by Bob Lawrence,
a US Soldier who recently claimed conscientious objection
As of today, more than 500 American men and women have lost their lives in President Bush's "war on terror." Terror, the word, the idea, as oppose to a physical objective, something that can be contained. It isn't as if terror can be captured, confined, and isolated from the world. Saddam Hussein has been captured, and nothing has changed. People are still dying in the Middle East everyday.
I won't waste the reader's time with redundant pleas for peace. If you're not familiar with the anti-war argument at this point, you've either been living in a cave (pun?), or just simply not listening. Instead, I'd like to ask those that already call themselves pacifists, myself included, to turn it up a notch. As a self-appointed Ambassador for Peace, I make a conscious effort everyday to go beyond speaking of it. I try to walk it, to teach it, to breathe it, to let it spill out of me and onto others in every encounter I have with them. If I can do this semi-successfully from the most extreme sort of military environment, the combat zone, then other average citizens can certainly do the same in their homes, at their workplaces, in their local grocery stores. Think of men like Thoreau and Gandhi, who turned their belief structures into cultures, lifestyles. The greatest lessons they taught didn't come from the books they wrote, but from the ways in which they lived their lives, the applications of their values to their everyday affairs.
My biggest and most challenging obstruction to a walk of peace is my current enlistment in the United States Army. Accordingly, I identified myself to my chain of command as a conscientious objector this past December, from right here in Iraq. With the help of legal counsel, I've been able to plead my case well, and currently await verdict from the masters.
In dealing with the various investigations and interviews associated with a claim of conscientious objection, I've been confronted with some tough inquiries into the nature of my appeal. I've been, more or less, encouraged to give short and concise answers, but in a society and a set of circumstances so complex, this was next to impossible.
"Why did you join the Army?" This question is reasonable enough. If you were to ask the typical solider this question, you might hear any number of answers. Some will tell you it's a family tradition. Some cite the thrill and excitement of a new experience. A few will tell you that they love their country, and are willing to fight for the things that it represents. Others will get economical with you, and rave about job security and an unbeatable package of benefits, including the Montgomery GI Bill.
The truth is, by the time a recruiter introduces himself to his potential victim, at a high school, in a shopping mall, or from the other side of a fast food counter, he or she has little left to say. His job is almost complete. Parents, teachers, and the media have delivered sales pitches for years. CBS and BET have taken care of the dirty work. The recruiter is just the pawn, the sales representative of a set of ideologies that penetrate this society at every level, leaving no room for alternatives, and no hope of a better world.
It's widely agreed upon that a child's first years are most crucial to his or her development. Some psychologists have estimated that ninety percent of one's personality is formed by the age of four. By the age of four, most American children have received a "spanking," a demonstration of violence as a means of problem solving.
He or she has learned to count to ten and recite the alphabet, and been rewarded candy and toys. Barbie dolls and Fisher Price kitchen sets for the girls, Matchbox sports cars and toy guns for the boys. Those whose parents cannot afford these things develop and envy of those whose parents can. As children begin school, the same line is drawn between those with new coats and sneakers, and those with the same old ones their siblings wore.
In a state sponsored public school system, an incredible degree of thought control persists. Students are taught what to think, as oppose to how to think. They are required to recite a "Pledge of Allegiance" to the US flag, and must stand for this, hands over hearts. There's been much ado over the child's right to omit the word "God" from the recital, but no talk at all about omitting the recital itself. The dictator-type role of the teacher allows no room for the questioning of this or any other age-old institution. At a very young and vulnerable age, children are taught to just accept, rather than question grownups, who are obviously a lot smarter. Teachers move straight from subjects like Mathematics, the study of absolute values, to Social Studies, a field very subjective in nature. A child's mind can't detect this change, and her young mind takes everything as fact. By the time she finishes elementary school, she knows that three times four is twelve and Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves. The United States is the good guys, and those opposed to us are the bad guys. She heard President Bush say so on TV.*
High School gives capitalist American values the opportunity to crystallize in young people. In Civics, they learn about the great democratic two-party system employed by the United States government, the Bill of Rights, and the system of checks and balances that secures a fair, unbiased way for Americans to live and work. Ideas like Socialism and Communism are passed of as things that look really good on paper, but could never work successfully in today's society. "Human nature won't allow it…people are inherently selfish and lazy." "Look at what happened to the Soviet Union." In Economics class they learn supply and demand laws, price ceilings and wage floors, and the maximization of profit. History is presented in the lamest of fashions, which old white man did what and when he did it. The only exciting stories told are those of the heroic men and women who sacrificed themselves for the American way of life. Eras are broken down by the wars that were fought during them (the only way to make history is to start a war).
