Today is Veterans Day, the tenth Veterans Day since the Afghanistan War began.
The burden of this brutal, futile war falls heaviest on a very small slice of the population: military members and their families. Many of them think that this war is immoral, and that makes fighting in it a weight they’ll have to carry their whole lives. Our new video features the voices of some of these veterans, urging us to rethink the burden we’re laying on troops.
There’s going to be, as always, a lot of talk today about supporting the troops, but if “support the troops” is to have any meaning beyond the bumper sticker or car magnet, it’s got to include support for the consciences of those troops. And right now, current military policy includes a healthy dose of disrespect for the deep moral convictions of many of its members.
Many of us are familiar with the concept of conscientious objection–the refusal to participate in combat due to deep religious or ethical objections. But the right to assert a moral objection to service in war is severely limited. Under current law, the right to obtain conscientious objector status is restricted to those who consider all war immoral. In fact, the policy of the Defense Department is that,
“requests by personnel for qualification as a conscientious objector after entering military service will not be favorably considered when these requests are… [b]ased on objection to a certain war.” . . .
But there’s a contradiction here. The policy goes on to state that:
“Relevant factors that should be considered in determining a person’s claim of conscientious objection include training in the home and church; general demeanor and pattern of conduct; participation in religious activities; whether ethical or moral convictions were gained through training, study, contemplation, or other activity comparable in rigor and dedication to the processes by which traditional religious convictions are formulated; credibility of persons supporting the claim….The personal convictions of each person will dominate so long as they derive from the person’s moral, ethical, or religious beliefs.”
The problem is that most ethical and religious traditions–traditions that produce sincere personal convictions that should be relevant to the decision whether to grant a particular troop C.O. status–don’t deal with war the way the C.O. policy does.
Most major religious and ethical schools are not pacifist. In the most prevalent of these schools of thought, wars are moral or immoral, just or unjust, solely on a case-by-case basis. Just war theory, both inside and outside its various formulations by religious institutions, philosophers and legal scholars, tends to raise objections to a war based precisely on its particulars.
According to just war theory, to be regarded as just, a war must pass all the following criteria:
- It must be defensive, the principle of just cause;
- It must be declared by a competent authority;
- It must have the right intention to serve justice and lead to peace;
- It must have a chance to succeed in its intentions;
- It must uphold non-combatant immunity by protecting civilians;
- It must be a last resort after all other measures to resolve a conflict have been utilized; and
- It must be proportional and result in more good than harm.
So what is a troop to do when, through careful, rigorous study, he or she determines that a particular war–say, the war in Afghanistan–fails to meet several of these criteria? There’s a very strong case to be made that the Afghanistan War does not have a chance to succeed in its intentions, is not a last resort, fails to protect civilians, and results in more harm than good. If a troop came to any of these conclusions, and they had been trained in just war theory, it’s probable that it would lead to a severe crisis of conscience. Current policy would just toss these objections aside.
This blind spot in the consciences objector policy is particularly destructive because the military teaches its members about just war doctrine. According to the new report from the Truth Commission on Conscience in War:
“This…creates a major, irresolvable conflict. It denies freedom of religious practice and the exercise of moral conscience to those serving in the military who object to a particular war based on the moral criteria of just war, which the military itself teaches and upholds as important.
“What the military teaches, therefore, it also punishes.”
The commission’s report goes on to describe the effect of such a destructive conflict:
“When people in military service are forced to fight a war that violates their most deeply held moral beliefs, the aftermath can be severe. Indeed, new research is showing that war can bring long-lasting moral harm to veterans. VA clinical psychologists have identified a previously untreated and still rarely addressed hidden wound of war called “moral injury.” Moral injury comes from “perpetrating, failing to prevent, or bearing witness to acts that transgress deeply held moral beliefs and expectations.” The long-term impact can be “emotionally, psychologically, behaviorally, spiritually, and socially” devastating, sometimes lasting an entire lifetime. Or the impact of moral injury can foster internal conflict and self-condemnation so severe that their burdens become intolerable and lead to suicide.
Tolerating this destructive contradictory policy fails to support the troops, as does tolerating the continuation of an unjust war in Afghanistan.
