Were he a civilian, I would tend to look more favorably on the arguments for upholding his principles, sticking to his guns, making the hard moral call, etc...
The problem is, he is NOT a civilian. He is, however, a grown man with the capacity and obligation to understand the nature and consequences of his committment...regardless of the sell. He should have been thinking about the price to pay, not the free tuition, training and travel.
Voluntarily, and without coercion, he swore an oath , and subjected himself not only to that oath, but an entirely new legal system...the Uniform Code of Military Justice (in the US).
In doing so, he is no longer entitled to make a moral judgement about the "rightness" of the conflict. Hell, even the Pope has a hard time with this stuff! He retains the right and obligation of every soldier to question a blatantly illegal order, though.
The claim of "conscientious objector" is bunko; a) only valid for a draftee, involved perhaps against his will, not a volunteer professional, and b) he could request alternative, non-combat duty and suffer the consequences in silence. Instead, he made a spectacle, and refused to serve.
Coward, Stupid or both...
