MY former student, and one of the most intelligent people I have had the pleasure to know, DH, recently gave the following post on his Facebook page and requested directly the thoughts of a few people--myself included for some reason:
Thoughtful questions require careful replies. Full disclosure (or as full as I'll give) requires I state that I served in the U.S. Air Force in a capacity that allowed me to develop unique perspectives on military service and civil-military relations from the point of view of an airman. I am now, quite happily, a pointy-headed, academic who specializes in the study of political conflicts (primarily violent, but some non-violent stuff as well). I concur with Daniel on most of his assessment, but have my own take on the issues addressed.
I am a veteran. For the most part, I do not want much recognition, in fact I find most recognition embarrasing--I made a choice to serve, I served, I am nothing special because of this choice. Were I disabled by wounds I had received as an active member of military service, I would expect those who I had represented to provide for such treatment and assistance as necessary for me to continue life's journey. As a civilian I am offended by the poor administrative quality of the Office of Veterans Affairs because if fails in what I believe is one of our civic responsibilities--to provide that treatment and assistance. I do not believe, however, that we owe any "special" benefits beyond contractual and civic responsibilities to veterans.
DH proposed a few things in his comments. One is that the military exists at the disposal of the civil authority. Absolutely DH, the military exists to do the missions assigned to it by the civil authority. When military leaders lose sight of this fact, they become dangerous the the civic order and to the security of the country and world--check the end of Douglas MacArthur's career for insight on failing to maintain proper civil-military relations. Healthy debate over foreign policy and the military's role in taking action in foreign policy is necessary and often not present. My personal issue is that I have issues with putting military force on the table at the beginning of determining/negotiating foreign policy rather than recognizing use of force as an alternative rather than primary means of international interaction.
The military is indeed populated by human beings. I personally believe that all people are fallen from the grace of God and as such pretty much schmucks. The GOOD NEWS is that we are offered redemption and can overcome the penalty of being Adam's offspring. The fact is that because we are Adam's offspring we are fallible. Society must hold its members accountable for their actions regardless of what their position is within the society. Civil magisterial authority was created for the purpose of holding members of society accountable for actions detrimental to the good of society--a further rationale for why civil authority trumps military position.
DH's third point is about regrettable actions being necessary, if I understood him correctly. I do not concur here. I find nothing that I must do, up to and including taking of another human life, regrettable. As I do not consider killing to be the equal of murder, I have no regrets regarding the taking of any human life when it is found necessary for the good and order of society. Backtracking for a moment, it might be regrettable, for discussion purposes, if the military is required by civil authority to engage in a conflict that is morally or politically purposeless, but I would hope that by full debate of civil authority that such decisions would be rare. Also, in such cases, it is potentially possible for the military to consider such orders to be "unconstitutional/unlwaful" and not comply--but at a price, as most decisions to not comply will result in severe punishment of those non-complying members of the military.
In DH's fourth point he makes the distinction about a member of the military versus the entire military and is correct. His second and third points talk about individuals, but his first point is about the military as a whole. The military as a whole belongs to the country. Individuals are part of the country as citizens or legal residents (in the U.S. military non-citizens are allowed to serve as legal residents and actually earn citizenship status during their service). We must always be careful in whether we are critiquing the action of an individual or the entire organization regardless of the organization in question. In other words avoid ecological fallacy in our reasoning.
I know what I said in response to DH's third point. But I agree with him in his final point. Every life is valuable regardless of the defining features of that life. While I do not regret that taking life might be considered necessary, I believe the choice to do so is difficult and difficult for the reason that life is valuable. DH even says that the military should not hesitate to kill enemies, so the point, I believe, is that we should hesitate to call people enemies and necessitate potential killing and destruction of that society and its members.
