By Marshall Dunlap
Seattle Times
January 13, 2007

I read the *Times*' editorial on Lt. Ehren Watada ["The case against Lt. Ehren Watada," Opinion, Jan. 9] with great interest. This is one of those subjects on which I have been unable to form a firm opinion.

On the one hand, as a person who values peace over war, I feel as Watada does that this war was unnecessary and immoral, and I admire his stand. It takes courage to do as he has done and refuse to be deployed to Iraq against direct orders.

Surely he knows that this is a battle that he cannot win, that he will spend time in jail, and that his future is ruined. After a dishonorable discharge under these circumstances, his chances of finding gainful employment at the end of his jail term are nearly nonexistent.

On the other hand, the arguments put forth in the editorial are very compelling and it is difficult to find objections to your statements. Watada signed up knowing what was in front of him. He swore to obey orders. If he is found not guilty, military discipline could start to break down.

But what I do take extreme exception to in your editorial is the assertion that "this war is not going to last six years."

My friends, only the very naive could possibly believe that our soldiers will not be in Iraq longer than six years. We have already been there for nearly four. Ten years seems more likely to me.

So I make you this promise. I will keep that editorial on my personal time capsule, my refrigerator, and if in two years all of our soldiers are out of Iraq, I will write to you again and admit how wrong I was.

If, however, two years from now we continue to have a military presence in Iraq, I will still write to you, but in this case I will remind you of your overly optimistic prediction.

And I will also not have forgotten that the *Seattle Times* supported invading Iraq on its editorial pages during the original debate over whether to do so, and how obviously wrong that stand has become.

--Marshall Dunlap of Kent is a rail-yard worker.