One of our rhetorical tics, so common and so universal as to be unremarkable, is the shared assertion by liberals and conservatives alike that our soldiers are our heroes. We may disagree about foreign policy, but soldiers are the bravest and the greatest. That mainstream politicians should make this claim – Obama and Bush, McCain and Kerry – should provoke little surprise, but it flourishes as a trope among the anti-war left as well. Political strategies reverberate through time as we refight our last discursive war.
In the heated years of the War in Vietnam there was a palpable anger by opponents of that war that was directed against members of the military who bombed the killing fields of Cambodia, Hanoi, and Hue. While accounts of soldiers being spat upon were more apocryphal than real, used by pro-war forces to attack their opponents. According to sociologist Jerry Lembcke in his book The Spitting Image the story was an urban legend, but it is true that many who opposed the war considered soldiers to be oppressors, or in the extreme, murderers. This was a symbolic battle in which the anti-war forces were routed, and such language was used to delegitimize principled opposition to the war and to separate the young college marchers from the working class soldiers who were doing the bidding of presidents and generals. In the time of a national draft, college students were excused from service, making the class divide evident. (For the record, I admit to cowardice, fearing snipers, fragging, and reveille. I was a chicken dove).
After the war, war critics learned a lesson. No longer would the men with guns be held responsible for the bullets. All blame was to be placed upon government and none on the soldiers, even though the draft had been abolished, and the military became all-volunteer (and the working class and minority population continued to increase in the ranks).
By the time that American adventures in the Gulf and in Afghanistan became part of our political taken-for-granted, so did the rhetoric of soldier-as-hero. Perhaps these rhetorical choices were strategic, but they also served to give our military a moral pass.
When Barack Obama was a candidate he assured voters that he would conclude this national nightmare. Yes, politics involves bluster and blarney, but bringing the troops home in an orderly process seemed a firm commitment, a project for his first term. I trusted that this hope and change was not merely a discursive sop to those who found long-term and bloody American intervention intolerable. Here was a war that seemed hopeless in year one and now in year eleven it seems no more hopeful. To be sure it is a low-grade debacle, but a debacle none-the-less. If, as some have suggested, we invaded Afghanistan to put the fear of God into the hearts of Pakistanis, the strategy has been charmingly ineffective. It seems abundantly clear that our choice is to determine when we will declare the war lost, and when Americans and Afghans will no longer die at each others hands.
Wars cannot be conducted without the connivance of soldiers. Soldiers are the pawns that permit State policy. I recognize that in parlous economic times there are many strategic reasons for desiring the benefits of a military life. And spittle is not political philosophy. But choice is always tethered to responsibility. Members of the military are accepting and even benefiting from a misguided and destructive policy. The nation of Afghanistan deserves self-determination free from our boots on the ground. And the absence of complaint among the all-volunteer military underlines the complicity of our soldiers.
So I do reject the choices of the members of the military whose presence and obedience makes possible the fantasias of foreign policy strategists. They have moral responsibility for their decisions. But the responsibility is not theirs alone, but ours. That we have been unable, unwilling, or unconcerned to stop an unending war against a nation that did not attack us is a mark of shame. It reveals the American public as timid and craven.
Are soldiers responsible for their actions? Surely. Should soldiers be hated? Not until the rest of us are willing to hold a mirror to our own acquiescence in a system that reveals in our political priorities that War and Peace matters far less than Standard and Poors.
Quite an insightful piece. I agree that responsibility for the “debacle” of the Afghanistan War should be shared by the all Americans, not just soldiers, and should include those that oppose the war in principle, but still acquiesce to a system that supports the military/industrial (and congressional) complex.
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?
Your comments reminded me of a few things including a 1971/1972 saying attributed to Walt Kelly’s comic character, Pogo, “We have met the enemy and he is us.” Kelly says that this was part of attempt to show that everyone is involved in the democratic process through action and inaction. If your point is that we are responsible for our policies, then I think that you are right.
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.”