The American media has engaged in the most brutal program of psychological warfare ever conceived. The one-sidedness of newspapers, radio, and television broadcasts, disguised in diplomatic subjectivity, reaffirms everything the kids learned in school. Red, white, and blue bumper stickers decorate the bumpers of every minivan and station wagon in the neighborhood. The National Anthem is sung at every sporting event, and the players all have American flags on their jerseys. MTV redefines the American Dream. Every youngster dreams of becoming a professional athlete, a rock star, a movie queen; of making the most money, living in the biggest house, owning the most cars.
Fashion TV and VH1 provide high school students with the model of a hip way to talk, to dress, to live. The odd, the obese, the acne-stricken, the intellectual, the athletically inept, and others are all excluded from conventional social activity. This can be very emotionally damaging, and create within the student a desire to belong. Additionally, there are economic barriers. Kids from the rich end of town, and kids from the poor end. Kids that drive nice cars to school, and kids that ride the bus. Kids whose parents can readily afford to send them to college, and kids who have to work twice as hard, competing for academic scholarships and grants, and applying for loans.
A subconscious disillusion with capitalist society leaves the high school graduate stumped. He has nowhere to direct his anger, his confusion, or his dissatisfaction with life. He is trapped in a culture and a society that seems full of opportunity, yet offers him nothing.
Enter the recruiter. In my experience and observation, a military recruiter will tell a potential client anything he or she wants to hear:
"Military life is incredibly exciting. You could volunteer for Airborne school, to jump out of high performance aircraft. You could even be stationed in Asia or Europe."
"I can offer you a steady paycheck, nice places to live and eat, free medical and dental care, and an unbeatable life insurance policy."
"In addition to the Montgomery GI Bill, a college fund made available to you upon completion of your enlistment, you will also have the opportunity to attend weekend and evening classes while you're still in."
"Assert your womanhood. Prove to yourself and others that you can do everything the boys can."
"Hell, with hard work and demonstrated leadership ability, you could be a sergeant in two years!"
"You'll come out of basic training in really great shape. Chicks dig a man in uniform."
It is the job of the recruiter to identify the shortcomings of each young man and woman, and then offer them the Army's solutions, however ridiculous they may be. They tap into the deepest desires of each victim. There is no mystery as to why so many young people in America join the military. What is remarkable is how so many avoid it.
"PFC Lawrence, what exactly are you objecting to?" Principally, I'm objecting to the act of pointing a gun at another human being and pulling the trigger, maintaining that this would compromise both my moral and political character. My objection is not, in the traditional sense, "religious" in nature.
The Army regulation on conscientious objection more or less makes a "religious" aspect necessary to a legitimate claim. I'm no military legal historian, but I've been told by counsel that a discharge for conscientious objection is almost never granted, and when it is, more often than not, religion is involved, one faith specifically. I won't comment on the absurdity of this, but rather attempt to redefine "religion." Religion is nothing more than an applied set of beliefs. It doesn't necessarily include the belief of a higher power, the promise of an eternal life, or a corrupt bureaucracy, although these things do exist in most contemporary religions. Peace, an applied belief, is very spiritual in nature, and when in fact applied, affects every aspect of the practitioner's life. In this case, my conscientious objection is a very religious matter.
Politically, I object to the use of violence as a method of problem solving. It is primitive, barbaric, and an insult to my intelligence. Several people throughout history, dictators and revolutionaries alike, have cited violence as a natural and effective means to a desired end. I couldn't disagree more.
