Geodog

Army Times
July 26, 2004
Pg. 14

Free Speech At A High Cost

For this captain, speaking out exacts a huge personal toll

By Joseph R. Chenelly

Capt. Oscar R. Estrada didn’t like the way the war was going in Iraq, the way his fellow soldiers were treating local Iraqis, the way the Iraqis were treating the American GIs in their midst.

But when he put those thoughts on paper and sent them from his tent in Baqubah, Iraq, to The Washington Post, the resulting furor was more than he ever bargained for.

"Are we winning [Iraq’s] hearts and minds?" he asked in an article that topped the Sunday Post’s Outlook section June 6. The unspoken conclusion to his piece: No.

Within days of publication, Estrada was accused of "aiding the enemy," lost his job, lost a planned two-week rest and recuperation trip back home, lost his wedding date as a result and was reassigned to a remote, less important duty station.

And he learned that exercising free speech can carry a substantial price.

Disillusionment

Estrada, 36, is not your typical Army captain. A full-time law student one semester shy of graduating from the University of Michigan, he is a team leader with the 415th Civil Affairs Battalion, an Army Reserve unit deployed to Iraq since December 2003.

A native of Nicaragua, he emigrated to the United States when he was 9, grew up in San Francisco, graduated from the University of California at Berkeley and spent more than eight years as a foreign service officer with the State Department in Central America.

With 13 years in the Reserve, he was already a veteran of a lengthy deployment to Kosovo before arriving in Iraq. But after six months there, he had become disillusioned with the mission and America’s potential for victory.

"I realize that Iraqis may see our help as something else," he wrote. "I see how paying them to collect trash may be demeaning and remote from their hopes for prosperity in a new Iraq. I see our good faith efforts to provide medical care lead to disappointment and resentment when we have neither the medicine nor the equipment to cure or heal many ailments."

He questioned the use of the term "anti-Iraqi forces" for what he terms bad guys. "The fact that most AIF members are Iraqi," he wrote, "is neatly ignored as we try to win the good will of the ‘good’ Iraqis."

A month after publishing his opinion, Estrada is unbowed. "My intent was not to deride our soldiers, because I fully understand that their actions are usually proper given the threats they are under on a daily basis," Estrada, 36, wrote in an e-mail to Army Times.

"My point was that these actions contradict our efforts to win the hearts and minds of Iraqis and make that mission next to impossible."

‘Aiding the enemy’

But to Col. Dana J.H. Pittard, commander of the 1st Infantry Division’s 3rd Brigade Combat Team, which Estrada’s unit fell under, the article amounted to "aiding the enemy."

The colonel called Estrada into his office for questioning and scolding three times within a week.

"I decided that if he felt so negatively, that he could not be capable of accomplishing the goals we have set in this AO," Pittard told Army Times in a telephone interview. "From reading the article and talking to his peers, I have discovered he is a mean, mean guy, who is selfish and doesn’t appear to care about his soldiers."

Pittard was initially angry and disappointed, but he didn’t decide to transfer Estrada until other "captain peers" privately expressed anger over the article. Pittard said the officers complained the article was "rife with terrible inaccuracies," failed to recognize successes and focused exclusively on problems - without offering any solutions.

Estrada, in a lengthy e-mail conversation, said he experienced some of that anger firsthand, when he was "accosted" in the chow hall in Baqubah by two soldiers involved in a cow-shooting incident he had written about.

Capt. Thomas Johnson was one of those soldiers. Estrada had referred to Johnson, the commander of F Troop, 4th Calvary, 3rd BCT, in the article by his radio handle, "Bravo 6." He was in charge when the cow was shot. He said the account of the incident was incomplete, but his biggest gripe was what he called "unprofessional" behavior by Estrada. Johnson is angry because he wasn’t told before the article was published that he was quoted, he said.

Estrada’s article didn’t mention that Johnson and his soldiers paid the farmer about $100 on the spot for the livestock loss and that Pittard later paid the farmer more still when he arrived on the scene. He also didn’t mention the farmer was apparently mute and not "in shock," as the quotes in Estrada’s article say.

Estrada defended his article in an e-mail exchange.

"I suppose I could have written about some commanders’ belief that money can cure all wrongs and that people will forgive and forget as long as we give them a few hundred dollars," Estrada said. "I chose not to do that because in the end the piece was my sharing a question, a doubt, that has developed in me and others based on what we see and hear on a daily basis."

Pittard said he considered writing a rebuttal, but he did not want to get into "mudslinging."

"We encourage people to write," the colonel said. "We encourage people to think outside the box. I love debating, but [Estrada] presented an image that differed from reality."

During the third meeting with Estrada, Pittard said, he ordered an investigation into some statements in the article, particularly the old man showing Estrada "how our soldiers hit him when he was detained." Pittard sent another commander to visit with the elderly Iraqi man. Pittard said the man denied being hit and instead told the commander the American soldiers were "very polite."

