American Exceptionalism, Military Service, and
Sacrifice in War
By Camillo Mac Bica
July 17, 2015 "Information
Clearing House"
- “We are a special people with a providential
mission . . . a responsibility to the world, (that) has translated
into a sense of empowerment or prerogative to determine the way the
world is supposed to work, what it’s supposed to look like, and
also, over the last twenty years or so, an increasing willingness to
use military force to cause the world to look the way we want it to
look.”
This is the axiom of American Exceptionalism that sadly and
tragically informs much of the thinking, foreign policy, and
“diplomacy” of our political and military leaders. As a consequence
of this mindset, the moral, legal, even practical value of an act or
policy is determined not by whether it conforms to or violates
domestic, International, or moral law, but by the national identity
of the actor or policy maker. When the United States or one of its
surrogates torture, bomb, invade, occupy sovereign nations, or
covertly instigate or support coups to overthrow democratically
elected leaders, these crimes are ignored, denied, or deemed
humanitarian interventions, done with the best of intentions, to
satisfy a providential patriarchal responsibility, and achieve some
greater good. As such, despite violations of law, morality,
convention, and treaty, such actions are deemed acceptable, even
celebrated, as necessary and right. Should non allied nations or sub
national groups, however, employ similar tactics, perhaps to ensure
their religious autonomy, territorial integrity, political
sovereignty, and national security, or should they attempt to
develop a nuclear weapons capability as a deterrent, it is deemed
“terrorism,” indicative of their barbarism, and a threat to the
United States and its allies. In response, our political leaders
bribe, intimidate, and coerce others in the international community
into a coalition of support for sanctions, embargo, bombing, drone
missile assassinations, invasion, occupation, and regime change.
Even as the illegality, immorality, brutality, and futility of the
wars/interventions in such places as Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan,
Pakistan, Somalia, Libya, Yemen and elsewhere, have become apparent,
the cost in lives, treasure, and reputation have been made palatable
to a compliant and vulnerable citizenry made fearful by dire
predictions of catastrophe and cataclysm, imagery of mushroom clouds
over American cities, and by reference to the mythology of American
Exceptionalism.
Sometimes, however, war is a myth breaker. Many veterans who have
experienced the horror and insanity of the battlefield have realized
the deception and treachery prosecuted upon the American people and
the world by our political leaders. Some of the more courageous
among them henceforth referred to as “Veteran Activists,” have
recognized their moral and civic responsibility to speak out
regarding their experiences, the realities of war, and the
hypocrisy, arrogance, and mythology of American Exceptionalism and
the militaristic foreign policy it inspires and sanctions.
The
“Patriot’s “Argument: the Honor of Military Service
Not
everyone, however, views such truth telling, candor, and
forthrightness as admirable or acceptable. Whether from an avid
nationalism, a blind patriotism, or because they take comfort in or
benefit from this mythology, some self-proclaimed “patriots” choose
never to question American Exceptionalism and militarism. Rather,
they celebrate it and demand that others do so as well. As may be
expected, perhaps, they have responded to the Veteran Activists’
public criticism and dissent with intolerance, contempt, and ad
hominem attacks, questioning their patriotism, courage, honor,
strength of character, understanding of and appreciation for the
nature of military service, war, and the realities of the world in
which we live.
While
all would prefer, of course, to peacefully coexist, the “patriot”
reminds us that the world is a violent and dangerous place inhabited
by nations, sub-national groups, and individuals intent upon doing
us harm. To meet this threat, the military is charged with the
difficult and daunting task of maintaining order, furthering our
personal and national interest, and defending the freedom, lives,
and well being of the citizens of our nation and of the world.
Consequently, enlistees into the military, henceforth referred to as
“soldiers,” upon undergoing basic training, are conditioned to
understand and accept some basic realities regarding the nature of
military service. First, waging war inevitably involves the use of
violence, even deadly force. Second, in the performance of their
duties, it may be necessary to injure, even kill, other human beings
deemed the enemy. Third, war is such that they, their comrades, and
on occasion, innocent civilians, may be injured or killed, the
latter accidentally and unintentionally – collateral damage. This is
the “patriot’s” view of the world and of military service, and
soldiers should not be surprised by what they are asked to do, nor
feel guilt, shame, or remorse for their actions – suffer moral
injury.
