Part 1: Soldiers are victims, but have moral choice and have agency in war
The pain of war is so great that many Americans want to comfort those involved
by supporting a form of collective denial about the choice that soldiers make
will they kill in an illegal and immoral war, such as the current occupation
of Iraq. The fact is that war is carried out not by the President and his
generals and
advisors,
but
by those
who follow his command. In absolute truth, there would
be no occupation of Iraq without the active participation of soldiers. While
the war is constructed by those in power, it is executed by ordinary Americans.
While the law says that this is okay - that it is okay to participate in war
- the law does not determine what is moral.
The occupation of Iraq
is totally immoral, and for this reason I do not participate in it directly.
I would like others
to come to this same conclusion. I understand that those who do not come
my conclusion face a complex and difficult choice. Most don't even realize
that there is choice.
Most
don't want there to be choice, as well. But the choice remains - although
costly and difficult. Activists should love and support those who are exploited
by the government to carry out an immoral and illegal occupation, without
supporting collective denial. No activist should further the lie that there
is no choice in war.
The best analogy I can think of is that of slavery. Most white
Americans did not think of slavery as immoral. It was just
the way things were. But there were Americans who believed that slavery was
immoral, and they asserted this strongly. They also asserted that all slaves
had the right to freedom, whether recognized by the government or not. The
right was a moral right, and it did not matter that the government imposed
costs on those who helped assert this right. While all white Americans had
the choice to help free the slaves, by all means available, they were actually
legally compelled to act otherwise. The choice of moral refusal in slavery
was complex - since the costs of nonparticipation were high and the immoral
aspects of slavery were not uniformly accepted.
1: Every American has the right
of moral refusal to
participate in immoral or illegal war (even if this right is not recognized
by the government,
the right exists nonetheless).
2: The right of moral refusal may be applied to all armed
conflict, or to a specific military campaign.
3: The choice of participation in war is complex. Here
are some reasons why a person might choose to participate in the current
occupation:
- Belief and value in the rule of law, in the role of a military
and of soldiers in a democratic republic
- Belief that the occupation is
a just cause
- Belief that the occupation is not immoral
- Limited economic choices, being dependent on the military
- Ignorance of choices, of the moral issues with the occupation
- Fear, pressure from peers, propaganda, social conditions of the military
- Age, immaturity, family expectations
4: There are compelling moral reasons to not participate:
- The invasion and occupation is a crime against the peace, which is in violation
of US law through treaty obligations
- The invasion is not related to the defense of America
- The invasion is oppressive, directed at the poor and motivated by command
of resources
- George Bush lied about the reasons for going to war
- Over 100,000 Iraqis have been killed so far, and for an immoral, illegal
and unjust cause at that
- Civilians will be killed in war, not intentionally but killed nonetheless,
and given that the war is one of choice no civilian should be killed
5: There are ways to exercise one's right to moral
refusal in the occupation:
-
File for CO status
-
Refuse mission, most likely go to jail as a result
-
Go AWOL (there have been over 5,500 deserters so far, and only 1/3 of
reservists in some units have reported to duty)
-
Go AWOL and the leave the US
-
Not enlist
-
Refuse the draft if it is called
6: The
reason for asserting that war is a choice matters because it determines the
frame of discussion. If there is no right of moral refusal, and if war is
not a choice, then it is difficult to assert:
- that the
current US occupation of Iraq is morally wrong
-
and
that people
should exercise freedom from the draft or from
military service for moral reasons
The current frame works this way:
It hurts the troops to say that they are bad. |
Because it hurts the troops, those opposed to a war should not
say that the troops are bad. |
Therefore, the troops are said to be not bad because they do
not have a choice |
and,
it is also said that troops are not bad because war is a collective
act |
Without choice, individual moral judgments are not relevant in
one's participation in war |
Because
war is a collective act, to say that the war is bad is to say
all involved (including the troops) are bad as well |
Therefore, the person who does not participate is a coward (or
possibly a pacifist) |
Therefore,
don't say that a war is morally wrong |
Asserting war as a moral choice opens up this frame:
Participating
in war (as a soldier, etc.) is a choice involving moral and
economic judgment within the context of a specific war. Each
soldier has the ultimate choice of participation or nonparticipation,
albeit with varying costs and benefits. |
Individuals
decide if a specific war merits their participation or not,
and then act on this judgment |
and,
individuals weigh the costs and benefits of action related
to participation or nonparticipation in a specific war |
Individuals
have the "God-given" right to choose to
participate or not in a specific war based on moral
and economic factors |
7: Soldiers are victims of war. While they may have a choice,
the government is exploiting them. The choice made is in the context
of propaganda, lies, cohesion, legal powers and acculturation. War is
hell for all involved. Bush
and the neocons are to blame for this hell.
