Editorial: If what Watada's standing up for matters, treat it like it matters

Ehren Watada, the story independent media bungled. For instance, right now, online, you can find a link to a San Francisco Chronicle article. The link reads: "War refuser Bob Watada faces seven years in prison -- and his dad couldn't be prouder 8/27."

You catch the problem, right? Bob Watada isn't facing up to seven years in prison. We're not aware that Bob Watada's father is even alive (though he may be). Bob Watada is the father of Ehren Watada and it's a sign of how bad the coverage of Ehren Watada has been that a biggie of a site could offer a headline about "War refuser Bob Watada".

Ehren Watada is the first commissioned officer to publicly refuse to deploy to Iraq. He announced that decision at the start of June. Because he was an officer, because he was saying the war was illegal and because independent media either still cared about the Iraq war then or still felt the need to pretend to care, Ehren Watada got coverage.

And then?

When he needed it most, he dropped from the radar. An Article 32 hearing was scheduled for August 17th and that was known well ahead of time. The weekend before the hearing, he was in Seattle, at the Veterans for Peace conference, and he gave a speech. It was a pretty important speech, so important that the prosecution would use snippets from it to make a case against him.
So you might assume that independent media would be all over the story, broadcasting the speech, dissecting the speech, discussing the speech. You would be wrong.

There was no time for it. There was no time to heads up the August 16th demonstrations in support of Watada around the country. And the day after, August 17th, when his court martial started, there was no time then to note the turnout at the demonstrations. No time for the August 17th hearing (it started hearing testimony that day and it concluded hearing testimony that day). No time to cover the testimony of the witnesses Watada's attorneys called (Francis Boyle, international law expert; Denis Halliday, former UN Undersecretary-General; and Ann Wright, retired Army Col.). Friday, August 18th, there still wasn't time.

On Tuesday, August 22nd, a program finally wanted to 'weigh in' on Watada. In three sentences that gave you the impression that they were reporting on something that just happened. Three charges? Oh my gosh. If Watada has three charges against him and you're informing us Tuesday, that must mean that a finding has been reached in the Article 32 hearing!

Nope. Just someone trying to do damage control after ignoring Watada for weeks -- and insisting upon reporting charges from July as though they were 'breaking.'

Thursday night of last week, a military flack announced that the finding/recommendation would be released the following day but that Watada was being passed up the chain of command with the recommendation that a court-martial take place.

On Friday, the report was released and the response from independent media was underwhelming.

Some independent journalists have made an effort. Among the few: Jeff Paterson, Sarah Olson, Philip Maldari, Dennis Bernstein, Judith Scheer. On KPFA's The Morning Show Wednesday, Maldari actually interviewed Bob Watada. Bob Watada was on a speaking tour that began August 17th, speaking out for his son, trying to raise awareness.

In a summer that saw Cindy Sheehan largely ignored by independent media, it may not be a surprise that Ehren Watada would suffer the same fate. There's a lot of lip service given to the notion that soldiers should refuse to serve in an illegal war. Lip service is all it is to judge by the lack of coverage.

Watada refused to serve. He stated his reasons quite well. His father and his mother (Carolyn Ho) have put themselves out there to the public. They're supporting their sons decision, they're speaking out. Imagine how powerful that message could be . . . if it got out there.

Today, Bob Watada will be speaking, from four to six pm PST, at the AFSC building on 65-Ninth Street in San Francisco.

From Charles Burress' "BAY AREA War refuser's dad explains son's reasons" (San Francisco Chronicle):


Bob Watada is proud of his newly famous, and infamous, son. And he's making 26 public appearances this week to tell Bay Area audiences why.
The son is said to be the Army's first commissioned officer to refuse to go to Iraq, on the grounds that he's bound to disobey orders to fight in an illegal war.
[. . .]
Watada's father, who retired in December as executive director of Hawaii's election-spending watchdog agency, the Campaign Spending Commission, said his son heeded Bush's call to join the war on terrorism and entered the military in March 2003, the same month the United States invaded Iraq. He began active duty in June that year, after graduating from Hawaii Pacific University.
The son discovered only later that Saddam Hussein's alleged ties to Al Qaeda and weapons of mass destruction were myths, the father said.

Another piece of coverage from the mainstream media which has been the only media to consistently cover Watada over the last three weeks.

If what Watada's standing up for matters, then it needs to be treated like it matters.

Where will our brave indepedent media being rush off to this week? For most, it appears (and has for almost two, or in some cases, three months now) that Iraq just can't hold their interest.
The forces wanting bloodshed in Darfur are back at play and, goodness, didn't the 'brave' voices line up to give that play. We don't have to offer an alternative on non-military ways to address Darfur -- that's because we addressed it months ago. But (military) boots on the ground are obviously more important than anything else -- otherwise some of the many outlets condemning Israel for, five, six, seven weeks, would find time to note that Israel has been refusing refugees from Darfur.

As independent media rushes to hop on the Save Darfur bandwagon (to prove how much they can bleed or just to work off some war lust that they've had to push down deep while covering the illegal war on Iraq?), we've noticed who gets invited to the table on the supposed discussions that independent media allows. We've also noticed who doesn't get invited to the table. For instance Joshua Frank. From his conclusion to "Save Darfur?" (CounterPunch):

There are other reasons we ought not act on all of our humanitarian impulses, however well intentioned they may seem. Unlike Darfur, we've got wars going on in Iraq and Afghanistan that actually involve us. In fact, we are responsible for them. Want to help bring peace to the Middle East? Why not pressure the U.S. government to halt all funding to Israel? That'd be a heck of a start.
There are atrocities for which the U.S. government is culpable, but Darfur isn't one of them. So don't jump on the Save Darfur bandwagon ­ it may only lead to more devastation.

While some rush to prove how the depth of their humanitarian impulses, their humanity, and just how much they can bleed (by advocating boots on the ground) in Darfur, a lot in independent media ignore Iraq. In fact, it's apparently going to be fashionable among some to brag about how little they care. As Ava and C.I. point out this edition, Andrea Grimes brags of how she's shed more tears of the fictional 'romance' of two characters on Grey's Anatomy than she has over "the thousands" who've died "overseas," "in the Middle East." What a prize she must be. We can't call her heartless because she obviously cares . . . about fictional charaters on a crappy show. Grimey's got her priorities.

What are your priorities?

If Ehren Watada matters to you, if the war in Iraq matters you, then you need to be getting the word out on Ehren Watada. As Mike has noted, the majority of independent media have demonstrated in the last few weeks that we can't count on them to do it.

For more on Ehren Watada, you can check out Courage to Resist and ThankYouLt.org.

For historical context, you can check out David Ziegler's Sir! No Sir! (we reviewed it here in "DVD Must See: Sir! No! Sir!").