Warriors exist in a world totally incomprehensible to those who have never known war. For the apathetic and for those who trumpet and champion war’s necessity from a safe distance choosing not to fight in war themselves, war is a distraction – bleak, dire and unpleasant – from their consumer driven lives, better left for others and for other peoples’ children to fight. For many who oppose the war, it is murder declared by incompetent and deceitful politicians, to be prosecuted by soldiers who, it is hoped, would recognize the crime and refuse to become instruments of slaughter.
Whatever their point of view regarding the war, however, all sides proclaim their patriotism and allege to sincerely support and appreciate the sacrifices and efforts of the troops. With the occasional news report from the war zone, however, alleging an incident of barbarism and atrocity prosecuted by American troops, all morally sensitive human beings, regardless of their political ideology or position on the war, are understandably annoyed and righteously appalled by such an affront to the national conscience. In response, all other concerns and priorities lessen in importance. The apathetic and the supporters of the war set aside their patriotic duty to go shopping and their concerns regarding Brittany Spears’ fitness to maintain custody of her children. War’s opponents, while bolstered in their determination to end war and make the world a better place in which to live, recognize the importance of holding soldiers responsible for their actions. Confronting the incivility of war, though an unpleasant distraction, provides a welcomed opportunity for all to publicly reiterate their individual or America’s collective commitment to justice and virtue. With an appropriate air of moral ascendancy, the apathetic, the opponents, and the supporters of war, find common ground in dutifully judging and appropriately condemning and punishing, however reluctantly, as required by law and morality, those “depraved” individuals who dare tarnish the reputation of this great nation by violating the laws of god and of man.
Though I think it is clear to most, it bears noting that despite “lucrative” enlistment bonuses (some of which soldiers will be required to pay back should they become a casualty and unable to complete their tour of duty in the war zone), promises of job training, and money for college, members of the military are not mercenaries. Private contractors are “professionals,” who know war and seek it out either for the money or because they find war’s brutality, cruelty, and control over life and death exciting and empowering. Many, perhaps even most, young men and women who enlist in the armed forces in this time of war generally accept military service as a patriotic duty and the cause they soon will be fighting for in Iraq as just, necessary, and worthy of sacrifice. Perhaps they may even believe, however naively, that their political leaders are sincere and principled men and women and that, in fighting their war, they will be doing moral things for a moral nation. It is precisely this idealism, this naiveté, that morally differentiates, first, the soldier-warrior’s behavior from that of the mercenary and, second, how we view and morally evaluate the actions of each.
Though thoroughly indoctrinated – what the military terms “motivated” – during basic training/boot camp with a fanciful and unrealistic view of heroism, glory, and war, soldiers, at least soldiers living and dying as warriors, when confronted with the reality and horror of demythologized war, lose, rather quickly, the illusion of flag and country. Patriotic sentiments, political ideologies, and mythologies fade quickly beneath the deafening screams of the unbearable pain of the mutilated and the dying. What remains is a profound love of comrade and a desire for survival.
What the uninitiated and the unaffected – civilians and non-warrior members of the military – fail to realize is that war is a brutish endeavor in which barbarism and inhumanity becomes the norm rather than the exception. Further, they fail to understand that war, especially counter insurgency/guerilla war, is, by its very nature, cruel and inhumane. The battlefield is a wild place, a place of predator and prey. Consequently, barbarism and atrocity in such an environment is neither aberrant nor deviant. Nor is it the result of moral weakness or depravity. Rather, it is the reality of war, the inevitable consequence of confronting morally untenable conditions, what Jay Lifton describes as “atrocity-producing situations,” orchestrated by those who know little of the nature and realities of war and care less about its negative impact upon impressionable young men and women. To those struggling to survive the next improvised explosive device or suicide bomber, everyday living is a netherworld of horror and insanity in which life loses all meaning. As an inevitable consequence of war’s dehumanization and desensitization to death and destruction, judgments of right and wrong – morality – quickly become irrelevant and brutality and atrocity a primal response to an overwhelming threat of annihilation. Life amid the violence, death, horror, trauma, anxiety, and fatigue of war erodes our moral being, undoes character, and reduces decent men and women to savages capable of incredible cruelty that would never have been possible before being sacrificed to war.