As we speak, the Truth Commission on Conscience in War is pushing for the recognition of a right to selective conscientious objection to allow C.O. status for those whose deeply held convictions indict a particular war as unjust or immoral. You can learn more about this and the three days of Veterans Day-related events they’re hosting at http://conscienceinwar.org.
And, if you’re ready to join the tens of thousands of others fed up with this immoral war in Afghanistan, join Rethink Afghanistan on Facebook and Twitter.
On the tenth Veterans Day of the Afghanistan War, it’s time to do more for our troops and veterans than put a sticker on a car or a magnet on the fridge. Let’s get moving.



51 Comments

we need to honor our troops by bringing them home. now.
Please FDL commentators, it’s Veteran’s Day. Can we dispense with the urge to blame service members for this and other wars? Sure there are some people who are cruel and violent and they join out of a drive to do violence to other people but the are a tiny fraction of the total and usually they are weeded out pretty quickly. It was my experience that the people I served with are a pretty representative cross section of the American people. Most people who join don’t do it in order to kill people and only people who have never been put into that position would think that. I joined because I wasn’t going to get to college any other way. Nor did I kill or fight anybody. I was an airframe mechanic but that hasn’t stopped people coming right out and calling me a “war criminal”. Some people do it to get out of their circumstances like crushing poverty or less than safe neighborhoods. To paint everybody with a broad brush is inaccurate and unfair. It’s not helpful to blame individual people for their service because many times they don’t really have the choice that you imagine they do. Blame the war pigs, the ones who make policy but don’t serve. They are the responsible ones.
Hear! Hear!
I just read an article today that recruiters were enjoying record signups because of the poor economy. Corporatist shock doctrine is supplying our oil-securing military, just as planned.
Beautifully said. I thank you for your service.
Thank you, Margaret.
Thank you for this.
I’m still trying to figure out why it is that I’m supposed to find enlisting in the military to be some kind of glorious heroic act for which praise must be endlessly forthcoming, and stalwart criticism must be withheld.
In so far as I can tell the U.S. military hasn’t engaged in anything remotely resembling protecting the rights, or homeland, of American citizens in at least two generations. The overwhelming likelihood of volunteering for military service is, and has been for the entire lives of those currently enlisting, that they’ll be used simply to enact the idiotic and despotic prerogatives of the chicken-hawks that populate D.C.
I don’t really understand why willingly signing up to service an organization that has a significantly longer list of atrocities attributable to it than it does noble achievements is somehow intrinsically praiseworthy.
I’m sure some significant number of people who enlist don’t think about it in those terms, and instead very much feel like they’re really providing some great and patriotic service to their countrymen, but that is empirically a complete fantasy. Why is it up to myself and others to perpetuate this state of self-delusion?
I realize that soldiers don’t get to choose the wars they fight in, but they do get to choose to become soldiers. Considering the track record of conflict for the U.S. in the last several decades, I have a hard time understanding why choosing to be a part of that is a “good” thing.
I get very nervous around people who believe there’s such thing as a moral war. That’s where it all starts and never seems to end, at least in this country. It’s always pitched as a righteous cause. The more religious zeal, the more protracted and brutal the conflagration. “Go away! I do not want your protection service.” That should be cry of every sane person in this country.
The people serving in Irag and Afghanistan are NOT heroes. If I have to listen to one more “salute to the troops” I’m going to vomit. Even liberals have bought into this garbage. When I hear progressives say things like “I’m against the war but I support the troops” I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. Who do you think carries out the war that you think is immoral? That’s right,troops. I realize that most troops are just blue collar people who are looking for a career/job skills but I have to call a spade a spade. Sorry veterans, you didn’t secure my freedoms, you just got hustled by Uncle Sam.
Iraq. This thing needs an edit option.
Agree with Nathan, who I don’t think negates anything Margaret says either.
Anyway, fuck these sham wars that are destroying us.
Big fat RACKET.
My brother and several nephews, 5, now are in on branch or another. The latest is in transit to Afghanistan.
It’s pretty much because of an economic/education basis – none think they are saving the country. I wish they were not there.
You’re kidding yourself if you think all enlisted personnel have a choice.
Here’s what I don’t understand. People often join gangs for thoroughly uninteresting or non-malicious reasons. Having been displaced, finding camaraderie in an ethnic peer group, a feeling of duty and service to what they perceive to be their community, a means to eek out a living in tough environments, and they’re willing to toil, battle, and die for those things. Make the ultimate sacrifice in service of their commitments.