While
the “patriot” may regard Veteran Activists as misguided,
unpatriotic, even treasonous, he is not insensitive to the effects
of war. He recognizes that despite the intense and sophisticated
operant conditioning techniques utilized during basic training, not
all soldiers adjust equally well to the intensity of the war
environment and, in his view, due to personal weakness or
inadequacy, some may be troubled by the experience. As a
consequence, they may suffer “internal conflict,” become
disenchanted with military service and the war, entertain doubts
regarding its legality and morality, believe they had been lied to
regarding its purpose and necessity, and become skeptical that their
sacrifices benefit only the few, primarily the wealthy war
profiteers. While the “patriot” may sympathize with the plight of
these “troubled” individuals and encourage them to seek medical and
psychological services offered by the Veterans Administration, he is
adamant that they remain silent and respectful and avoid criticizing
the war effort and denigrating their comrades who continue to serve
and sacrifice with honor, dedication, nobility, and pride. In most
cases, the “patriot” alleges support not only for members of the
military but for American Exceptionalism and the war itself. One
notable exception is Andrew Bacevich.
Andrew Bacevich: The Value of Military Service
Andrew
Bacevich is a West Point Graduate, a retired U.S. Army Colonel,
veteran of the Vietnam War, and a Professor of History and
International Relations at Boston University. He is also an
articulate and outspoken critic of American Exceptionalism, military
adventurism, and what he terms the “sacred trinity” of the
operational military precepts of global military presence, global
power projection, and global interventionism.
In a
recent interview,
respected journalist and PBS talk show host Bill Moyers asked
Professor Bacevich, given his criticism of this “new American
militarism,” whether the lives and well being of American servicemen
and women were being squandered in the Global War Against Terrorism
and whether their service and sacrifices in places like Iraq and
Afghanistan had value or merit. In response, though not specifically
addressing the issue of veteran protest and dissent or choosing to
attack the integrity of Veteran Activists, Professor Bacevich does
disappointingly, given his clarity of vision, mental acuity, and
courage in speaking truth to power, offer a rather nuanced, though
equally misleading and problematic version of the “patriot’s”
argument. “Soldier’s are sent to serve,” he tells us, and in this
service they sometimes pay the ultimate price, they “die for their
Country.” Like the “patriot,” Professor Bacevich makes the point
that “Soldiers don’t get to choose the war they fight” and concludes
“The value of the sacrifice is inherent in the act of sacrifice
itself and independent of questions about the merit of the policies
that sent the soldier into harm’s way in the first place.”
Interestingly, however, his perspective on military service does not
influence his analysis of American Exceptionalism and foreign policy
– oppose the war, support the warrior.
Unpacking the “Patriot”/Bacevich Argument
Foundational to the arguments offered by both the “patriot” and
Professor Bacevich are the following premises (though they are
implied rather than explicitly stated):
-
The
soldiers’ job is to fight, kill, and possibly to die for their
country.
-
Soldiers are warriors not diplomats, politicians, lawyers, or
moralists.
-
Soldiers are not in a position to, nor is it their
responsibility to make legal and moral judgments or
determinations of necessity regarding the war.
From
these premises they draw their conclusions:
-
While soldiers may bear responsibility for their actions IN war,
they are morally and legally guiltless for the war itself. "We
know enough if we know we are the king's men. Our obedience to
the king wipes the crime of it out of us."
-
Consequently, the honor, merit, and nobility of the soldiers and
the value of their service and sacrifice depends not upon the
legality, morality, or necessity of the war – the “merit of the
policies that sent the soldier into harm’s way in the first
place” – but is contingent upon their willingness to selflessly
serve their Country, to follow orders, to do their job
proficiently – to kill and destroy – without question or
complaint.