While supporters and non supporters of the war discuss and debate the complexities and applicability of the Geneva Convention and military rules of engagement from the safe and sane environment of their judicial chambers, offices, classrooms, and cocktail parties, the soldier-warriors desperately struggle to stay alive and to ensure that their comrades do as well in a brutal and insane world bent upon their destruction. So, if she fails to meet your moral standards of appropriate behavior on the battlefield or weigh in on the debate to your satisfaction, please be tolerant and understanding as she has more fundamental and basic concerns to occupy her mind. For the soldier-warrior, the politics and rhetoric of such esoteric considerations are as distant and as irrelevant as whether Brittany Spears maintains custody of her children or whether the world becomes a utopian paradise. So, whether you support or oppose the war, or can care less, know that the war itself is the crime. Moreover, if you are truly concerned with justice, America’s moral integrity, and the well being of the troops, know that they chose not to be murderers, but patriots, and that they kill, not for money or empowerment, but for survival. Finally, please know that all who become tainted by war are its victims and if there is to be condemnation and punishment, let it begin with those whose apathy, blind allegiance, or idealism hamper their ability to understand and appreciate the nature of war.
www.svaphilosopher.com
Camillo "Mac" Bica, Ph.D., is a professor of philosophy at the School of Visual Arts in New York City, and a Senior Contributing Editor on Military Matters at Cyrano's Journal Online. His focus is in Ethics, particularly as it applies to war and warriors. As a veteran recovering from his experiences as a United States Marine Corps Officer during the Vietnam War, he founded, and coordinated for five years, the Veterans Self-Help Initiative, a therapeutic community of veterans suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. He is a long-time activist for peace and justice, a member of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, and a founding member of the Long Island Chapter of Veterans for Peace. Articles by Dr. Bica have appeared in The Humanist Magazine, Znet, Truthout.com, Common Dreams, AntiWar.com, Monthly Review Zine, Foreign Policy in Focus, OpEdNews.Com, and numerous philosophical journals.
What a load of CRAP! Because I pay attention I've known from a very early age that virtually ALL war is wrong- When I was of age I REFUSED to be drafted. This was during the Vietnam atrocity, but I likely would have refused regardless. These great heroes and patriots the author speaks of are either ignorant ( some by choice ), greedy for the sign-up bonuses, blood-thirsty for the chance to kill some of our "sub-human" "enemies", or so desperate to provide an income for themselves and their families in this seriously declining economy that they are willing to sell out their principles and morality for a few bucks. The truth of what this government is doing is out there for all to see, but they must open their eyes first. Maintaining a weak economy guarantees the availability of more American cannon-fodder.
by
KenH (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 18 comments)
on Wednesday, November 28, 2007 at 1:49:26 PM
I agree, on the whole, with the article and its assertions. KenH is apparently one of those "back home" people mentioned in lane filler's link and on the couch – or in Canada if he had the desire and need in the 1960s.
Regardless of KenH's silliness, I take exception to the claim by the article that, "[soldiers'] enlistment bonuses... will be required to [be paid] back should they become a casualty and unable to complete their tour of duty in the war zone." While it may sound atrocious if it were true, this false claim was debunked here - http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_aaron_gl_071127_pentagon_forcing_wou.htm .
The military (usually) doesn't forget its own – especially those that have made the sacrifice of leaving the blood or body on the battlefield. But as a bureaucracy, the military can (and has) let some of its own fall through the cracks – unfortunately.
by
Tom Murphy (2 articles, 2 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 1175 comments)
on Wednesday, November 28, 2007 at 2:29:49 PM
I could easily have gone to Canada,but because I am an American who CARES about what happens to this country ( physically and morally) I chose to stay here and face the likelihood of federal prison for my beliefs, especially my desire to do no harm to others who have never harmed me.
Whether they wear a U.S. military uniform or Blackwater duds, they are ALL mercenaries- they are getting PAID to do someone else's killing, period. "Silliness" doesn't even begin to describe the act of allowing yourself to be trained and want (and know how ) to kill perfect strangers who have NEVER done anything to you, but whom your government has labelled as your "enemy". The phrase "morally bankrupt" comes way more readily to mind.
by
KenH (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 18 comments)
on Wednesday, November 28, 2007 at 3:14:20 PM
"Whether they wear a U.S. military uniform or Blackwater duds, they are ALL mercenaries- they are getting PAID to do someone else's killing, period."
