Reflections on
Military Service
Weeden Nichols
I have been asked to comment on the problem of military
service. I say “problem,” as such
service is problematic in many ways. I
do not believe anyone can speak or write objectively on this topic. We all see through the lens of our own lives
and times.
I should start out by saying that I was not quite two years
old when the US entered World War II. My
memory goes back to 18 months of age (August 1941), and I learned to read at
the age of three. My worldview was
formed in a time and a culture that did not question military service or
participation in war. I decided, while a
small child during WWII, to be a soldier.
I was influenced, no doubt, by the fact that those who served were esteemed
highly. In some peculiar way, I know I
was influenced by the death of the cousin I loved best, during the Battle of
the Bulge. (He was a hero, truly, but
received only a plain posthumous Bronze Star – not even a “V” for Valor. I received the same level of Bronze Star in
Vietnam for merely doing my job.) As I
small child, I was not equipped to discern the distinction between the esteemed
citizen soldier and the professional soldier who was tolerated as a necessity. I did complete a full career in the US
military, retiring from the Army over thirty-six years ago after serving in
both the Air Force and the Army.
I remember vividly the World War II propaganda, particularly
the propaganda in cartoon form, in which Germans, Italians, and Japanese were
anthropomorphically represented as weasels, wolves, and the like. I also remember seeing from my tricycle seat
the truckloads of German POW's being taken from their camps to work on our
roads. They were mostly nice-looking
young men, somewhat sad in demeanor, who waved back as they passed.
Continuing with the distinction between the professional
soldier and the citizen soldier, citizen soldiers are valuable for a number of
reasons. We could not afford and would
not want a standing army of professionals large enough, well trained enough,
and well enough equipped to instantly prevail on our behalf, come what
may. The citizen-soldier experience, if
the citizen-soldier survives, tends to equip the citizen with a more mature and
balanced understanding of citizenship and its responsibilities. If the children of the wealthy and powerful
are subject to conscription, that fact flavors mightily the undertakings
promoted and decided by the wealthy and powerful. The down-side of reliance on citizen-soldiers
is that, to get them to fight, they have to be psyched into hating the enemy
and into seeing the enemy as less than human, or at least less human than
themselves. I have no doubt that many or
most atrocities committed by our own forces, and probably most atrocities
committed by the forces of other countries, are the result of conditioning the
citizen-soldiers to hate and to see the enemy as less than human.
Ideally, a professional doesn't hate anyone. He accepts his leaders' definition of who is
the enemy, and he follows his orders as best he can, even to the extent of
risking his own death or experiencing his own death. He uses his own intelligence and strength to
the full extent of his powers, but he does so dispassionately. He may even respect and admire his adversary,
but that does not affect how he carries out his duty. Think of the US officers who had to make the
choice between fighting for the Union, or defending what they understood to be
their homelands. They faced their
friends, whom they loved and respected, on fields of battle, and still did
their duty. They certainly did not see
their friends on the other side as less than human, and they certainly did not
hate their former colleagues on the opposing side.
When asked, I do not
recommend military service to young people (except, perhaps, the Coast Guard),
not because I think defense is unnecessary, but because of the ambiguity
inherent in military service. Here is
what I mean by that. All members of the
US military are prohibited by law from obeying orders that clearly entail
atrocity. All are required to carry out
orders that do not clearly entail atrocity.
There is a huge “gray area” between clearly so and clearly not, so much
of what a soldier has to do under combat circumstances involves ambiguity. Consider how having had to act under
ambiguous circumstances affects the rest of the surviving soldier's life.
What is defense, and what is not defense? I can answer that only by citing
examples. We were massively attacked and
grievously wounded by the attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. This was not war as we have known it, since
the attacking entity was not a nation-state.
It was a new kind of war, not that terrorism is entirely new (that being
a topic for another essay). The entity
that planned and carried out the attacks had training camps and headquarters in
Afghanistan. The then government of
Afghanistan declared that the entity that attacked us, and declared its intent
to do it again, was the guest of Afghanistan, and entitled to the protection of
the government of Afghanistan. To pursue
that enemy into the host country was, for us, legitimately defense. On the other hand, invading Iraq was not defense. The rationale cited did not ring true in any
way. The statement that Saddam Hussein
was a bad man, did not justify the invasion.
Think of all the cruel and exploitative national leaders who have come
to power on the continent of Africa. How
many of those countries did we invade and wage war against, just because
leaders were “bad men?” I had no
criticism against the Afghanistan undertaking, but I took a strong stand
against the invasion of Iraq, regardless of whether Saddam Hussein was a bad
man. In retrospect, it seems clear that
we have largely failed in Afghanistan because of the resources that were
siphoned off in the Iraq endeavor, which also has been a failure.
It probably is unexpected that what most people would
consider “religion would appear in this forum.
I would consider that what I will say falls closer to philosophy that to
religion. Whichever it is, I will say
these few things. Though I had always
considered myself a Christian (most “Christians would consider me disqualified
from that category because I am not a Trinitarian), it was only after
retirement from the Army that I gave real thought, study, and reflection to
teachings of Jesus. It was only after
retirement from the Army that I experienced any exposure to the peace
traditions within Christianity. It is my
understanding that the highest calling of a follower of Jesus, relative to the
matter of human violence, is to decline even to defend oneself (an ideal few
could put fully into practice). Early in
Jesus’ ministry, he made it clear that one is not to return violence with
violence and that one is even to do good to one’s enemies. (I can go one better than that. I don't think I have enemies.) By the conclusion of Jesus' ministry, it is
easy to see that he had arrived at position that involved refusing to defend
himself and refusing to allow others to defend him. I nevertheless cannot believe that either God
or Jesus out-and-out condemn true self-defense.
We have been too well programmed to survival by our purported Creator to
believe that. I think it is possible
that followers of Jesus should decline military service – obviously not
possible in my case, as my service preceded this understanding (and it is
entirely possible that, even with my present understandings, I still would see
true defense as justifiable and even necessary). Christians are taught that governments are
part of God’s order for this world, and one of the primary functions of
government is defense, so I believe the Christian should not actively interfere
in governmental actions that constitute true defense (even though the Christian
himself might decline to bear arms). I
believe the Christian or any other conscientious citizen should actively oppose
governmental actions that are aggressive, or which exceed the requirements of
true defense, or which are something other than defense, masquerading as
defense.
There was great insight in “The Second Coming” (William
Butler Yeats’ great poem written during the rise of the Third Reich):
…The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity…
I’m neither the best nor the worst, and William Butler Yeats
is my favorite poet – I think the best poet in the history of the English
language. However, it is appropriate to
my purpose to further examine these ideas.
It is true that the “worst” can give up their individuality, their
learning, their principles, their authentic religious faith and convictions,
and be totally united in support of a party or a movement or a charismatic
person. The “best” have a responsibility
to learn and observe, to develop proper values and principles, and to act
accordingly – in concert with others when so doing does not violate their
principles.
No comments:
Post a Comment