|
When Morality Demands Winter Soldiers
By Camillo "Mac" Bica
04/02/08 -- -- In March of this year, the Iraq
Veterans Against the War (IVAW) will convene the Winter Soldier
hearings in Washington, DC. "Winter Soldiers," according to
Thomas Paine, are those who step up in behalf of their nation
when things seem most bleak. With this in mind, IVAW members and
others will courageously provide eyewitness accounts of their
experiences of war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Though I do not
speak for IVAW, it is their intent and hope, I suspect, that by
telling the truth about these occupations, to provide, at the
very least, the impetus for a long overdue national debate on
the morality and legality of America's alleged "War Against
Terrorism." Many who pride themselves as "patriots" will, I am
sure, accuse these veterans and anyone else who actively
condemns the war as immoral and advocates an immediate and total
withdrawal, of being un-American, unpatriotic and even
treasonous. Even among those who have become disenchanted with
the lack of progress in Iraq and skeptical regarding its
justifiability and necessity, there is an "intuition" that since
we have committed our soldiers and treasure to the effort,
patriotism requires that we support our troops, our president
and ,ultimately, the war. At the very least, these "patriots"
continue, if we truly love America, we should keep any
misgivings to ourselves and just remain silent. Is it the case,
therefore, that at least with regard to America's war in Iraq
that morality and love of country are in conflict? That
patriotism demands immoral behavior, or morality demands
behavior that is unpatriotic even treasonous? It is the intent
of this essay first to establish moral clarity regarding the war
in Iraq and then to argue that morality and patriotism,
correctly understood, require members of the military and their
civilian counterparts to become Winter Soldiers and step up to
end this immoral and tragic war.
Moral Foundations
Civilized nations and individuals accept, at least
theoretically, that human beings have inalienable human rights,
among them the right to life and to live in a nation that enjoys
political sovereignty and territorial integrity (sometimes
referred to as national rights). Such rights provide a natural
immunity from, among other things, being injured and killed
unjustifiably and having one's nation invaded and occupied
without warrant. To kill an innocent person is murder, and "the
(unprovoked and unjustified) invasion or attack by the armed
forces of a State of the territory of another State, or any
military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such
invasion or attack" is aggression. We believe as well that
aggressed individuals and nations have a right of self- and
national defense, i.e., to use violence, even deadly force/war,
all things being equal, to assert these rights. Morally, we
justify such a response with an understanding that the
aggressors, by virtue of their violation of the rights of their
victims, have forfeited their own (their immunity) and have
become liable to be resisted - warred against - in justified
self- and national defense.
The Iraq War
In the intervening years since the invasion of Iraq, it has
become clear to all, with the possible exception of Fox
Television Network viewers, that the attacks of September 11
were neither prosecuted nor supported by the people and/or the
government of Iraq. While Saddam Hussein was a ruthless tyrant,
at the time of the invasion, Iraq neither sought nor possessed
weapons of mass destruction. Further, Iraq posed no real and
immediate threat to the United States, Israel or any other
Middle East nation. Nor were the Iraqis aggressors or
terrorists. Nor did they support aggression or terrorism. Nor
were they linked in any way to the aggression or to the
terrorist attacks. Consequently, and this is crucial, the nation
of Iraq and its citizens are innocent, having done nothing to
warrant forfeiture of their natural immunity, i.e., their rights
to life and to live in a nation that enjoys territorial
integrity and political sovereignty.
Consequently, regardless of whether the decision to invade and
occupy Iraq was the result of an honest mistake or something
more insidious, the preemptive attack against the sovereign
nation of Iraq, the killing of its citizens and its continued
occupation are morally unjustifiable - an act of aggression and
murder.
Clearly, President Bush and his cohorts - those who planned and
initiated the invasion and misrepresented it as a just war
against terrorism and to preserve freedom - must bear the
preponderance of responsibility and, hence, culpability for the
aggression. That having been said, however, the invading troops,
despite their being mislead into believing their cause to be
just, are agents of unwarranted, immoral and illegal violence -
they violate the rights of the Iraqis. They are what I will term
"unjustifiable combatants/innocent aggressors." Consequently,
the invading/occupying troops must suffer the sanction of
forfeiture of their natural immunity and become liable to be
justifiably resisted and warred against by the Iraqis in self-
and national defense.
