When Morality Demands Winter Soldiers
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/020408C.shtml
By Camillo "Mac" Bica
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Monday 04 February 2008
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 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.
.