This kind of simplification, although expedient, sounds very similar to "Kill them all and let God sort them out". Neither simplification is really viable.
"'Silliness' doesn't even begin to describe the act of allowing yourself to be trained and want (and know how) to kill perfect strangers who have NEVER done anything to you, but whom your government has labelled [sic] as your 'enemy. The phrase 'morally bankrupt' comes way more readily to mind."
While "morally bankrupt" may come to your mind, it certainly doesn't to the great majority of most service members or soldiers. If anything, the morality of their actions comes so close to their core beliefs that it causes a host of problems for them after they've left the combat theater. But if we were to review the "morality" of their actions, are they "justified"?
The "justified" debate centers on the self-defense argument. When soldiers kill enemy soldiers in war, they appear to meet the conditions of justified killing in self-defense. While violence, including war, should be abhorred, there are occasions when death is not only necessary but (quite possibly) required.
As a society, Americans (and a majority of other peoples) espouse the belief that, "[A]ll... are created equal, [and] that... [all]... are endowed... with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Unalienable means that they are inseparable from our being or essence - no one can take them away; they are as much a part of us as is our ability to reason.
If life is one of these unalienable rights, then what or who gives enemy soldiers the right to take mine from me? Simply put - nothing and no one. The enemy soldiers took it upon themselves to disenfranchise me from my own right to life when they decided to kill me. Assuming we are all innocent, we are all equals. Yet the enemy soldiers made themselves "more" equal when they deemed their right to life was more important than my own right to life and that mine could be usurped by them and them alone.
As a result and by default, they place at risk their own right to life. For how can we as a global society of equals tolerate someone who is so obviously (by their own deeds) more equal than ourselves? We can't because we would violate the very notion that we are all endowed with the unalienable right to life. For if we permit enemy soldiers to kill, then we elevate them above ourselves - which they most certainly are not.
"The enemy soldiers are morally responsible for the threat that they pose. At some level, they chose to be soldiers, and they must know that they are at war against other people. Fully-informed volunteers, of course, are more responsible than poorly-informed conscripts, yet the fact remains that even conscripts chose to become soldiers. They had other options, however unpleasant they may have been. Human beings, after all, are not responsible for circumstances beyond their control, such as whether their nation goes to war. They are, however, responsible for the choices they make within those circumstances. People who make the choice to be soldiers in war are morally responsible for the threat they pose to their enemy.
"Soldiers do fight to defend values that are worth killing and dying for. At least, they hope so. In a just war, that is the case. Because the moral responsibility for going to war lies with political authorities, and because the intentions of political authorities are often opaque, then soldiers should be largely immune from judgments about the just ends of a war. Therefore, unless soldiers have strong reason to be convinced that their war is being fought for values other than the defense of life and liberty, then they can justifiably assume that they are fighting in defense of those fundamental values.
"Soldiers do face an imminent threat from enemy soldiers. All enemy soldiers are either direct threats or accomplices to direct threats. They all act for the same end-to deny the soldier and/or those he is defending their rights to life and liberty. Soldiers have no recourse to a 'higher authority' to defend them. They must fight, or they will lose those cherished rights.
"Finally, soldiers do not have a non-lethal option. If they flee before the enemy, the threat will follow them. Again, there is no 'higher authority' to offer protection to them and to those who depend on them to defend their lives and freedom.
The "self-defense" argument is about as simplistic as they come. The only people engaging in self-defense with respect to our battles in Korea, Panama, Grenada, Viet Nam, Eastern Europe, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iraq again, Cambodia, Laos, etc.,etc. would be the native people of those countries . THEY are the ones who were forced into a defensive posture by heavily-armed U.S. troops landing on their shores. THEY are actually defending their countries. THEY are sometimes forced to take a more offensive posture as a result of continued U.S. military occupation of their lands.
Assuming you live here in the U.S., how many heavily-armed Iraqis have been busting down your door in the middle of the night? How many black-pajama'd Viet Namese? If that ever happens, then YOU will have the right of self defense.