Not all of them actively engage in trafficking, drive-bys, killing, etc. Some of them just tend to the business of keeping an ear to the street, servicing the firearms, bookkeeping, etc.
Except here’s the rub, despite the parallels one can draw, we don’t celebrate these people. Why? I assume it has something to do with the aggregate outcomes of the actions undertaken by the organizations they volunteer to join.
Well said. There may be such a thing as a “just war” in the sense that sometimes it is necessary to defend one’s self or even to defend the defenseless. I think that fighting the Nazis came under the category of “just war” but “moral war”? By nature, war is not moral and there is never justification for targeting children, forcing children to fight or putting them in a place where war might do them harm. Ever. War is slaughter and death and those who begin them are despicable and irresponsible.
Alowying others with a different perspective, if you joined the military, for what every reasons, you should have known they wanted you to kill people.
These wars are a waste. This article is spot on. Making a person do what is morally reprehensible is just outrageous. I thought I was voting for change when I voted for Obama, and what I got was concessions and am very tired of his inability to make a stand.
We can not afford to take care of all our wounded from these wars, which is much higher than reported. At the Veterans Administration hospitals, where I spend a lot of time I see so many homeless veterans of these wars. It is time to bring out troops home and secure our country.
I SAY NO TO THE IMMORAL WAR
Just another vet.
Well I tried anyway. Spoken like the truly clueless. The rich people have already denied the poor every opportunity they now enjoy and you want to begrudge people a path to college or to getting out of a hopeless situation? Sorry, when I hear people who call themselves progressive paint everything as black or white, I question their sincerity. Reducing things to the simplest possible terms is a conservative trick.
You’re kidding yourself. Maybe not everyone had a father who said, No, you’re not.
No one knows everything. Maybe. Just don’t assume so much.
Only people who had the opportunities some of the rest of us were denied think that there is a choice involved. Yeah, I had a choice too. I could have served and gone to college or I could have become a drug addict and a criminal and died young, like almost all of my childhood friends. For me, it had nothing to do with a sense of duty or patriotism. It was a way out. If I’m desperate to improve mu situation and one presents itself, I’ll take it. High mindedness sure as hell isn’t much comfort when you’re eating out of trash cans or dodging bullets in your own neighborhood.
The wise speak of only that which they know.
Respectfully presented.
True enough. But. Hey, we all deal with different shit. It’s not all my fault. How can I care, if everyone keeps pushing me away?
Maybe I’m not wise. I only know what I see. So sorry.
My dad was a Marine. My uncle got shot up in Vietnam, so I don’t get weak in the knees when someone tells me they served. No one forces anyone to enlist, there is no draft anymore.
I’ll assume you were responding to Nathan’s comment.
Yeah, I get it. It’s okay with you if somebody is left in crushing poverty with no hope of bettering themselves, as long as they don’t join the service. Hell, YOU got to go to college and that’s what’s important, right?
I understand how to reply to comments on this site.
We need to find a way for people to get an education or skill without having to kill other people first. I understand that poor people in the country are funneled into the service by their circumstance. We need to figure out how to truly care for one another. It is the only way. The Greed Machine eats our poor youth for breakfast.
I’ll certainly agree with that. It’s the MIC we should be fighting against, not one another.
I’m sorry that you’ve made a choice to see me as an enemy.
While I agree with your goals, it’s incorrect to state that there’s any ‘contradiction’ in current DoD policy with regard to conscientious objection. The requirement that objection to war be blanket rather than limited to a specific war simply provides the context for the FURTHER requirement that the objection (to ALL war) be credible, as evidenced by the kinds of things they then list.
This policy is not new, by the way – at least it’s the same as the one that applied back in the ’60s during the Vietnam War. Neither is it unreasonably restrictive: once one allows individuals the right to refuse to participate in SPECIFIC wars it effectively places them in the position of determining U.S. policy rather than simply enforcing it.
While most religions may not be pacifist many of their adherents often are, so one need not be a Quaker to cite religious belief as supporting evidence (e.g., my meager acquaintance with Christianity suggests that Christ himself may have been a pacifist, so such belief by a Christian, despite a great deal of bellicosity in the Bible and in Christian history, could be credible).