Part 2: Racist Military, Racist War
If the military did its job of defending America from foreign invasion, and
nothing else, then the opportunities provided by the military for American
youth of color and working class families would be just. And if the military
did its job, and nothing else, then the military would be much smaller, and
would take up a much smaller chunk of the nation's wealth. Then the opportunities
provided to American soldiers would not only provide a leg up for those who
serve, but would not be at the expense of domestic programs such as welfare,
social security, universal health care, public education, parks and community
centers, transportation systems, community colleges, pell grants, youth camps,
universal child care, housing programs, etc.
I work with a coalition of poor people's organizations that are committed
to organizing a poor people's movement to end poverty. This movement is committed
to ending poverty, not just managing it. We believe that poverty is a political
choice, and that the existence of poverty reflects the values of those currently
in power. One of the reasons why poverty persists is because of the money to
be made from the making of weapons and from war. Another reason that poverty
persists is because of racist attitudes about those who are poor. While there
are more white Americans in poverty than there are Americans of color in poverty,
the perception of many white middle and upper class Americans is that poverty
is not a white problem. Race and poverty intersect - with race separating whites
and non-whites from organizing together and race creating an underclass determined
by race.
The military has a role in poverty and racism. First, the military benefits
from poverty because the choice between poverty and working for the military
leads many to join the military. The military actively recruits working class
youth through promises of educational and job training benefits, spending billions
of dollars each year to attract high achieving young Americans from poor families
into the military. Despite the limited level of
educational assistance actually provided, and despite the few job skills that
can be transferred from the military to civilian work, the Army makes promises
that it doesn't deliver.
"Too many governments
are making informed, deliberate choices that actually hurt childhood. Poverty doesn't come
from nowhere; war doesn't emerge from nothing, AIDS doesn't spread by
choice of its own. These are our choices," UNICEF Executive Director
Carol Bellamy said in London as she launched the State of the World's
Children 2005: Childhood under Threat. Overspending
on military short-changes
children, UNICEF says |
Almost 30% of the Army soldiers in the first Gulf War
were African American, despite the fact that 12% of Americans are African
American. This is the result
of aggressive recruitment and the lack of opportunities for many African
Americans. The US territory of Puerto Rico enlists four times more recruits
per recruitment
office than in offices in other locations. Puerto Rico also faces the highest
unemployment in the United States, making the military one of the few options
available. While the military may be a way out for young people facing dismal
economic options, it comes at a huge risk. Rich Americans do not face these
choices - and therefore have more freedom when it comes to joining the military.
It
matters that the military is used to fight wars not related to the defense
of America when many of our soldiers must choose between poverty and fighting
in immoral wars. It also matters that the military is not doing its job of
defending America. The military could be an economic opportunity for Americans
of color and facing poverty. We see this in positive examples of the military
as a force for affirmative action and integration - providing leadership opportunities
for those shut of other parts of society. But when the role of the military
is to fight wars of conquest, then those who serve in the military are being
exploited for immoral ends. When the military exceeds its republican mandate
of defending the democratic government, then no American should be offered
the choice of poverty or participation in immoral and illegal war.
Currently the military takes advantage of the limited opportunities provided
to many Americans. It takes advantage of the fact that for many Americans the
military is their only option to earn a decent living. This is wrong,
because we live in the richest country in the richest period of human history.
American can be poverty-free. And in a poverty free America, the military would
be choice for Americans.
The military does more than take advantage of the poor in the United States.
It is used to exploit the world's poor. The current role of the military is
to carry out immoral and illegal invasions of other foreign countries. The
United States overwhelms the military power of most other nations, and as such
when the US government invades another country hundreds of thousands of the
world's poorest perish. Already over 100,000 Iraqis have died from the current
invasion and occupation of Iraq. The US government turns the labor of its poor
citizens into a fist against the world's poor.
More information:
Spit and polish: It
was the myth of the spat-upon Vietnam veteran that galvanized the sentiments
of the American people sufficiently to discredit peace activists and give George
Bush [Sr.] his war." Jerry Lembcke, The Spitting Image