Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedShould soldiers be allowed to opt out of wars they disagree with?
Results so far:
| Yes | 39% | 313 votes | Total: 803 votes | |
| No | 61% | 490 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesThis is a sticky matter - a soldier asking not to, or refusing to, participate in a particular conflict akin, is it not, to a prizefighter saying that fighting is wrong, at least sometimes. It is rife with implications on our very ideas of duty, responsibility, and even, some might argue, moral relativism. The questions that seem just begging to be answered have to do with commitment, and principal, and growth, and the essence of humanity. Yes! I dare to continue even though I see this as a gateway into a discourse on life's most profound and allegedly unanswerable queries.
Let's begin by asking the most important question that faces new or would-be armed forces personnel: "What is a citizen's motive, *MY* motive, for doing military service?" In an all-volunteer military, what is it that a soldier, air(man), sailor, or marine agrees to when joining? I am certain that the chasm between the two is wider than many realize or admit, and that for some, the notion of such a chasm is absurd, trite, or even nave. I am equally certain that the inevitable discovery that this notion is true is a sucker-punch to one's sense of self, if not a moral crisis outright.
And yet, nothing is more urgent, for an individual or indeed the whole of society, than to ponder and ANSWER! the dilemma that surfaces. A service member has no doubt decided that s/he is willing to die for his country if these are the tragic ends to which her service comes. Yes he would give his life. But that is not the pivotal matter. No what our and most military institutions are asking prospective warriors to decide is this: would they kill? Our leadership, the masses, and indeed our very culture is expecting these folks, many of them 18 and 19 year old men and women motivated by a spirit of patriotism, service, sacrifice, and the well intentioned ideal of defending freedom, to know whether or not they could and then commit to, if circumstances require! take another human life.
I ask right here and right now how on earth we can EVER look ourselves in the mirror when we would idealize and institutionalize such gung-ho impulsiveness and sense of invulnerability, and call it an honorable thing. This "never say die!" mantra, when washed into the minds of new fighting machines in the making, so often already bestowed with an "I *can't* die" default defense mechanism, is a powerful narcotic. Combined with the pressures and rewards of group-think, and a very narrow perspective on right and wrong, this is indeed the lethal weapon that is manufactured inside the military, whose primary purpose is, after-all, to kill the enemy. Society and humanity itself has a very serious crisis to work itself through as we evolve as a species and a collective culture. And each human has this process to endure, at his microcosmic level, if he is likewise to grow and evolve.
To tell a particular group of humans that group being military personnel that they are not allowed to work that process, for some of whom this would result in a reconsideration of the morality and value of military service and/or warfare, is to say, ultimately, that they are not allowed to be human. Their lives have become the property of someone or something else! To be at the service of a society, and especially to the values of freedom and independence that we Americans claim to be ours, while at the same time being mandated to foresake those same values for yourself is the ultimate imprisonment.
And it is the height of hypocrisy. We are supposed to live by the values we preach, yes? Are we not taught the rightfulness of leading by example? Are we not also taught the rightfulness of humility? We are imperfect. We are creatures who spend our entire lifespan learning! If we have things to learn, then are we not behooved to be willing to listen and change?
America is currently suffering from this chasm this disconnect. We are right at this very moment in history experiencing a societal cognitive dissonance that, as world citizens, we have a moral imperative to examine and *resolve*. Our leadership is steadfastly unwilling to examine its own fallibilities, and the tragedy of this arrogance is the blind and strident continuation of a plan and a mission that is doing mortal harm to our world each and every day. This is not a manifesto on the right or wrong of war. I am simply declaring as loudly and forcefully as possible that we as a world, as a country, and as citizens within and of both have a right and a duty to check ourselves and accept that our actions have consequences that we cannot always predict. I am shouting from my virtual rooftop that we must always be willing to acknowledge the effects of our existence and what we do with it, and for which we are surely supposed to take responsibility!
Contrary to what our culture and policy demands today, and going all the way back to the birth of military function and establishment, military personnel are not absolved of this very heavy burden. It is not only their right to decline to support a conflict that they find morally questionable, it is their duty.