The fact that the invaders and occupiers allege to target only
Iraqi combatants, and discriminate and afford immunity to
noncombatants (though many instances of collateral damage have
been reported), is irrelevant both to a determination of whether
the invasion is just and to judgments of the liability of the
aggressors. The opposing combatants, despite being termed
"insurgents" and "terrorists" by our political and military
leaders, maintain their immunity and, this is crucial, their
right to self- and national defense. Consequently, the Iraqi
combatants and their allies do not forfeit the very rights they
are justifiably and morally struggling to assert. They are
justifiable combatants. It is not the case, therefore, because
of a fierce "insurgent" resistance, that the aggressors can now
claim their actions are morally justified by reasons of
self-defense. All combatants are not moral equals.
At this writing, many in our country are celebrating the
"success" of the surge and of the "new" military strategy in
Iraq. However, military success and improved strategy do not
afford a moral and legal basis for continuing, even escalating,
the occupation - the aggression against, and murder of, the
Iraqi people. How could achieving "victory" in such a scenario,
i.e., the triumph of the aggressors, the murderers, over their
victims, be morally justified?
The Moral Obligation NOT to Support the Troops Qua Warrior
Consider next the effect that recognizing the invasion and
occupation of Iraq as aggression and the American troops as
aggressors have upon the moral duties of all American citizens.
To do so, I will refer the reader to the brutal and heinous
attacks of September 11. It is clear that those who carried out
these attacks were acting immorally. This is so, despite they,
and others of their ilk, having been influenced, programmed or
deceived into truly believing their cause to be just, and their
attack to be a legitimate act of war - Jihad - against a nation
and people that have, and continue in their view, to exploit,
oppress and kill their fellow Muslims.
Further, these terrorists were willing to endure great personal
sacrifice in behalf of others and possessed the state of mind
and spirit that enabled them to face danger, fear and death with
confidence, steadfastness, perseverance and resolve. Under very
different conditions, perhaps we would regard such qualities as
virtuous and worthy of admiration. However, theirs was an act of
terrorism and, as such, unjust, immoral, unwarranted and a
violation of the rights of those they attacked. Consequently, we
do not characterize their behavior as courageous, noble and
heroic. Nor do we find admirable their willingness to sacrifice
themselves for others and for a cause in which they believed.
Since aggression is the unjustifiable killing of innocent human
beings (murder), I see no morally relevant difference between
national aggression and terrorism prosecuted by sub-national
groups such as Al-Qaeda. Consequently, the acts of the
terrorists and those of the American aggressors and occupiers
are similar enough morally to warrant comparison. Both the
terrorists and the aggressors believed, erroneously, in the
justice of their cause and in the culpability and liability of
those they were targeting and killing. Both were
well-intentioned - neither acting from greed or self-interest -
and motivated by a sense of duty to members of their community.
Most importantly, both the terrorists and the aggressors
violated the rights/immunity of innocent human beings. By parity
of reasoning, then, despite their intended altruism and their
willingness to face danger, fear and death with confidence,
steadfastness, perseverance and resolve, the efforts of the
aggressors, like those of the terrorists, are neither noble nor
glorious. Nor should Muslims and the American citizenry feel
gratitude and appreciation for their misguided benefactors'
willingness to endure great personal sacrifice "in their
behalf." Finally, immoral acts are not heroic, and the
terrorists and the aggressors are not heroes. Based upon these
observations, we can draw conclusions about the moral duties of
American citizens relative to the war and their troops.
Given the nature and moral value of the invasion, the American
citizenry (including members of the military) is morally
obligated, first and foremost, not to participate in the
aggression, that is, to avoid enlisting into the military or
refusing to fight (what I term the moral duty of
"non-participation"). Further, they are morally obligated not to
support the troops in their aggression, that is, what I will
term "qua warrior." Neither should they praise their aggressive
actions, nor admire their personal qualities, nor appreciate
their efforts, nor celebrate their accomplishments (the duty of
non-complicity). If anything, they are morally obligated to
sympathize with, support and admire the efforts of the victims,
the Iraqis, in their struggle against aggression, since morality
demands that we respect the rights and dignity of all innocent
human beings.