This
assessment of the legal and moral status of the soldier, his lack of
personal responsibility for the crime of war, though perhaps poetic,
is rather outdated, naïve, and misguided. This misconception may
reflect the understanding that many, perhaps a majority, of young
men and women who join the military are uninformed about the true
cause of the war they are being made to fight, perhaps even deceived
into believing it to be necessary and just. Or, that many recruits
may be coerced, physically or economically, into military service.
That is, in many cases, they are the “most marginalized people (who)
see the military as their only route out of poverty.”
This argument is perhaps most attractive to veterans and to family
members of those killed in battle as embracing the mythology of
heroism, nobility, and honor may appear to some an asset to healing
as living with the effects of war or the loss of a child is
difficult enough when there is value and purpose in the
service/sacrifice/loss, intolerable if the war was misguided,
unnecessary, and criminal.
Why
this Argument is Flawed
The
tenets of the “patriot”/Bacevich argument may seem plausible to
some, perhaps even attractive, when considering the behavior of
one’s own nation and military. The flaw in the reasoning becomes
apparent, however, when applied to those with whom we have less of
an attachment, for example to the actions of the Nazis who
exterminated millions of human beings during World War Two or to the
the members of al Qaeda who prosecuted the heinous and tragic
attacks of September 11th.
It is
reasonable to assume, I think, that the Nazis believed themselves to
be honorably serving their Homeland and following orders, and the
9/11 attackers believed themselves to be the holy warriors of Islam,
Jihadists; that both believed their cause to be just, and their
actions a perhaps unfortunate, though necessary and legitimate act
of war. Consequently, at least from their perspectives and from the
perspectives of others of their ilk, they acted with good
intentions.
These
Nazis and jihadists were trained, motivated, and conditioned to
fight and then “sent to serve in a war not of their choosing.” In
this service many perished, “paid the ultimate price,” unselfishly
sacrificing their lives for their nation, religion, values, and
community, demonstrating a “strength of character” that enabled them
to face danger, fear, and death with courage, steadfastness,
perseverance, and resolve.
Yet,
despite this seemingly positive assessment and their having
satisfied the criteria established by the “patriot”/Bacevich
argument, the actions of the Nazis and those of the September 11th
hijackers were unjust and immoral. They were war criminals and
terrorists, not heroes. Despite their good intentions or their
willingness to sacrifice themselves for others and for a cause in
which they believed, their behavior and sacrifices were not
honorable, courageous, or noble. Nor were they worthy of
approbation.
The
Requirement for Consistency in Application
My
purpose thus far has been to refute the “patriot”/Bacevich argument
regarding the responsibility and culpability – the legal and moral
value of the service and sacrifice – of those who prosecute a war or
the use of violence that is illegal and immoral.
If law
and morality is to have any legitimacy, however, it must apply to
all individuals and nations equally and fairly. To think oneself or
one’s nation exempt or above the law, is hypocrisy and the arrogance
that underlies American Exceptionalism. It is to exploit law and
morality as a weapon of war relevant only if it serves our nation’s
advantage, but to be abandoned, ignored, or manipulated should its
dictates prove inconvenient to a perceived national interest or to
the accomplishment of some goal or purpose deemed militarily
necessary.
For all
intents and purposes, there is no relevant legal and moral
difference between wars of choice – aggression – prosecuted by a
nation believing itself providentially empowered and above the law –
the arrogance of American Exceptionalism – and the war crimes and
terrorism prosecuted by the Nazis and sub-national groups such as
Al-Qaeda and ISIS believing themselves to be defenders of their
nation and religion. In each endeavor, innocent human beings are
injured and killed unjustifiably, individuals who have done nothing
to warrant such liability, i.e., the forfeiture of their rights and
immunity under the law.
Now for
the difficult part, the part that requires honesty, courage,
integrity, character, and a sincere commitment to law and morality.