Estrada, who doesn’t speak Arabic, admitted in his article that he conversed with the Iraqi without an interpreter. Pittard says that proves he was making claims beyond his reach.

"He had no clue what the man was really saying," Pittard said July 12 by phone from Iraq. "But his default, of course, was to take the negative view."

Estrada said via e-mail that he initially spoke to the man with an interpreter, but that the interpreter was called away by other soldiers.

"The old man asked me why we had come into his house and dragged him away," said Estrada. "He asked me why he had been punched. He told me that he had been punched by a soldier. I stand by that. If he changed his story when a convoy of soldiers went to his house … well, I’m not surprised."

‘Uproar’ follows

Pittard has said Estrada’s fellow soldiers were so outraged by the article that they stopped talking to him.

"I have not found a single person who thinks he did justice to what we’re doing here," Johnson said. "I think he violated a professional code. I’m not talking about ‘what happens in the field, stays in the field.’ If someone does something illegal, then they should be punished.

"This man questioned a maneuver commander in the field. It is a slap in the face to all of us. He should know the uproar is just-caused."

But nine other soldiers, all of whom served or serve with Estrada, e-mailed Army Times saying they saw no ill will toward Estrada. While some said they didn’t agree with Estrada’s views, they all said they support him.

Most are still in Pittard’s area of operations.

"We are here to bring freedom to the Iraqi people, it seems wrong that the soldiers fighting for that peace shouldn’t enjoy it themselves," said Staff Sgt. Walter Sasse, who is with the 415th and was the team sergeant on Estrada’s team when he wrote the article.

"I disagree with most of Capt. Estrada’s liberal, Democratic political beliefs," he continued. "I believe he has an inalienable right to have these ideas, however."

Another NCO said he’s known Estrada for years and has never seen any mean or vindictive behavior. "I have over 21 years of service in the Marine Corps and Army and would say he is one of the good officers," said Reserve Sgt. 1st Class Dale R. Kramer, Estrada’s team sergeant now.

Capt. Matthew Handley, a spokesman for the 30th BCT, acknowledged Estrada’s superiors are satisfied with Estrada’s work in his new area of operations, eastern Diyala province.

More than half the soldiers responding to queries about Estrada were willing to comment only on condition of anonymity. The only officer allowing her name to be printed is Capt. Donna Kentley, a physician’s assistant with the 415th’s public health team. She said that while she doesn’t know Estrada well, she finds him to be "caring" and a "fine soldier."

"As for his fellow captains not speaking to him, that to my knowledge is not true, at least within the unit," she said. "None of us had anything bad to say to him or about him before or after the article was printed."

Sgt. Luke Monck, a member of Estrada’s new team, also spoke on the record.

"Capt. Estrada is one of the best civil affairs officers I have ever worked with," Monck said. "He is a consummate professional - driven, focused on the mission but tempered with common sense and great care for his soldiers."

Monck also said Estrada’s views were not that different from his own.

"Despite what is reported by our administration, based on my personal experiences in Iraq," he said, "I feel that our rebuilding efforts here face great obstacles and are perhaps doomed to failure. I think that, while they may not admit it, many in the civil affairs community feel the same way."

Wedding postponed

Pittard told Army Times that at the time he decided to transfer Estrada, he was unaware of the scheduled R&R. He said that he wasn’t canceling the scheduled leave, but that the impending transfer would prohibit Estrada from using the leave slot that administratively belonged to 3rd BCT.

"The R&R was not canceled by design," Pittard told Army Times. "The timing was regrettable. I am sorry it worked out this way."

Nevertheless, Estrada would not head home with the others in his unit.

His wedding was going to have to wait. Family and friends planning to attend the ceremony that was to be held alongside the Iwo Jima monument in Arlington, Va., would have to get refunds for their airline tickets. There was no getting the money back that his fiancée had paid to have the dress rush-ordered.

"We did not lose as much money as I thought we would," his fiancée, Caroline Conley, said.

"The biggest cost has been emotional. The whole situation has drained both of us."

In a June 8 memo, Estrada notified Pittard of the wedding plans, and he apologized for any negative effects the article may have had on his fellow soldiers. He also said he regretted not going through the brigade’s public affairs office, but noted he was unaware if that was required.

He stopped short of apologizing for his opinions.

Pittard said going through public affairs is not required but added Estrada should have at least notified more of his chain of command.

"We could have helped him get his facts straight," Pittard said. "I never would have said not to do it."

Estrada said he believes that if the Army had been able to take legal action against him, it would have.

Before sending his article to the Post, he checked with a lawyer - a judge advocate general bunking with him in Iraq - to see if doing so was legal. Estrada said he wasn’t seeking official legal advice, but the JAG told him a soldier was within his legal limits as long as the article didn’t attack the military’s senior leadership or reveal classified information.

Estrada also passed the piece among several soldiers, he said, including his company commander. Nobody objected.

Later, Estrada said, the commander thought differently, telling him, "I should have paid closer attention to what you were doing. I feel like I let you down."