Of course, it’s certainly possible that the injustice of a specific war might cause an individual to come to the conclusion that ALL war was wrong – and in the case of an all-volunteer force such a conclusion would almost HAVE to have come after enlistment (unless they really thought that they were joining the service merely ‘to see the world’, and while recruiters often encourage just such as belief I suspect that it may have become considerably less credible over the past 7+ years).
The bottom line is that you’re talking about two different things here: 1) people refusing to serve because they feel that the effort in which they’re participating is wrong, and 2) whether they pay a price for such refusal if it’s not based upon what the DoD considers acceptable criteria. As long as the DoD does not recognize the right to refuse to serve in a war which an individual considers ‘unjust’ or otherwise unacceptable (and I wouldn’t hold my breath expecting that policy to change), such individuals will usually be placed in a very uncomfortable position.
One way to deal with this is to foresee it and not enlist in the first place (I consider anyone who has enlisted since March, 2003, to have done so with their eyes open in this regard, as well as anyone else who has not taken advantage of an opportunity to leave the service since then). Another is to stand by your convictions and take whatever the consequences may be. A third is to just go along and take the consequences which doing that may create.
I’m not just speaking theoretically here. When I was drafted in late 1968 I decided to refuse induction rather than allow myself to be place in a position where I might very likely be ordered to do things which I felt were wrong. There was a very distinct possibility that I would be jailed for this, but I felt it was important to stand up and be counted rather than skip to Canada (only a couple of hundred miles away – a tempting possibility, I must admit). While I did not go out of my way to emphasize that my objections were primarily to the Vietnam War and that I might have served with pride in, say, WWII, neither did I state that I found all wars unacceptable.
In other words, I effectively chose the second of the three options I described above (given the existence of the draft the first such option did not exist for me). I was lucky: my draft board reclassified me as a CO and required me to engage in two years of alternative service.
So I hold in high esteem those members of today’s services who refuse to participate in our current exercises in callous and destructive imperialism. I have some mild sympathy for those who are uncomfortable participating in them but who do so anyway, though by far the bulk of my sympathy is reserved for those who suffer because of their unwillingness to refuse to serve. And I have no sympathy at all for those service members for whom the wars are merely inconvenient (no more than I had for the Soviet troops when THEY were occupying Afghanistan, since I see no material difference).
Thus those I honor today include almost none of our currently-serving forces. But I’m sure the rest can live with that, even though their victims may not.
Wow – when I began writing the above there were no comments yet on this article.
I think I’ll just let what I wrote above stand rather than join in the in-fighting that’s since broken out.
Thanks Derrick for the excellent article.
In 1972 one of my best friends, a devout Christian, returned from Vietnam completely morally bankrupt from his experiences. He had turned to drugs, while serving, (mind you this young man had never had a drink or touched any illicit substance) to combat the internal battles he was fighting with how he had been raised and what he had been ordered to do while serving. I had the privilege of having one of the last conversations with him before he took his own life. At that point in time I became a peace advocate. I support our troops for the service they are rendering, but do not support the causes of the war they have been asked to fight.
After witnessing this total transformation of a good man who believed in his country and chose to serve it with honor to a disillusioned veteran who saw such misinterpretation of the Just War Code being applied that he succumbed to… “Moral injury comes from “perpetrating, failing to prevent, or bearing witness to acts that transgress deeply held moral beliefs and expectations.”
Thank you again for this enlightening article and helping me after 39 years put a sound reason for the loss of a great friend and a beloved veteran.
It definitely sucks that military service is the only place where our asinine government is willing to act as the employer of last result, as it were, and I desperately wish that weren’t the case.
However, that still doesn’t confer some intrinsic nobility, honor, or heroism with the simple act of signing up and completing bootcamp.
I mean, does it?
Neither myself nor my folks are asking you for any such adulation. Certainly I don’t give it.
What nobody needs is your dismissive tone.
Please FDL commentators, it’s Veteran’s Day. Can we dispense with the urge to blame service members for this and other wars?
The fact that it’s Veteran’s Day makes it even more important to remember that you never surrender your ability to make moral choices. This is a good occasion to remind young people that decisions they make today may haunt them the rest of their lives.
