Cross posted at my blog MoralMeaning.com.
The pain of war is so great that many Americans want to comfort those involved by supporting a form of collective denial. The fact is that war is carried out not by the President and his 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. Activists should love and support those who are exploited by the government to carry out an immoral and illegal occupation, but should do so 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.
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.
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 fights 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.
First off, the Military is not in command, it is run by civilian authority, who presently are immoral and corrupt. Our military should not and I pray will not usurp the civilian authority that dictates where, when and how it will fight.
I have a hard enough time dealing with the corruption that permeates DC without having to also be concerned that our military will turn upon its civilian authority and the US will become just another military dictatorship.
I don’t fully comprehend what your gist is or where you are taking this, but perhaps you might clarify why soldiers and marines that have sworn an oath to uphold our constitution should violate that code of conduct.
That our military/industrial complex, not the blood and guts members of the military are indeed immoral and corrupt is without question.
I believe that moral choice exists in war. Immoral and illegal wars should not be fought.
I am Tom Kertes. I am a radical liberal activist. I work on issues relating to poverty, early care and education and ending war. Go to my web site to read my whole range of positions.
This is at least the second time here, since I raised this as well, that you have not addressed the inherent ignorance in your diaries regarding Constitutional process.
There is a difference between setting policy and implementing it. Congress set the policy of going into this war, at the request of the executive branch. The military implemented the policy.
So address now, since this has been raised at least twice, why you are exempting the legislative and executive branches from responsibility and blaming only the military.
Or forever hold your . . . peace.
Random thoughts from a tired mind:
I think I’m following your main point, but there are so many side points in that, too.
At some point the warriors of some nations stand up and overthrow corrupt (elected even) leaders to protect their people. Didn’t this happen in Pakistan to give us our ally Musharraf?
Or the warriors of some nations lay down their arms and disobey the orders of a corrupt regime and let the people rise up (pick a former soviet satellite nation).
Well, if given the order to oppose the US Citizens, I hope the military draws the line. But short of that, the thought of the military rebelling in an organized fashion creeps me out. Individuals refusing to participate in actions they don’t believe doesn’t bother me — they volunteered, they’re generally very honorable and will sacrifice themselves for a greater cause if they believe in it. If they don’t believe, and are willing to face the consequences for their actions, then its a personal moral choice for them to make. Given the order to torture, to commit atrocities, or even just to kill innocents I know I’d refuse. I’d also expect to be targeted for special punishment for disobeying an order, no matter how corrupt. Personal moral choices often have consequences.
As for some of the side points:
I agree with your observation that the military leverages its reputation as a way up the economic ladder to recruit those of lower economic status. More specifically, to recruit those who have fewer economic opportunities. A poor high-school grade is more likely to join the military than a rich one. But a poor student who has a good college or a good job to look forward to is less likely to join the military than one who does not.
I’m not sure I see the meaning of the 30%/12% statistic for African Americans. Yes, they are disproportionately recruited compared to their make-up of the population, but is that because of the color of their skin, their relative economic status, or their educational or economic opportunities? Perhaps if the 30% was out of line with the %’s of those factors I’d be more inclined to believe they are targeted due to race.
Call me fussy, but without that evidence, it looks like one of those “liberal facts” derided by the right-wing media, but the kind that get poor white folks nodding their heads in agreement. Its not enough to be right (assuming you are), you have to be convincing. And being unconvincing in this aspect of your main point weakens the whole. Similarly, but to a lesser extent, the use of the 100,000 dead Iraqi’s statistic sticks out. The right-wingers claim that’s one (flawed) estimate. Still, I think a comparison between the death rate of Iraqi’s under Saddam vs under our unnecessary and illegal occupation is very likely to strike a chord.
But those are just comments on rhetorical style, so feel free to consider or ignore them as you see fit.
That said, I agree with your conclusion. The US Govt is really only concerned with extracting the wealth of the world and giving it to a few chosen people. Now, instead of taking wealth from those with excess and using it to create a better society (FDR Dems) they only wish to extract the easy wealth from the many (and poorer are easier to take from than richer, and they’re far more numerous), and give to the few (Bush Republicans). They don’t hide this, they revel in an increased GDP even as the people get poorer.
Its govt by Divine Right (“might makes right” is the foreign policy you discuss). Those who take, deserve it. Those who help the taking deserve their piece. Republican credo.
The fact they are using the patriotic armed services, and bribing poor folks of all races with promises of educational opportunities (oops, sorry, guess you’re infantry!), and of support (oops, did you really expect free VA treatment for the consequences of the war, for life?) upon their return, and respectful burial if they make the ultimate sacrifice (hey, look, a pentagon pro-war slogan on the tombstone! Maybe we can get corporate sponsorship next)… well, they’re bribing the poor to help loot the poorer. Its obscene.
The fact they’re using idealists, military careerists, and true patriots in this foul way is reprehensible.
The fact that
I’m glad to see someone raising these issues.
These issues touch on a lot of nerves. But some things need to be said. There are young men and women now in the armed forces, or the reserves, or who are contemplating joining the armed forces for whatever reasons, who are faced with the moral choice of what to do if they are ordered to Iraq. They aren’t getting the information or support that young men in the Vietnam era got. But the fact is that they have a choice.
Part of that choice is to understand the truth of “The Universal Soldier,” a song not heard much anymore, that says that wars can’t go on without those who give their bodies as a weapon in war.
That’s not the whole story for many people, and whatever choice they make needs to be respected. But they need to know that it is a choice.
It is also true that the military recruits from those who feel they have few better alternatives. I think the post makes the point that this is mostly economic, not racial, except in effect. (It’s worth noting as well that the US military is probably less internally racist than a lot of corporations. Treatment according to gender or sexual preference may be another story.) But until recently, recruits were fairly confident that they would get training, education and should be prepared for peacekeeping duty and at the last resort, to fight to defend their country. Now they find themselves confronted with Iraq.
They need our help, and our prayers. But they also need to know that they have choices, including moral choices, and giving themselves as an instrument for this war is a moral choice. That’s what the Vietnam Veterans Against the War knew and said, and what some of them are still saying.