The idea of violence being natural is absurd. Babies, the most natural of human beings, having not yet been subjected to a harsh and artificial environment, do not fight amongst themselves. The concept of violence is foreign to them. They laugh and play together, naturally. The first animosity occurs when they see another child playing with something they don't have, an economical imbalance. Their impulse is not to harm the other child, but simply to take from the other child what they don't have. Furthermore, anyone, expert or novice, trying to gain insight into human nature by studying society as it exists today may as well be studying caged animals. The most fundamental human instinct is that of survival. But the world's current socio-economic conditions significantly alter the parameters of survival, leaving no trace of human nature to speak of. Most crime, and certainly most violence, is the result of economic imbalance. For a more in-depth argument against violence and further examination into the absence of violence in human nature, I recommend reading Chapter Three of Howard Zinn's "Passionate Declarations."
Violence is arguably very effective in achieving political ends, but I question the "collateral damage" involved. Europeans were indeed successful in the conquering of the Americas, but in the process wiped out an entire race of natives. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki undoubtedly ended the Second World War, and established the United States as formidable world superpower, but in the process killed 140,000 human beings in Hiroshima, and another 70,000 in Nagasaki. Radiation and other effects from the bombs claimed the lives of another 130,000 in the five years that followed.**
The lesser part of my objection lies in the harsh and often inhumane life a soldier is forced to live upon his or her enlistment into service.
The barracks my comrades and I live in on Fort Bragg are despicable. Two soldiers share a twelve by twelve foot room in a building that would have long since been condemned, if not owned by the United States government. The joke in the community bathrooms is that the showers have bugs that scientists have not yet named. There is always a shortage of cleaning supplies, and the overall condition of things makes our living quarters impossible to take pride in. I'm often too embarrassed to invite a civilian friend over to visit. Nevertheless, we are subject to inspections by our superiors, wherein everything must be in an extreme state of cleanliness.
To many a soldier's dismay, he or she will find a harsh class structure in the Army. Most of the non-commissioned officers are married, and are paid extra to live off-post, wherever they like. Commissioned officers receive this pay whether they are married or not. Each of the fore mentioned groups must socialize exclusively. When approaching someone who outranks him, a soldier is required to assume the position of "parade rest," with his hands behind his back in total submission. A great deal of class struggle exists, but to no end. These leaders constitute "the new pig class," as defined by George Jackson,*** a group of people who feel incredibly empowered by the small amount of authority invested in them. What makes these pigs particularly dangerous is their misplaced sense of discipline, their ability to strictly follow and echo orders without giving the matter any consideration, moral or otherwise.
Suggestions for and criticisms of the leadership are seldom, if ever tolerated. Much like civilian capitalist society, soldiers aren't evaluated or awarded for how hard they work, but rather for how well they can play petty games. All of this creates a high-stress environment wherein soldiers become competitive amongst each other, irritable, and unpleasant to be around. Some find the same things they had wished to escape from, but in a more controlled environment.
Soldiers often maintain ties to gangs and continue to participate in gang related activities after enlisting. As a result of this, many soldiers join these gangs only after entering the military. They identify themselves to each other and to rival gang members in discrete ways, to include subliminal tattooing and various boot-lacing patterns. Nazis and other hate group members also find homes within the ranks. A shaved head is an acceptable military haircut, and excessive tattoos are common, so no one asks any questions.
Twelve hour work days, problems with leadership, and bad company lead to various degrees of depression and substance abuse. Military-sponsored establishments sell liquor twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, while off-post businesses stop selling at midnight. It is not uncommon for soldiers to get off work, drink themselves unconscious, and then wake up and do it all over again, all week long. Alcohol isn't all that is abused. I can tell you from personal experience that the typical soldier will be exposed to larger quantities of a large variety of illegal drugs on a military base than they ever were in suburban America.
Another cruel and unusual aspect of military life is the special breed of sexual tension created by lopsided male to female ratios, particularly in combat arms units. Such ratios are unhealthy in any environment, particularly one so swimming in anxiety and testosterone. Rape and other sex crimes are lot more common than any General or Company Commander would rather admit.
It should be understood that my experience in the military is rather limited. The picture I've painted of military life could, and probably does vary in different duty stations and branches of service. Nevertheless, these varying degrees of circumstance can be detrimental to both human health and development. The ranks and files, much like the prison yards, offer no reform of character, but instead breed criminal behavior.
