"War In Any Form"
The other day I was in a discussion that turned to the Iraq war. We
were all against it, of course, so the question of pacifism, the draft,
and conscientious objection came up.
The problem that people have with
pacifism (understood as objection to "war in any form") is
that most people feel that war is at least sometimes justified.
They are wary of categorical judgments, and the Selective Service Act
fuels this perception: to be a conscientious objector, you must be
against "war in any form," not just this war or that war.
Mennonite conscientious objector John T. Neufeld,
an objector to World War I who was sent to prison.
One young woman (the only person there under 40) said that, if they
drafted women, she couldnít be a conscientious objector because to be
a conscientious objector you would have to be against all war, not just
the current one. "What if there was a war in Darfur? We probably
should have gotten involved in a war in Rwanda to stop the
I understand the dilemma. "War in any form" means that you
cannot pick and choose among wars. A draft doesnít seem to be in the
cards right now, but you never know what the coming years might hold. It
seems odd that if our government participates in 40 wicked wars, but
does one thing right -- or in the extreme case, might do
one thing right -- that this can be held as a reason to support the
other 40, since we canít object to all 41. This seems like a
rhetorical trick of some sort.
When the U. S. goes to war, it is usually in the wrong these days. It
shouldnít be too surprising, given the domination of the government
and public discourse by militarists and large corporations. The
government acts as if you have to wrestle with your conscience in order not
to torture and kill civilians in an aggressive, immoral, and meaningless
war in Iraq. But if you want to help perpetrate these atrocities, well
then, thatís no problem. It seems reckless in the extreme for a
government to insist, with pompous morality, on the need to have well
thought-out reasons not to kill, as if this were the product of
some sort of mental disorder, but need exert no thought at all in order
to support aggressive war like the invasion of Iraq. Aggressive war is a
war crime, an act for which we executed German leaders following the
Second World War.
Ehren Watada called the Iraq war illegal and refused an order to go
People had different ways of dealing with this during the Vietnam
War, the last war in which we had to worry about the draft. Some people,
challenged to continue this stilted dialogue about war with the
government, did come up with well thought-out reasons not to participate
in senseless violence, and to fit this in the context of the
then-current Selective Service laws. Some were members of the peace
churches like Mennonites and Quakers, and rejected participation in
every conflict in which the U. S. participated. Others said that it
referred to likely future wars, not past wars or hypothetical wars, thus
dodging such questions as "what if the Russians invaded your home
town?" Others just gave up trying to explain it all, filled out the
questionnaire as best they could, and sent it in.
These are all valid approaches. My approach to this, which I will
throw out to anyone whoís interested, is a bit different, and Iíd
like to make two miscellaneous points in this regard.
1. The requirement for a sincere blanket declaration against all war
cuts both ways and in effect allows at least some selective objection.
This approach may seem slightly legalistic, but basically the
government has taken the initiative by creating the dichotomy between
supporting all wars or supporting none. The government has presented us
with a moral dilemma: we can agree to fight in any war that might come
up, or we can object to them all.
Letís suppose that there is a draft -- perhaps that we have a
draft-eligible male living in the Vietnam War era. Letís suppose
further that initially, he thinks of himself as a selective objector. He
goes down the list of wars in which the U. S. fought and comes up with
something like this. Heíd fight in World War II if he had been a young
person at the time. On the other hand, given the choice, he would not
have fought in the war of 1812 (which was really about slavery), the war
with Mexico, the
Philippine Insurrection, World War I, Vietnam (or, with foresight, the
Gulf War or the Iraq War). Being from the south and being against
slavery, he would not have fought in the American Civil War either,
since the draft at that time would have forced him to fight for slavery
if in the South, and against his fellow citizens if he fought for the
North. He isnít sure about the American Revolution, which seems to
have elements of a civil war. What should he do?
The current selective service law creates in effect a choice between
two universal rules, not just one. One says that you object to all war,
the other that you would fight in any war. Which rule is best?
The record of the U. S. in respect of wars is not particularly good.
Even without any knowledge of current politics, we can say that the most
likely war the U. S. would enter would either be a fratricidal bloodbath
like the Civil War or an imperialistic adventure like Vietnam, the
Philippines, Mexico, or Iraq. Itís also possible, just possible, that
if events conspire in just the right way that the U. S. would be
fighting someone like the Nasty Nazis, but thatís a long shot. That
the U. S. might intervene militarily in order to bring needed
famine-relief supplies to a nation is, so far, entirely hypothetical.
It seems that the rule opposing war is the best. Since the government
does not allow the middle path, you may miss a few battles you should
have been in, but overall there is a net moral benefit, and therefore
you can truthfully and sincerely say that for moral reasons you are
objecting to all war.
2. The ideology of the present invariably looks very much different
from the same ideology in retrospect.
It is absolutely astounding how little the nation learned from the
Vietnam War. The nation never really came to terms with this war. It was
put out of mind because discussing it was thought to be too divisive.
Reagan thought that the war was a "noble cause."
Excuse me? Hundreds of thousands of innocents dead in a blatantly
immoral intervention which failed every test of a "just war,"
apparently left no impression on the many politicians and members of the
general public, who preferred to grasp at a comforting illusion rather
than acknowledge a deadly reality. A country that cannot figure this out
is condemned to repeat the history that it has not learned -- as we now
see in Iraq.
The motive behind both the Gulf Wars and the Iraq War has been
described at different times as "freedom." Because the Gulf
War ended so quickly, and just restored the status quo ante, public
debate never had time to evolve to realize that the real issue was oil.
In the Iraq War, first "weapons of mass destruction" and then
"freedom" were thrown out as excuses for a war of aggression
whose objective was securing oil supplies.
Even World War II looks different now than it did 50 years ago, and
will probably look even more different in 50 more years, perhaps just as
a period of madness similar to the American Civil War. It was
precipitated in the Pacific when the U. S. instituted an oil embargo on
Japan, provoking the attack on Pearl Harbor. In Europe, the punitive and
unjust treaty of Versailles left Germany open for a dictator like
Hitler. We wound up backing one genocidal dictator (Stalin) against another
genocidal dictator (Hitler), and even in the aftermath some Americans
whether we backed the wrong genocidal dictator, and it remains murky and
unclear whether backing either, or neither, would have been better in
the long run.
Canadian conscientious objectors work on a road in
Alberta in 1941
We need to look objectively at the basic nature of the United States
in 2008. It is a rich and powerful country which is consuming scarce
fossil fuel resources at a prodigious rate. U. S. military expenditures
are greater than that of the rest of the world combined. Why all
this military might? Itís to defend our position of power and our
"way of life": Americans consume 5 times the fossil resources
per capita than the rest of the world (which is still unsustainable
itself!). This "way of life" with its consumption of resources
is wrong to begin with; it contributes to global warming, depletes crude
oil which is already about half gone, and promotes growing global
inequality both within and between nations. If one says abstractly that
violence is sometimes justified, it is really a stretch to imply that it
must be justified to use violence to defend this unnatural and
corrupt order. The real question is whether to use violence to oppose
It is almost impossible for an ordinary citizen to evaluate the
merits of going to war in a time of crisis, even in a relatively stable
democracy like the United States. Governments come, and governments go.
Even dictatorships such as the former Soviet Union, which at one point
had Stalin contributing to the deaths of millions, can over time
moderate or dissolve themselves nonviolently. The safest rule, the one
likely to bring the most moral benefit, is always to resist by
March 2, 2008