The Veteran’s Administration has invented a term to describe a previously untreated and still rarely addressed hidden wound of war. VA psychologists are calling it “moral injury” but there’s an old-fashioned term for that – guilt. People of ordinary moral sensibilities feel guilty for invading another country and killing its people. It’s a natural outcome of participating in an unjust war.
There were protests in London today, what they call “Armistice Day.”
Asad Ullah, 23, a spokesman for the group said:
“The British soldiers you remember on this day are soldiers who have taken innocent lives in illegal occupations and unjust wars.
He added: “Until the British people condemn the British Government for these illegal wars, we will not stop protesting.”
http://www.thirdage.com/news/muslim-group-protests-uks-armistice-day_11-11-2010#ixzz152RTnADy
It doesn’t make a difference what you call the experience of British veterans returning from Afghanistan, either moral injury or guilt. They know what they’ve done is wrong.
Refuse to support the troops when they do shameful things. We aren’t empowered to grant them absolution – they’ll find out when they come home that they feel guilty – possibly the rest of their lives.
There’s no way to expiate that guilt. They can’t drink it away, they can’t drug it away. It will haunt their dreams. When they are fifty years old, they will still feel like criminals.
Every time they think of a buddy who died, they’ll feel survivor’s guilt. And every time some right wing asshole identifies militarism with patriotism, they’ll have a guilty awareness that this is a lie.
There is a choice. Stay out of the military in the first place. And if you have children in high school, go to PTA meetings and object to recruiters being there.
Responding to demi since reply is not appearing as an available option –
Then I’ll just say you have little understanding or comprehension of what I wrote.
All wars will cease when men and women refuse to fight.
Well this is exactly what I’m talking about. The very reaction this elicits is directly to the point.
My local garbage and recycling guy took a shitty job, with crummy hours, that’s I’m sure grueling and unpleasant in a variety of ways, but the level of hostility that I’d endure for frankly discussing the realities of what it means to be a garbageman would almost certainly be many orders of magnitude lesser than what I, and others, receive every time the sacred cow of military service is brought forward in a similarly frank fashion.
My “dismissive tone” is nothing more than a challenge to question our base assumptions on this contentious issue.
M’dear, I was a political science/Asian-Pacific history, double major…! I turned it down because I knew how skewed the tables have become…! 8-(
I turned down OCS, that point was lost in my translation…!
Despite my comment below, I won’t refrain from responding to this one:
If you think it’s all right to participate in actions approaching genocide just to lift yourself out of poverty, then I understand your attitude completely.
Otherwise, it baffles me. Having no good choices is not at all the same as having no choices at all.
When it came to likely going to jail rather than participating in a war which I considered immoral I knew where I stood, and I’m not reticent about expecting others to confront similarly difficult choices rather than just hope for the best and then expect people to excuse their failure to resist when the situation doesn’t turn out that way.
Guess it’s just a matter of what one’s standards are. And as I noted below, in at least my case those standards were not just theoretical ones (so please don’t presume to call me ‘clueless’).
Exactly…! After serving 20 yrs, that needs to be front and center…! The ‘Brass’ needs to grasp what their direct actions create on the ground…! Betrayus, is absolutely clueless…! For example…! 8-(
Spoken like the truly clueless
I don’t think your experience entitles you to dismiss other people’s opinions as clueless, depending on whether or not you agree with them.
You haven’t addressed any of the guilt issues that veterans face, and I suspect the reason is your distance from the actual fighting. Didn’t you say you did your overseas tour in an aircraft hangar? That’s not the war experience that other people are bringing home with them.
I will state that I never had to fire a weapon in anger, but, that doesn’t preclude what’s been asked of our current crop…! It was a choice is not a fair analogy…! 8-(
The only time a person does not have a choice is when physical force beyond their capacity to resist is used on them.
Other than that, they have choices. If they claim they do not, they’re attempting to weasel out of responsibility for their actions. One can sympathize with someone who has no GOOD choices and has to choose from a very bad lot, but that’s still a choice.
Whether they be conscripts or volunteers the working class boys fight the rich mans wars. Americans don’t give a fuck about vets or “troops”. That’s just a pose. Soldiers get used up and thrown away.
I’m a vet. Don’t thank me for my service. I didn’t do it for you.
Here is a question for y’all. If you are opposed to war how can you be Democrats?
Excellent Thread and my thanks to all of you for your illuminating comments.
