have recommended a general discharge for an Iraq war veteran who wore part of a uniform during a war protest and later responded with an obscenity to a superior who told him he might have violated military rules. Marine Cpl. Adam Kokesh participated in the protest in March, clad in a uniform that had no name tag and other insignia removed.


There has been a stir recently caused by this Marine from the IRR that has exercised the right to free speech in participating in demonstrations in Washington. He was wearing a uniform with patches removed and voiced his opposition to the war. He was contacted by the Marines as a result and informed that he may have violated a rule prohibiting troops from wearing uniforms without authorization. Following that the Marine voiced his objection to the fact that he was contacted by the Marines on the matter in terms which gained him additional charges. There are several matters here - let me sort some of them out



I can buy the exact uniform and patches that marine wore on that day at any of a thousand military surplus stores. Look anywhere and you'll find the wear of camouflage is an urban clothing item - why is it an issue here?



The Marine assigned to the IRR receives no pay, no benefits and does not report regularly to any chain of command. He is subject to recall to active duty, but won't get a nickel to maintain uniforms, health care is not offered, and in fact from all outward appearances, he is essentially a civilian.



Our Forefathers granted all freedom of Speech in the constitution - the military establishment practicing a censure under the guise of military law and order in this case is very selective when Major Generals identified by rank, service affiliation and former assignments are broadcasting disagreement on the airwaves on a regular basis with impunity.



I don't agree with this Marine's sentiment in protest, but I was impressed with the guts and thought in his letter to the Marine Corp. Simply put, this Marine - no longer materially participating in organized military voiced his opposition to the Iraq War. Frankly the action to attempt to permanently stain this marine's record with a change in discharge is wholly inappropriate in that he served and is no longer on the active roles. His method of responding did result in inappropriate remarks to an officer - and wasn't necessary to make the point - but it would not have been precipitated except for a charge leveled for the sake of Marine Corp decorum. The effort by the Marines here is indicative of continued efforts to muzzle dissention and opinion from the ranks. Even the VFW has seen the issue as one for response urging the military to

"exercise a little common sense" and call off its investigation of a group of Iraq war veterans who wore their uniforms during anti-war protests.

"Trying to hush up and punish fellow Americans for exercising the same democratic right we're trying to instill in Iraq is not what we're all about,"

The Marines claim that the protest was a political event, at which personnel are not allowed to wear their uniforms without authorization. In closing arguments, Marine Capt. Jeremy Sibert said that military personnel can be punished if their civilian behavior "directly affects the performance of military duties and is service-related." He said Kokesh's actions could affect how people view the Marine Corps and discourage recruits. I'm struck by the expanse of actions already done by senior military officers that are retired that could fit this description - and frankly now that the Marines have chosen to prosecute this IRR soldier - couldn't Capt Sibert be accused of doing the same thing?

What you read in the paper

I don’t often get aggravated at editorial pieces, but this one recently appearing in the Washington Post by William M. Arkin is unbelievable. The title of the piece is “The Troops Also Need to Support the American People.” It starts with Mr Arkin stating “I've been mulling over an NBC Nightly News report from Iraq last Friday in which a number of soldiers expressed frustration with opposition to war in the United States.”

Further down in the article he states “But it is the United States, and the recent NBC report is just an ugly reminder of the price we pay for a mercenary - oops sorry, volunteer - force that thinks it is doing the dirty work...The notion of dirty work is that, like laundry, it is something that has to be done but no one else wants to do it. But Iraq is not dirty work: it is not some necessary endeavor; the people just don't believe that anymore. I'll accept that the soldiers, in order to soldier on, have to believe that they are manning the parapet, and that's where their frustrations come in. I'll accept as well that they are young and naïve and are frustrated with their own lack of progress and the never changing situation in Iraq. Cut off from society and constantly told that everyone supports them, no wonder the debate back home confuses them...
America needs to ponder what it is we really owe those in uniform.”

I have to take a deep breath after reading the opinion piece…For all that I despise the tone and overall message of the article, I have to say that I respect Mr. Arkin for having the stones to man-up and say what the rest of the left-leaning media have been wishing they would say if they would only sum up the courage to print it.

As a retired Reservist and a soldier that deployed to Iraq I am annoyed at Mr. Arkin's opinion that soldiers are mercenaries and/or tools of the Republican party. I firmly believe they are doing a service to the American People they swore an oath to defend at the orders of the Commander in Chief. Our soldiers are serving this country - every citizen - every politician - and every pundit regardless of their personal politics. Our soldiers are not foriegn, they are also Americans and citizens. They will receive my whole hearted support regardless of my opinion of our leadership's decisions. Taking aim at soldiers and telling them they should be grateful and support people of his ilk is distasteful.

I swore to uphold and defend the constitution of this country - and that includes the rights of people such as Mr. Arkin to voice their opinion. I believe the Washington Post has every right to publish Mr. Arkin's opinion and I have every right to voice mine that Mr. Arkin is wrong, The Paper should be viewed as participating in his distain for soldiers in allowing his opinion to see the ink from the press. I suspect that money drives the collective effort of The Washington Post and Mr. Arkin to gain notice via the article - its up to us in the public to see they don't profit from it if we disagree with their sentiments.