Congressional contact

Out of concern for difficulties portrayed in the column, a staffer in the office of Rep. Steven Israel, D-N.Y, sent an e-mail to Estrada the day the article was printed. The e-mail asked to discuss the needs of civil affairs teams. Estrada replied, saying he appreciated the interest but could not discuss his situation until he returned to the United States and left active duty.

The reply gave Israel’s staff the impression that the captain’s superiors were displeased, a spokesman for Israel said.

A few days later, unbeknownst to Estrada, Conley contacted Israel’s office. She told them she felt Estrada was being punished for writing the article. The congressman’s office made a request with the Army to formally contact Estrada.

The office of the Chief of Army Reserve Lt. Gen. James R. Helmly asked Estrada on July 8 for permission to give Israel his contact information. Israel, who is a member of the House Armed Serviced Committee, has offered to inquire with the secretary of the Army about Estrada’s treatment.

Estrada agreed but has not, as of press time, decided how he will proceed.

According to an Army spokes-person, a soldier’s right to speak freely in the media is not absolute. Military law emphasizes the protection of classified or sensitive information. And the spokesman said a commander has the inherent authority to act to avert a perceived danger to the morale, welfare or discipline of his unit or an individual.

Estrada doesn’t expect another opportunity to head home before his tour is scheduled to end late this year. He said he would not accept one of his fellow soldiers’ leave slots if offered.

"This isn’t about leave, and I did not contact the press or anyone else to whine about losing my leave," he said.

"I believe it is wrong to punish soldiers or anyone else for expressing a dissenting point of view," he continued.

"Our country is polarized and there are those that feel that because we are at war, the only right thing to do is to rally around the leadership, embrace the cause and not question authority.

"I believe this is a dangerous mindset, and one that can cause our nation and our military to blindly and arrogantly stumble down a path that may not be the best one."

Army Times

July 26, 2004

Pg. 15

Army’s Freedom Of Speech Is Different From Civilians’

When you took the U.S. Military Oath of Allegiance, your right to speak freely was no longer protected by the First Amendment to the same extent as when you were a civilian.

Speech undermining command authority is not protected by the First Amendment, an Army spokesman said after querying the Army judge advocates at the Pentagon.

In 1974, in the case of Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733, the Supreme Court ruled that while service members are not excluded from the protection of the First Amendment, a different application is required because of the fundamental need for obedience and discipline.

The high court stated that civilian free speech standards do not automatically apply to the military.

The Army spokesman said that while the protection of classified and sensitive information is the key issue regarding freedom of speech for soldiers, a commander has the authority to avert danger to his unit’s and troops’ morale, welfare and discipline. Those actions are not limited to legal action. He said such administrative moves as reassignment are within a commander’s basic power.

Take Sgt. Samuel Provance, who worked in Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq during the alleged abuse of prisoners. He spoke to the media about what he says he heard despite being advised otherwise.

His commanders weren’t sure he broke any rules, but they told him they thought he was a threat to the unit’s mission, so they suspended his security clearance and reassigned the intelligence analyst to a warehouse.

Back in 1954, Lt. Col. Melvin B. Voorhees wrote an account of his service in Korea. He submitted it, as required at the time, for review. But he refused to remove certain passages per the reviewing officer’s direction. He had the writing published in the form of a book titled "Korean Tales." He was court-martialed on five charges.

The U.S. Military Court of Appeals let the convictions stand: "A few dissident writers … could undermine the leadership of the armed forces, and if every member of the service was, during a time of conflict, or preparation … permitted to ridicule, divide, deprecate, and destroy the character of those chosen to lead the armed forces, and the cause for which this country was fighting, then the war effort would most assuredly fail."

Before writing a letter to an editor or agreeing to do an interview, service members should be sure they aren’t revealing classified or sensitive information. Some senior officers recommend giving a draft to your chain of command for review.

Public affairs officers have told Army Times that their colleagues are always willing to help a soldier determine if an article is legally fit to send out. Although, they note doing so is not an Army requirement.

Sgt. Felipe Vega found himself in the middle of a scandal last year when he and some other 3rd Infantry Division soldiers were interviewed on camera in Iraq by a national news network.

One specialist said he’d like to ask for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s resignation.

Vega said, on camera, that he felt "slapped in the face" and "kicked in the gut" because his unit’s tour in Iraq was extended.

Vega told Army Times that the soldiers involved, including the specialist who bad-mouthed Rumsfeld, steered clear of any punishment. And one of the soldiers was recently promoted.

Vega said he thinks he stayed out of trouble because he had his first sergeant at the interview to keep him in his "lane" and because the soldiers were expressing an opinion shared by many others.
-- By Joseph R. Chenelly

Posted by: anon on July 28, 2004 06:21 AM

Thanks for posting this, anon. While a serving officer clearly has to walk a fine line in publishing his/her opinions, it seems to me that Capt. Estrada's opinions were clearly on the safe side of the line.

Col. Dana J.H. Pittard sounds like an idiot.

Posted by: Tim on July 28, 2004 12:22 PM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?