However, I take one “exception” to this thread, and so, I will post my comment. When I encountered this thread yesterday, my first thought was to “go slow” relative to any response and thusly, a tad of Self-Restraint, is most appropriate on my part, given that “blasting” can come easy to me. {Okay, a tad of snark.}
I am a Vietnam War Vet and when I entered the military, I thought I was “defending the Constitution”. And today, I have not changed my mind, but America has changed its mind, or so I believe, and again, with one exception, and that being that LBJ’s Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was a bogus artifice. Today, the AUMF Resolution is a bogus artifice as well.
Of course, Margaret does not need a ‘defender’ and yet, I will defend her. It takes 9 soldiers to keep one soldier on the “spear point”. So, her effort while in the military, was supremely invaluable, given that when I was in Vietnam, we lost 50% of our troops and 50% of our war materiel. So, when I think of Veterans Day, I think not of my Fallen Comrades, but of my Brothers and Sisters of Shared Expriences and for the military vets and who continue to encounter on a daily basis, and what must be confronted on an annual basis, as well. As such, it all adds up.
Moreover, when the Constitution calls for a “Declaration of War” and our political leaders deliver anything less, we are all th ‘losers’ for accepting anything less than a Declaration. Consequently, when I rant about the “majority” of white America being now a Society for the Criminally Stupid, I still have hope that the “minority” of white America will continue to Stand Tall for the Constitution.
And yes, I am “minority” and a small one at that since I am fluent in Yaqui, Apache, Spanish, and English. So the continued Bush BamBoozlement continues apace with the BamaBamBoozlement, and yet, we are still neglecting our Constitution. Thus, Congress needs to rescind the “bogus artifice” and to wit, I leave you with this thought from one of the many Great Scribblers, “To thine ownself be true!”
Jaango
Can’t speak for anyone else, but I’m a Democrat in order to keep an eye on what they’re doing and vote in their primaries if there’s anyone worth supporting there (in NH you have to be a party member to vote in the primary). With one regrettable exception in 2006 I haven’t voted for a Democrat for national office in a general election since 2002 (haven’t EVER voted for a Republican to the best of my recollection until last week, when I voted for one in a race predicted to be somewhat close in order to try to help ensure that the Democratic incumbent lost).
If there were a credible third party to join I’d do so: the reasons I gave above are hardly strong ones. But the Greens have no presence at all in NH (and most other places, it seems), I’m not inclined to be a Socialist (though welcome their existence, since I feel we need their viewpoint), Libertarians aren’t my cup of tea (despite the fact that I have rather strong philosophical tendencies in that direction myself)…
Any suggestions?
Pretty good answer Bill. Although given your voting record you are not much of a Democrat. Since you asked, I have some suggestions.
If you haven’t already, read Cindy Sheehan on Democrats and war.
Give Greens, Socialists and Libertarians a second look. These groups generally oppose empire and war.
Boycott the legacy parties completely. Whatever they may have been they are now the parties of larceny, murder and treason.
Actually, I think I’m a pretty damn good Democrat (and before 2004 I voted like one): there just aren’t any in D.C. these days, so it’s easy to see why people who don’t know what the party used to stand for (or at least claimed to) before it stood for nothing at the national level could get the wrong impression of what a ‘good Democrat’ is.
Just like a great many good Democrats I’ve been opposed to empire and virtually all wars since WWII (was never sure about Korea, but I was only a few years old at the time): I don’t need to look elsewhere for that. I believe in mixed economies based on the logical extension of New Deal policies, so Socialism isn’t the place for me. I already explained that the Green party doesn’t have a presence that I can join here (though when Nader stops running or they offer a more attractive presidential ticket than his is I’ll happily vote for them nationally). And I’m just not comfortable with NH Libertarians, since unlike many of them I’m much more a social libertarian than an economic one.
I don’t think just boycotting the Democratic party is sufficient, since I believe that if it can’t be reformed it must be sufficiently weakened to leave room for more progressive parties to thrive (currently, it successfully stifles them). Ironically, the Republican party has thus (because it can’t stifle the left) become the lesser evil for me (assuming that the Dems don’t shape up – I’m not holding my breath, but still have some small hope): if I have to vote Republican to give the Democratic party the thrashing it seems to need either to get it to shape up or to cause it to wither away, I will.