The Moral Obligation to Support the Troops Qua Human Being
As in any war, even a just war, there may be individual soldiers
whose questionable motives and intentions affect the morality of
their actions or the degree of their responsibility. For the
most part, however, no one joins the military or fights in war
(or even uses terrorism as a tactic) to commit murder. Further,
I think it is fair to say that a goodly number of those who
serve in the military - especially during a war - are either the
conscripted and the coerced or the underprivileged and the
destitute. Their motivation in serving is only to survive and
return home or to improve their standard of living and receive
job training or financial support for college. Even of those who
willingly enlist and consider themselves professional soldiers,
the vast majority, though sometimes misguided (as is the case in
Iraq), sincerely believe they are doing moral things for a moral
nation.
Given the gravity of the endeavor in which they are to engage,
however, we do expect soldiers, before participating in the
fighting, and civilians, before accepting conscription or
volunteering, to evaluate, morally and legally, the war in which
they will engage. Further, it would be meritorious, perhaps even
morally required, depending upon the severity of the sanctions,
for soldiers and civilians to have the moral courage and
fortitude to refuse to participate in or support wars that are
immoral. Finding out the truth about war, however, is very
difficult and seldom certain.
To appreciate the ability of governments to deceive, convince
and coerce citizens into supporting an immoral war, one need
only consider recent history and the plethora of sincere and
astute intellectuals, clergymen and women, scholars and
politicians (some of whom are currently vying to become
president) who were convinced that war with Iraq was warranted
because they possessed weapons of mass destruction, were
complicit in the attacks of 9/11, and posed a real and immediate
threat to the survival of our nation and all we hold dear.
It is not only a lack of information, however, that makes the
decision not to support or to fight the war so problematic and
tragic. The magnitude of the social pressures (real or
perceived) brought to bear upon young adults is such that, for
many, deciding not to serve while others "go in their place" may
require even more courage and determination than facing injury
and death on the battlefield.
In regard to the preemptive invasion of Iraq, members of the
military have been influenced, manipulated and coerced by the
president into believing the threat from Iraq to be real and
their cause to be just and necessary.
Further, given the sophistication of the deception and the
unavailability of accurate information, they were not derelict
in their responsibility as soldiers to morally evaluate the case
for war. There is a real sense, then, in which they are
themselves victims, deceived into risking injury and death for a
mistake or to forward their president's illegal and immoral
agenda. These morally relevant circumstances entail that the
members of the military are not fully responsible for their
aggression, hence their status as "innocent" aggressors. They
are what I will term "diminished culpability combatants."
Let us be clear. Diminished culpability does not mean that the
aggression is justified, or that the aggressors are morally
blameless (non-culpable and non-liable). Nor does it mean that
they are excused (absolved of all responsibility) for their
aggression. Blame and latent responsibility of the troops for
their aggression is indicated by their liability. That is, their
aggression warrants their suffering the forfeiture of their
immunity - they can justifiably be resisted, warred against, in
self/national defense. What the recognition of diminished
culpability does suggest is an understanding and appreciation of
the persuasive and coercive power of governments and the
socialization pressures in a political community.
Perhaps most importantly for our purposes, it recognizes the
moral relevance, first, of the adolescent/young adult soldier
not being in a position to make an informed judgment about the
war and, second, that the level of coercion that soldier
experiences makes it difficult, if not impossible, to decide
otherwise than to serve and to fight.
Consequently, given these extenuating conditions, their moral
and legal culpability may be ameliorated post bellum. Further,
while citizens are morally obligated not to support the troops
qua warrior, compassion and respect for persons does require a
moral obligation to act in the interest of all those victimized
by war - whether they be innocent Iraqis or American diminished
culpability combatants. This duty to assist, or what I term
"supporting the troops qua human being," entails doing what is
truly in the troops physical, psychological, emotional and moral
interest. Most importantly, citizens must strive, through
protest, dissent and condemnation of the immoral war, to
influence policy and bring pressure to bear upon their leaders
to end the aggression against - the occupation of - Iraq and the
exploitation and victimization of their own troops.
Further, they should discourage troop participation in the war
by, first, exposing the war's immorality and the deception of
their leaders. Secondly, the troops should be reminded that, at
least since Nuremberg, their moral and legal obligations as
soldiers require neither blind obedience to orders nor
unquestioning trust in the decisions of their leaders. Third,
they must strive to create an environment in which
adolescents/young adults feel empowered to act upon their moral
convictions and refuse conscription, enlisting in the military
and/or fighting. Fourth, moral refusers and deserters must be
supported and provided protection either through selective
conscientious objector laws, legal defense funds or, more
drastically, by providing sanctuaries from military apprehension
and prosecution.