For those, like Professor Bacevich and myself, who have rejected
American Exceptionalism and have realized the illegality and
immorality of American adventurism (aggression), though it may
certainly pain us to do so, it makes perfect legal and moral sense
to recognize that members of the American military are, like the
Nazis and Terrorists, acting illegally and immorally at least in
regard to the Vietnam War and the Global War Against Terror. In
fact, law and morality demand it.
That
the victims of the aggression/terrorism may respond utilizing
violence/deadly force does not, by the way, render subsequent
violence by the Aggressors/Terrorists a justifiable act of
self-defense. As long as their victims respond in accordance with
law and morality, they are not terrorists or insurgents but
legitimate combatants and freedom fighters and, as such, do not
forfeit the very rights they are justified in defending/asserting.
Understanding the Relevancy of Law
and Morality to the Honor and Value
Of Military Service and Sacrifice
in War
Upon
entering the military, a recruit signs a contract and takes an oath
to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Despite being subject to rather sophisticated psychological,
emotional, and ethical conditioning techniques during basic training
intended to prepare soldiers for battle and to overcome what General
S.L.A. Marshall
identified as a natural aversion to kill (soldiers are not born
killers, young men and women have to be trained and conditioned to
kill), the military, at least theoretically, does not want robots,
programmed automata that respond unquestioningly to superior orders.
Since wars and actions within a war can be just or unjust, moral or
immoral, soldiers must maintain an ability to make judgments of
legal and moral value. That is, soldiers remain legally and morally
responsible for their actions. In choosing military service, the
soldier forfeits neither his personhood – his inalienable human
rights and intrinsic value as a person – nor his autonomy and moral
agency – the obligation to conduct himself in accordance with
domestic, International, and moral law. Soldiers are neither “cannon
fodder” nor are they above the law.
"The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of
his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from
responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was
in fact possible to him."
At
least since the Nuremberg Military Tribunals (NMT), soldiers are not
required to obey all orders. US chief prosecutor Robert K. Jackson
at the NMT declared in 1948:
"[T]he very essence of the [Nuremberg] Charter is
that individuals have intentional duties which transcend the
national obligations of obedience imposed by the individual state."
In
addition, the
United States Uniform Code of Military Justice
(UCMJ) 809.ART.90 (20) makes clear that a soldier is required only
to obey the "lawful command of his superior officer." Consequently,
military personnel should, in fact they are required under threat of
legal sanction, to disobey a command or order they believe to be
unlawful.
“If a superior insists that his illegal order be
obeyed, however, the soldier has an affirmative legal obligation to
disobey the order and report the incident to the next superior
commander, military police, CID, nearest judge advocate, or local
inspector general.”
Further, the President of the United States, the Commander–in-chief
of the armed forces; members of Congress whose responsibility it is
under the Constitution to declare war; and the military leadership
who oversee the actions and disposition of the armed forces, are
obligated to respect the personhood, human rights, and autonomy of
the soldiers and to utilize the military intelligently, responsibly,
and in accordance with domestic, International, and moral law. That
is, soldiers’ lives and wellbeing have value and must not be
squandered, nor placed in jeopardy in pursuit of trivial, futile, or
unlawful ends. Consequently, and this is critical, soldiers have a
legal, moral, and contractually based expectation (a right) that the
wars they are asked to fight are just and necessary.
Conclusion
Nations
do not exist in a state of nature. All nations, including the United
States and its allies, are subject to the dictates of morality,
International Law, Treaties, and Conventions, which provide the
parameters for human and international relations and for resolving
conflicts and differences when diplomatic means have been exhausted.
"The law of war is of fundamental importance to
the Armed Forces of the United States. . . The law of war is part of
who we are . . . a part of our military heritage, and obeying it is
the right thing to do.”
The
moral and legal value of an act or policy is determined, then, not
by the national identity of the actor or the policy maker but by
whether it adheres to or violates these guidelines for the legal and
moral behavior of individuals and nations. Consequently, American
Exceptionalism is misguided and betrays an arrogance and hypocrisy
that increases rather than lessens hatred for the United States and
the threat of terrorist attack.