For my two cents, DH has issued a thoughtful line of questions and positions to consider. All to often we are called unpatriotic if we question the use of force. I consider the use of force in Iraq in 2003 to have been poorly considered, ill-planned, and unfortunate in its execution. Does this make me unpatriotic or disrespectful of the current, past, or future members of the military? I should really hope not, or a few damn good current and former members of the military are all guilty of being unpatriotic. Perhaps the angst of DH's argument is based in part on the political circles in which we function. Are we considered less than patriotic in Republican circles if we have issues with some military operations? Are we considered less than patriotic in Democratic circles if we elevate the military to some special status in society because of what it does for society as a whole? If so, I am a great patriot, and a rotten member of society all wrapped into one being. Perhaps that is the truth of all of us and most of us are unwilling to admit it and have an honest discourse regarding the military.
"This is a serious question.
I believe that the American military is the greatest fighting
force ever assembled, and I believe the American military is often on the side
of good, honorable causes. I am deeply appreciative of the sacrifices military
members (and military families) make on behalf of the US. War is hell, and
freedom isn't cheap, so I'm tremendously grateful when someone else volunteers
to shoulder the cost for me.
In view of that recognition, I've done some things here and
there to help comfort veterans, assist military families, and honor the fallen.
Nothing I've done is noteworthy when compared to the price paid by those more
directly involved, but it's sort of the best I can do. Beyond that, I pretty
regularly make a note to pause and reflect, to listen to veterans and military
members, and to keep alive a sense of importance for what the US armed forces
are doing and have done.
But I also firmly believe a few things about our armed forces
that, in my view, ought to be uncontroversial.
First, I believe we have a civilian government with a military
at its disposal, not the other way around; as such, the military executes the
objectives set forth by the civilian side of government in accordance with the
Constitution. In respect of our armed forces, we should have a robust national
debate about how we use their power, and sometimes, that debate will run
counter to what the military itself wants, since nobody is right all the time
and most people are wrong more than they think.
Secondly, I believe that the military is filled with people, and
people tend to be pretty horrible to each other. I don't think our sailors and
soldiers are immune from temptations to do wrong, so just like I demand
accountability from my politicians, my bureaucrats, and others, I demand
accountability from (and oversight of) the military. And if someone in the
military has done something wrong, they ought to be held to account for it.
Thirdly, I believe that there should be a distinction between
things we must do and things we should want to do. In defense of a nation,
soldiers are often asked to choose between bad alternatives, and as a result,
regrettable things sometimes happen. We should never lost sight of the
regrettable nature of armed conflict.
Fourth, I believe that there is a distinction between talking
about an individual service member and talking about the military as a whole.
If one of our warriors is criticized for doing a specific bad thing, it's not a
critique of the whole apparatus; if the apparatus is criticized for bad
objectives, planning, or execution, it's not a critique of a specific military
member or family.
Finally, I believe every life is valuable. Hard stop. No
qualifiers about whether that life is American or Christian or white or
friendly or not. That doesn't imply the military should never kill, or that the
military should hesitate to kill enemies. It's also appropriate to have graded
objectives, and choosing between an American life and (say) an Iraqi life isn't
a problem. But every life is valuable, and in thinking about the military, we
should never forget that core principle.
None of these things seem particularly controversial to me, and
none of them seem at odds with respecting those who serve in the armed
services. None of them seem unpatriotic to me, either, but it seems that
anytime these sentiments are operationalized in a real-world situation, the
person operationalizing them is branded unpatriotic, despicable, and
un-American.
So
how do we have an appropriate, respectful discussion about the military when
(it would seem) that anything other unbridled praise is considered
inappropriate? What's the right way to think about the things I laid out above?
What am I missing in this discussion?"
---------------------------------------------Thoughtful questions require careful replies. Full disclosure (or as full as I'll give) requires I state that I served in the U.S. Air Force in a capacity that allowed me to develop unique perspectives on military service and civil-military relations from the point of view of an airman. I am now, quite happily, a pointy-headed, academic who specializes in the study of political conflicts (primarily violent, but some non-violent stuff as well). I concur with Daniel on most of his assessment, but have my own take on the issues addressed.