Finally, compassion and the principle of respect for persons
requires that the American citizenry strive to ensure that the
troops receive the necessary care and treatment for the
physical, psychological, emotional and moral injuries that are
the inevitable consequences of their experiences in war,
especially an immoral war. Overall, therefore, citizens,
military and non-military alike, are morally obligated to become
Winter Soldiers.
Patriotism and Love of Country
I am certain that some who will listen to the testimony of the
Winter Soldiers will be outraged regarding the insinuation that
the atrocities committed by Americans in Iraq go well beyond Abu
Ghraib and Haditha. I am certain as well that some reading this
essay will be outraged that I dare equate the war in Iraq to the
attacks of 9/11, members of the American military to the
Al-Qaeda terrorists, and that I advocate not supporting the
troops qua warrior. I am also sure that this outrage will lead
many readers to question the veterans' and my patriotism and
love of America, perhaps even to accuse us of moral treason. In
response, I would remind these critics that their version of
unquestioned "patriotism" and "love of America" entails an
indifference to, and disregard for, the principles of morality
and the tenets of International Law - the very characteristics
of a rogue nation that we point to when proposing and justifying
military action.
Further, it ignores justice in favor of a might-over-right
philosophy, betraying an arrogance that brings our nation
neither honor nor prestige in the world, but rather hatred and
righteous indignation. Most tragically, perhaps, it denigrates
the very foundations and all we hold sacred as a nation -
justice and fairness for all.
Further, I would point out that morality is not a means of
gaining strategic or tactical military advantage, to be
abandoned or manipulated should its tenets prove inconvenient to
furthering the national interest, or even unsupportive of the
actions of those with whom we share allegiance. If morality is
to have any meaning and if individuals and nations are to avoid
hypocrisy, morality must be universally and fairly applied
without prejudice, bias or consideration of national identity.
To feel an impetus to support our country's actions and an
attachment and concern for fellow citizens serving in the
military is understandable. Further, once the fighting has begun
and our troops placed in harm's way, it is also understandable
that citizens may be motivated to ignore, overlook and/or
rationalize the immorality of the war and of their soldiers'
actions. They may even hope for their troops' speedy victory and
triumphant return even at the expense of the deaths of their
innocent victims. However, their support for aggression and
murder and for the troops qua warrior, their hypocrisy and
arrogance, and disregard for justice and morality, while perhaps
understandable, is morally unjustifiable, un-American,
unpatriotic and integral to the question they themselves pose so
often but seldom answer: "Why do they hate us?"
The true patriot, therefore, does not blindly follow and obey,
but questions the actions of his leaders and, when necessary,
brings attention to the defilement or abandonment of the values
we hold dear. Consequently, in times such as these, morality and
patriotism demand Winter Soldiers. That is, true patriots who,
despite great personal sacrifice, struggle tirelessly and
courageously, to restore America's integrity and moral standing
in the world, and hold accountable those political leaders who
have violated the public trust by acting not in America's
interest, but in behalf of wealth, power and empire.
Camillo "Mac" Bica, Ph.D., is a professor of philosophy at
the School of Visual Arts in New York City. 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 Information
Clearing House, Cyrano's Journal, The Humanist Magazine, Znet,
Truthout.com, Common Dreams, AntiWar.com, Monthly Review Zine,
Foreign Policy in Focus, OpEdNews.Com, and numerous
philosophical journals.
Click on "comments" below to read or post comments
Comment Guidelines
Be succinct, constructive and
relevant to the story.
We encourage engaging, diverse
and meaningful commentary. Do not include
personal information such as names, addresses,
phone numbers and emails. Comments falling
outside our guidelines – those including
personal attacks and profanity – are not
permitted.
See our complete
Comment Policy
and
use this link to notify us if you have concerns
about a comment.
We’ll promptly review and remove any
inappropriate postings.
Send Page To a Friend
In accordance
with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material
is distributed without profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational
purposes. Information Clearing House has no
affiliation whatsoever with the originator of
this article nor is Information ClearingHouse
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
|