Further, it is not the case that “obedience to the king” wipes away
the crimes of soldiers. Contra Bacevich, soldiers DO get to choose
the wars they fight and how they fight it. Under International,
domestic, and U.S. Military Law, soldiers remain personally
responsible for their actions and decisions and as such obligated to
make critical legal and moral judgments, many times under very
stressful and coercive conditions, regarding whether to obey or
disobey an order to participate in a particular action or war.
Consequently, contra Bacevich, the value of the sacrifice is not
inherent in the act of sacrifice itself nor is it independent of
questions about the legality and morality of the policies that sent
the soldier into harm’s way in the first place. Nor is the value of
the sacrifice contingent only upon the soldier’s motivation, his
dedication to the cause, to each other, to his willingness to follow
orders without question, or to his proficiency to kill and to
destroy. Rather, as was evident in the case of the Nazis and the
9/11 Jihadists, the virtue, honor, merit, and value of a soldier’s
service and sacrifice, depends in large measure upon the legality
and morality of the endeavor in which he is engaged. Consequently,
Professor Bacevich’s response to Bill Moyers regarding the value of
sacrifice and the “patriot’s” criticism of the Veteran Activists
misunderstands and/or misrepresents the relevancy of law and
morality to the nature and the responsibilities of military service.
As the “patriots” have long argued, to support the soldier in her
capacity as a warrior, to express gratitude and appreciation for her
efforts and sacrifices, and to extoll her “heroism” while condemning
and opposing the war in which she fights is illogical and makes no
legal and moral sense.
While
it is the case that members of the military merit no accolades or
gratitude for their actions and sacrifices in immoral and illegal
war, their personal responsibility and culpability for the crime of
war must be mitigated by the fact that most young men and women who
enlist are lied to and deceived into believing that war is
justifiable, unavoidable, and necessary to preserve American values
and freedom. Consequently, the brunt of the responsibility and hence
culpability for the crime of war must be borne by the liars and
deceivers and those who benefit from illegal and immoral war – our
political, military, and corporate leaders. Also to be held to
account is the mainstream media that blindly supports the war rather
than investigates and questions it. Responsibility and culpability
must borne as well by the American citizenry, who remains untouched
by war and apathetic, and does little or nothing to stop it. In a
democracy, government by and for the people, in whose names wars are
fought, there is blood on all of our hands.
Establishing clarity with regard to American Exceptionalism and
military service in illegal and immoral war, though distasteful to
some, is critical as governments have become quite proficient at
utilizing the mythology to portray war as noble and service and
sacrifice as heroic in order to entice future well intentioned young
men and women to become killers, cannon fodder, and the tools of
imperialism and empire.
Finally, the “patriot’s” unquestioned support for American
Exceptionalism and for the aggression and murder it inspires is
cowardice, unpatriotic, and integral to the question they themselves
pose so often but seldom answer, "Why do they hate us?" In these
times of perpetual war, patriotism demands activism, both by
veterans and nonveterans alike. The true patriot, therefore, does
not blindly follow and obey. Rather, she becomes informed, remains
skeptical, questions the actions of her leaders and, when
appropriate, speaks out, dissents, and refuses to obey unlawful
orders. The true patriot struggles tirelessly and courageously to
bring attention to violations of International and moral law, the
defilement of the Constitution, and the abandonment of the values we
hold sacred. The true patriot strives to educate about the reality
of war, the hypocrisy of American Exceptionalism, and the moral and
legal unacceptability of the militarism it inspires. And finally,
the true patriot labors to restore America's integrity and moral
standing in the world by holding to account those political,
military, and corporate leaders who have violated the public trust
by acting not in accordance with law and morality or in America's
interest, but in behalf of wealth, power, and empire.
Dr.
Camillo Mac Bica is an author, activist, and teaches Philosophy at
the School of Visual Arts in New York City. His focus is in Social
and Political Philosophy and Ethics particularly as it applies to
war. Mac is a long time activist for peace and social justice and
coordinator of Veterans For Peace Long Island.
http://www.svaphilosopher.com/
Notes