As it is ours.
Learn more about this author, Stanley W. Shura.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
Here in the U.S.A., military membership is voluntary. There is no forced membership, or draft anymore, although young men are supposed to register with "selective service" (information used to locate and notify for draft purposes) at the age of eighteen (few do).
All of the young men and women who have served in any conflict since the late nineteen-seventies have done so as volunteers. In order to maintain this all volunteer force at the levels required, each branch offers such things as tuition assistance programs and accelerated promotions for those with some college credits, or those who agree to enlist for longer terms.
People all over America help to fund their college educations with the "G.I. bill", for both active and reserve military. Some enlist because work is hard to find (military ranks always swell during tough economic times), and they need money. And some enlist just for the excitement of the travel and training; as silly as that may sound, to an eighteen-year-old, that is quite an enticement.
So, should any of them be able to "opt out" of a war that they disagree with? Absolutely not.
Since most do not enter the military with high hopes of being shot at, or blown up, when that possibility arose, it would be, "thanks for the money, and see ya' later!" This is a contract; an agreement. It should not be allowed to be breached.
And they DON'T allow it.
Currently we have several 'soldiers' who, at the first hint that they might have to live up to their agreements, high-tailed it to Canada, and declared themselves to be "conscientious objectors". And they remain there today, afraid to return under threat of prosecution. And if they return they should be prosecuted, forced to pay back any and all money spent on them, their compensation, their medical care, and their training. To whom should they return it? To me; to the public, who agreed to entrust them with our defense if the occasion should arise. It was never agreed that our tax dollars would feed, clothe, care for, and educate these cowards, only so that they could run away well fed and well dressed.
Conscientious objector status was designed for soldiers who were DRAFTED; not for volunteers. If one tells a recruiter that he has these inclinations, that is that he or she is a pacifist, and doesn't believe in war, or in the occasional necessity of killing, then they will be sent away with a handshake and a goodbye. They do not accept volunteers that object to what they volunteer for. But during a draft (forced induction) they allow conscientious objector status, and place people in non-combat duties when possible, so that they can serve their time out without violating any personal or religious beliefs.
This status does not exist in an all volunteer force. If you object to violence, don't join.
It was my experience that from the time you express interest in joining, until such time as you cannot easily quit (and, yes, for the first six months or so, you can quit), you are constantly reminded of the dangers of serving in the military. You could die, you could die, you could die....you are warned again and again.
This 'opting out' is a way of concealing fear; fear of being injured or killed, which is a completely natural fear, by the way, as well as a very real possibility in this day and age. But it is still no excuse to break your agreement or your oath (to defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic).
This behavior, running away or refusing to do your duty once you have VOLUNTEERED to do so, and enjoyed the benefits of membership, sometimes for years, before being called on for the quid pro quo, is not only cowardly and shameful, but prosecutable.
And I hope that my government follows through. I hope that, when caught, these thieves spend more time behind bars than they would have on the battle field. And I hope that it remains on their records for their entire lives, so that any potential employer, any loved one, or anyone researching their background can easily find out that after reaping the benefits (that they joined up for) they refused to hold up their end of the deal. Potential employers and potential mates should know how these people react when things get difficult, or when it's time to hold up a bargain. They run away. That's important knowledge.
Or maybe they will just stay in Canada. If they won't extradite them, they should just keep them. Maybe cowardliness and undependability are traits they can put to use there. Down here, in the U.S.A. we, that is to say I and many like me, have NO use for them.
Should civilians be allowed to opt out of a war they disagree with? Yes; absolutely. And they already are allowed to. They simply don't join the military, and voila.... they have opted out.
In the case of those who have already joined, they have voluntarily closed that option for themselves, and they should behave like Men and Women, and keep their word.
Learn more about this author, Mick Marten.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- US Military (Other)
- Should we increase the size of our military?
- Should children from military families receive college tuition discounts?
- Should the US close the military prison on Guantanamo Bay?
- US Army recruitment rates continue to fall: Is a volunteer army sufficient anymore?
- Should the military age be raised to 21?
