I’m less convinced about some of your remarks about heroism, soldiers, the military and the draft.

I would be surprised that if you found many soldiers who considered themselves heroes even though in the 14th century the term was meant to depict a warrior, protector or defender. Many of them might suggest that some of the people that they have served with were heroes: someone who in a dangerous and under adversity exercised courage and self-sacrifice for the good of others. Frequently, when civilians describe people in the military as heroes, it is insincere and without conviction. The statements are rarely connected with meaningful actions. We really don’t take care of veterans very well, especially those with PTSD. Calling people in the military heroes may be in a vestige of guilt left over from the Vietnam War era when symbolically and occasionally materially members of the military felt “spat” upon.

Jerry Lembcke’s book, The Spitting Image, in my view is an interesting cultural study. While it may not have been common for Vietnam veterans to have been spat upon materially (some veterans insist they know of instances when it did occur), it did happen symbolically. It wasn’t unusual for many veterans to feel that they weren’t welcome when they returned home. It took almost a decade after the war was over for attitudes to change. The Vietnam Veterans Memorial helped ease these feelings.

The Vietnam War had been referred to as “the working-class war,” a term which was used in the title of a book by Christian G. Appy. The Vietnam War did have aspects of being a “working class” war. There are more members of the working/middle classes than there are members of the lower and upper classes. Many volunteers from all social classes and minority groups served in the military/combat for a variety of reasons, including members of all social classes and minority groups. Some of the reasons include: patriotism; tradition, and personal advancement.

Some people did game the draft system in order to avoid military service during the Vietnam War; however, deferments were finite, and later the lottery system introduced other issues. Others hid out in plain sight in the National Guard which at the time was seen as a safe haven. Universal military service may be more equitable, but it is impractical. Once more, it comes down to institutions and agency; policy making and personal decisions. Personally, I don’t think that a major country can exist without a military. How it is used is a much more complex issue.

All people in the military are expected to be bound by the laws of war and military ethics that have evolved over centuries. While some might not like these standards, they are real and meaningful. Those in the military are told that they are not to follow unlawful orders. This puts a huge burden on them. They are also told to obey all lawful orders, or suffer the consequences. This is the only way the military can function in my opinion. If there is a problem with the use of the military, then as Pogo noted, “We have met the enemy and he is us.”

If I recall correctly, unlike the Iraq War, during the run-up to the Afghanistan War, resistance was present but muted. (This could have possibly been due to the emotionally charged atmosphere of the US in the wake of 911). However, the Iraq War was another case. There was significant opposition to it, yet this resistance failed to stop the invasion. My personal viewpoint is that nothing less than a massive, yet non-violent, disruption of the government’s ability to wage such a war would have been needed. For example, I am talking about action such as indefinitely blocking entrance to the Congressional building in Washington DC to prevent legislation funding the war from being passed. This is certainly just my opinion, but given that peaceful demonstrations were ineffective, a much more radical approach seems to be necessary. Such a disruption would significant sacrifices on the part of the protesters. (We can readily imagine what these would be.)

One could imagine other forms of action that might be more effective, or argue that the electoral process is more appropriate. My point is though that what is necessary is commitment on a grand scale. This may indeed involve a disruption of our own everyday lives to ensure that business as usual comes to a halt, lest we be marked as “timid and craven.” Indeed, some observers in Europe consider Americans to be, and I quote, “brainwashed sheep.” This is certainly not at all the case, but it is fair to ask, if the supposedly best efforts of anti-war Americans have failed, and more effective (non-violent) tactics are available, does this mean we have blood on our hands?