[Peace-discuss] Mort's comments

[John W.]

At 09:57 PM 4/14/2006, Morton K. Brussel wrote:

>Thanks Bob for your efforts to try to explain and understand. I
>append some responses to your thoughts.  --Mort
>
>
>On Apr 14, 2006, at 11:05 AM, Bob Illyes wrote:
>
>>Being a soldier, like being a policeman, is a legitimate career
>>choice, Mort. The legitimate purpose is to protect the peace by
>>preventing crime, both personal and international. In order to
>>do this, they must be prepared on occasion to meet violence with
>>violence, which is why they carry and sometimes use guns.
>>When they are used for aggressive purpose instead, it is to the
>>political leadership that one must look for blame, and to the
>>people who back that leadership.
>
>I would say that the blame is shared. Individual responsibility ought
>to count for something. I didn't think Lt. Calley should be let off.
>As for the analogy between policemen and military service, I would
>say that it has been rare that the military has played a useful
>defensive role. Mostly, it has been the opposite. I might add that
>the police, although helping children cross the street is the image
>they like to present, often is an agent of repressive state power.
>For example, consider all the anti-war demonstrations where the
>police have "controlled the crowds".
>
>
>
>>Soldiers and police are scarcely angels. None of us are, and they
>>are as a group no better or worse than any of the rest of us.
>>Most of them, like most of us, entered their line of work with
>>reasonably good intentions and with some trust that they would
>>not be misused. They are being misused in Iraq, and they were
>>misused in Vietnam, with awful consequences. The returning
>>veterans who have sold out to evil are in the minority. Most
>>are reasonably decent people who have been thrown into a situation
>>that no one should ever be thrown into, and are seriously
>>traumatized by the experience. They deserve our kindness, not our
>>contempt.
>
>
>Do you have good data on this? I think that the group "buddy"
>mentality tends to take over in military service. The percentage of
>antiwar Iraq vets, so far as I can discern, is sadly small.



I didn't know where to insert this comment, but it seems to kind of fit 
here.  Required reading for everyone should be "Achilles in Vietnam: Combat 
Trauma and the Undoing of Character" by Jonathan Shay, M.D. Ph.D., 
copyright 1994.  It pertains, or course, not only to the Viet Nam war but 
to all wars.  Shay goes into great detail about the psychological factors 
and effects of the war.  One thing he emphasizes is that, unlike in World 
War II, American soldiers in Viet Nam   did not serve from their training 
onward with the same group of fellow soldiers, and thus they didn't have 
whatever psychological protection that "belongingness" to the larger group 
might have afforded.  They were isolated even among their peers, and they 
returned home singly, not as a part of a platoon or company that had become 
cohesive through shared experiences.

Though I personally know Viet Nam war veterans who claim to have been spat 
upon when they returned home to the U.S., to me the larger issue is the 
fact that they did not receive anything even remotely approaching a hero's 
welcome upon their return home.  They felt psychologically spat upon by 
their fellow citizens, after serving their country (as they saw it) under 
exceedingly difficult and debilitating conditions.  Mort's point about the 
soldiers in Iraq being "volunteers", as opposed to the Viet Nam vets being 
draftees, is only partially a propos, as a great many soldiers in Iraq are 
there with reserve units, which is very similar to having been drafted.

It's frightfully easy to pontificate theoretically from afar.  It's plain 
to me that Mort and Carl and most readers of the peace-discuss list have 
never been in a situation where failure to obey orders which one considered 
morally reprehensible or just plain ignorant was likely to result in severe 
disciplinary sanctions.  I was in such a situation for 16 years, and can 
attest that it's not an easy choice to make, particularly when you're young 
and naive and impressionable.  I did a couple of things under orders of 
which I'm not particularly proud, and my personnel file reflects - to this 
day, no doubt - those instances where I made the "right" moral choice 
contrary to direct orders from a "superior".  I was forced, incidentally, 
to retire prematurely in large part because of such incidents, suffering 
irreparable financial harm.

John Wason