I am a veteran. For the most part, I do not want much recognition, in fact I find most recognition embarrasing--I made a choice to serve, I served, I am nothing special because of this choice. Were I disabled by wounds I had received as an active member of military service, I would expect those who I had represented to provide for such treatment and assistance as necessary for me to continue life's journey. As a civilian I am offended by the poor administrative quality of the Office of Veterans Affairs because if fails in what I believe is one of our civic responsibilities--to provide that treatment and assistance. I do not believe, however, that we owe any "special" benefits beyond contractual and civic responsibilities to veterans.
DH proposed a few things in his comments. One is that the military exists at the disposal of the civil authority. Absolutely DH, the military exists to do the missions assigned to it by the civil authority. When military leaders lose sight of this fact, they become dangerous the the civic order and to the security of the country and world--check the end of Douglas MacArthur's career for insight on failing to maintain proper civil-military relations. Healthy debate over foreign policy and the military's role in taking action in foreign policy is necessary and often not present. My personal issue is that I have issues with putting military force on the table at the beginning of determining/negotiating foreign policy rather than recognizing use of force as an alternative rather than primary means of international interaction.
The military is indeed populated by human beings. I personally believe that all people are fallen from the grace of God and as such pretty much schmucks. The GOOD NEWS is that we are offered redemption and can overcome the penalty of being Adam's offspring. The fact is that because we are Adam's offspring we are fallible. Society must hold its members accountable for their actions regardless of what their position is within the society. Civil magisterial authority was created for the purpose of holding members of society accountable for actions detrimental to the good of society--a further rationale for why civil authority trumps military position.
DH's third point is about regrettable actions being necessary, if I understood him correctly. I do not concur here. I find nothing that I must do, up to and including taking of another human life, regrettable. As I do not consider killing to be the equal of murder, I have no regrets regarding the taking of any human life when it is found necessary for the good and order of society. Backtracking for a moment, it might be regrettable, for discussion purposes, if the military is required by civil authority to engage in a conflict that is morally or politically purposeless, but I would hope that by full debate of civil authority that such decisions would be rare. Also, in such cases, it is potentially possible for the military to consider such orders to be "unconstitutional/unlwaful" and not comply--but at a price, as most decisions to not comply will result in severe punishment of those non-complying members of the military.
In DH's fourth point he makes the distinction about a member of the military versus the entire military and is correct. His second and third points talk about individuals, but his first point is about the military as a whole. The military as a whole belongs to the country. Individuals are part of the country as citizens or legal residents (in the U.S. military non-citizens are allowed to serve as legal residents and actually earn citizenship status during their service). We must always be careful in whether we are critiquing the action of an individual or the entire organization regardless of the organization in question. In other words avoid ecological fallacy in our reasoning.
I know what I said in response to DH's third point. But I agree with him in his final point. Every life is valuable regardless of the defining features of that life. While I do not regret that taking life might be considered necessary, I believe the choice to do so is difficult and difficult for the reason that life is valuable. DH even says that the military should not hesitate to kill enemies, so the point, I believe, is that we should hesitate to call people enemies and necessitate potential killing and destruction of that society and its members.
For my two cents, DH has issued a thoughtful line of questions and positions to consider. All to often we are called unpatriotic if we question the use of force. I consider the use of force in Iraq in 2003 to have been poorly considered, ill-planned, and unfortunate in its execution. Does this make me unpatriotic or disrespectful of the current, past, or future members of the military? I should really hope not, or a few damn good current and former members of the military are all guilty of being unpatriotic. Perhaps the angst of DH's argument is based in part on the political circles in which we function. Are we considered less than patriotic in Republican circles if we have issues with some military operations? Are we considered less than patriotic in Democratic circles if we elevate the military to some special status in society because of what it does for society as a whole? If so, I am a great patriot, and a rotten member of society all wrapped into one being. Perhaps that is the truth of all of us and most of us are unwilling to admit it and have an honest discourse regarding the military.