"PFC Lawrence, you entered a legal contract with the United States government. Why should the Army grant your request for discharge?" I could respond to this by citing America's embarrassing legal track record, or its ruthless means-to-ends brand of foreign policy, the least of neither including its Trail of Broken Treaties with the Native American people. I could compare the United States' inability to follow through on a contract to my own. But I'd like to hold myself to higher standards, and completely escape comparison to an organization of lesser principle.
Instead I'll point to the natural an unalienable right of a person to change his or her mind. Consider the concept of born-again Christianity, or any other religious conversion, for that matter. An individual, at a given point in his or her life, comes across a set of beliefs and ideals and is transformed. He or she can no longer live life the way they once did. Consider also divorce. At one point, two people feel intensely connected to each other, so connected, in fact, that they decide to profess their love, spiritually, legally, and economically. But at another point, they realize that the feelings are gone. One or both have experienced fundamental changes and the two simply cannot continue to live together. Gandhi, history's most notable pacifist, was actually an outspoken supporter of the First World War at the time of its inception. When asked about this years later, he explained, "My aim is not to be consistent with my previous statement on a given question, but to be consistent with the truth as it may present itself to me at a given moment…"**** Gandhi was inclined to support violence at one point in his life, but at another point, employed peaceful means to liberate Indians and racial prejudices in both India and South Africa, proving to the world that civil disobedience was just as an effective problem solving tool as violence, only without the mass casualties.
You hear Generals and other politicians call the US military a "volunteer" force. This is partially true. Indeed, enlistment, in most cases, is completely voluntary. However, volunteers aren't paid. Volunteers reserve the right to forfeit their services at any time. Soldiers are paid (meagerly, granted) and I believe that a significant number would quit their jobs today, if afforded the opportunity. In a democratic society, wherein the character of the people is reflected in the laws and institutions of the state, why would soldiers, sailors, and airmen be forced into prolonged legal contracts of service? Hypothetically, if a country's people supported a given war, there would never be a shortage of true volunteers willing to fight it.
Dissidence is the clockwork of any true democracy. In the ideal "volunteer" army of a great democratic nation, conscientious objection claims would be considered very legitimate, and taken very seriously. But in my experience, a burden of proof is placed upon the objector. In an environment that generally tends to bring out the worst in people, leaders must automatically suspect the worst intentions in their troops. I've been more or less accused of seeking a quick and easy way out of service.
One shouldn't underestimate the importance of the conscientious objector, the disillusioned mill worker, or the protesting student in a democratic society. These are better symbols of freedom and justice than the White House or Mount Rushmore could ever be. The bald eagle, a symbol of American truth, justice, and democracy, has become an endangered species.
I'd like to conclude by strongly suggesting non-participation in the upcoming presidential election. It has been said that he who doesn't vote has no right to criticize the elected officials or their policies. I disagree. By casting your vote, you are playing their little game. By choosing the lesser of two evils, you're actually supporting one. Don't channel your political energy, brothers and sisters, into a race that has already been won. An old, rich white man in Washington, from whichever country club/political party he happens to represent, can't possibly have your better interests in mind. The corporate pawn residing at the White House, whomever he may be, has little do to with the way American society works. Things will continue as they always have, until self-reliant individuals from around the country raise their voices together, and say, "Enough."
As Ambassadors of Peace and Democracy, we need to instill the importance of the conscientious objector into the hearts and minds of every American citizen. From a very young age, children should be taught the values of Self-Reliance and Civil Disobedience, as well as the importance of alternate points of view. Instead of drilling them with our own biased ideas, we should equip them with the tools needed to form their own opinions. The individual will one day reign supreme, when the young and elderly alike realize that "any man, doing at any given time what he thinks to be right…constitutes a majority of one already."***** When the child, the parent, the politician, the soldier, the farmer, and the farmhand alike understand this concept, We the People can take democracy to all new heights.
Peace Always,
Bob
References
- "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists." George Bush to congress, immediately following Sept. 11
** Howard Zinn, "Passionate Declarations"
*** "Blood in My Eye"
**** Louis Fischer, "Gandhi, His Life and Message for the World"
***** Henry Thoreau "Civil Disobedience"
robert.lawrence2@us.army.mil