Yes, I read some of your links; brain-washing is definitely alive and well in the good ole USA . We all know what the military does- break you down mentally and then build you up in THEIR image. What kind of simple mind can actually buy into the notion of self defense as a justification for being sent to another sovereign country and being instructed to KILL their citizens ( and feel GOOD about it) ? Just because they taught it to you from a military operations manual does not make it right, true OR moral.
If this planet and it's people are to survive into the future, we need to start trying to get past this war mentality that I see, hear and read all around me. Otherwise, we are doomed.
by
KenH (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 18 comments)
on Wednesday, November 28, 2007 at 11:59:48 PM
"THEY are the ones who were forced into a defensive posture by heavily-armed U.S. troops landing on their shores. THEY are actually defending their countries. THEY are sometimes forced to take a more offensive posture as a result of continued U.S. military occupation of their lands."
...and therein lays our problem, kenny - that thoughts such as these pervade the West's multicultural and secular response to a largely religious conviction and militant denial of others rights to life and liberty through actual terrorist acts and threats of terrorism.
I agree that war is a tool that should be forever discarded; however, humans are inherently flawed and will also forever remain flawed. Consequently, you'll never have an even playing field on which all agree to the "rules". The hypothetical imperative, that is often used to justify secular morality's position, is subjective and fails to address the objective.
Put simply, we in the West are too much wedded to the notion of "If it feels good, then do it" - a subjective approach that depends upon an individual interpretation. Whereas those militants of Islam that employ terror are wedded to the idea that the end justifies the means so long as Allah's Will has been done - still a subjective approach by one set of people (i.e., those wedded to secular rule via Sharia) to another (e.g., other Muslims and all infidels), but dressed to make it "look" objective by appealing to a higher authority or Allah.
Our only recourse before the threat of Islamic Totalitarianism is to defend ourselves and those like us.
by
Tom Murphy (2 articles, 2 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 1175 comments)
on Thursday, November 29, 2007 at 7:54:15 AM
I agree with Kenh’s view of war. I applaud his enlightened ethical perspective as well as his moral courage to live by his convictions. I assume, of course, that even from the moral heights from which Kenh condemns young men and women as “morally bankrupt,” he realizes that in a democracy, all citizens (I assume that Kenh is a citizen), no matter how detached they would like to believe their rhetoric of opposition makes them, must share responsibility and culpability for the actions of their government.I assume, as well, given his moral courage, that he has also refused complicity in this crime of unnecessary war by refusing to pay his taxes, without which, of course, the slaughter could not continue. Please note that, in the article, I never described the troops as “great heroes” as Kenh indicates, but as “victims” who have been duped into sacrificing their physical, mental, and emotional well-being for a cause they have been led to believe was just and necessary. Oh, the world would truly be a better place, if everyone were as enlightened and as morally sensitive and courageous as Kenh.
by
Camillo "Mac" Bica (5 articles, 6 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 2 comments)
on Thursday, November 29, 2007 at 9:07:39 AM
I apologise for referring to your article as a "load of crap". Sometimes moral outrage gets the best of me and I just can't be quiet any longer. I guess the overload of "Support the Troops", "God Bless America" and plastic American flags I see all around me takes it's toll.
I think we SHOULD share in the responsibility and culpability IF we have helped elect and support the administration. Suffice it to say that I have done neither, and that I have spent a lifetime making every effort to hold true to my convictions ( no pun intended ).
Ignorance, whether intended or not, is still ignorance, the beauty of which is that it can be corrected through willingness and/or education. Those who continue to shout "Support the troops" are , in my opinion, ENABLERS for those "victims" you speak of. I think it's time for some tough love. Don't be afraid to let them know they might have made a bad choice, but that it CAN be corrected. Keep Lt. Ehren Watada in mind.
By the way, I GRIEVE for EVERY U. S. military person killed or maimed in these decades of atrocities AND for every foreign citizen who has suffered the same fate. A Gene Roddenberry vision of our future IS possible, but we would actually have to work at it. These days war seems to be the EASY answer, at least for the "leaders". Ideally, it should NEVER be the answer, at all. Why don't we work on narrowing the gap between the "real" and the"ideal" ?
by
KenH (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 18 comments)
on Thursday, November 29, 2007 at 11:28:54 AM
