I don’t have much time for a post, but this has been on my mind.
About two weeks ago, I had a very polite argument with a fellow All Saints youth leader. One of our boys, a splendid young man nearing graduation from high school, is considering enlisting in the Army. “George” is attracted to the idea of service, he doesn’t feel ready for college, and he likes the financial benefits.
My fellow youth leader came to me and said “Hugo, you’ve got to talk George out of this.” (I have a great relationship with George, probably closer than the other youth pastors do.) I told my colleague that I would talk with George and explore his reasons for considering the military, but I had no intention of automatically discouraging him from Army service.
My classes at Pasadena City College are filled with young men and women who are veterans. I have several students this semester who’ve done time in Iraq. In conversations with a few of them, I know that they hold a widely divergent set of views about American policy over there. But virtually all — Army or Marines, as I rarely get Navy or Air Force vets — view their service as a positive. And while I have no hard evidence to support this theory, I note that my ex-service members (including many who are still in the reserves) have far better work and study habits than their peers of the same age. They aren’t necessarily any brighter, but my goodness, they have considerably more focus and initiative.
I still remain committed to the essential tenets of Christian pacifism. I am not a naturally peaceful person, mind you; my instinctive response to many of the worlds’ grossest injustices is to suggest a swift and violent solution. My heart and my soul are convinced that we are called as individuals and as citizens to “turn the other cheek”; I believe theologically that Jesus’ call to nonviolence is binding on Christians in both their private lives and in their public service. But my head tells me that sometimes violence, while never redemptive, can protect the vulnerable. As someone who teaches the young, and who longs to be a father, that protectiveness butts up against my pacifism more and more these days.
Despite my pacifism, I don’t have a knee-jerk disposition against military service. I’ve only had the chance to have one conversation with George, and I look forward to more. But I am eager to find out more about his reasons for wanting to join the Army, just as I am eager to know why one of his good friends considers UC Riverside a better fit than, say, UC Davis. I am committed to the basic notion that “my kids” are unique individuals with different paths to follow. And though I worship and volunteer in a community that is often reflexiviely anti-military, I am convinced that for some young men and women, the Army may well be the best possible option.
In April 2005, I posted this brief piece about teaching sex ed at All Saints. I took a lot of heat in the comments section, especially from many of my fellow evangelicals, for my reply to one question that the kids asked. One child asked “What do you think about us having sex at our age?” And I answered:
You guys, when I look at you, it isn’t possible for me to see you as a group of generic teenagers. When I look at this room, I don’t just see fifteen, sixteen, and seventeen year-olds. I see people whose individual stories I know. Some of you I’ve known just a little while. Some of you I’ve known since you were bratty little sixth-graders five or six years ago. When I look at you (pointing around the room), I see (names changed) Michael, not a sophomore boy. I see Marie, not a senior girl; I see Janae and Brent and Alexa and Rick, not just four random kids sitting on a couch. And though you are all alike in so many countless ways, you’re also fundamentally different people with different needs and different histories. Honestly, the more I work with you, the less I feel comfortable handing out a one-size-fits-all moral agenda with any confidence. In truth, while I think in general it is better to wait before taking on the enormous responsibilities and consequences of sex, I know full well that some of you are simply “readier” than others. I’m not going to name names, of course! But I can’t help but see you as individuals with different desires and different levels of maturity, faith, and emotional preparedness.
Many of my more liberal commenters applauded that sentiment; the conservatives considered it hopelessly wishy-washy.
But my feelings about college versus military service are more or less exactly the same! Just as I am convinced that some kids in high school are more emotionally and spiritually prepared for healthy sexual activity than others, I am equally convinced that not all are called to go directly to a four-year college. For any number of reasons, I think that a stint in the Army might be the absolute best thing for a young man or woman hungry for a very particular kind of public service, hungry to have the fast-forward button pushed on their transition into full adulthood. I’ve seen too many disaffected, directionless young men (and one or two young women) sign up for military service and come back transformed — deeper, more confident, more capable, and to my own very great surprise, more compassionate and committed to others. It’s not for everyone, but it may well be the right choice for a few. And my desire to see my kids grow and transform as individuals is greater than my own pacifist politics; my longing to see them “find themselves” trumps my own very grave misgivings about American military policy.
George hasn’t signed up yet. I hope we’ll have a chance to talk again before he does. But when we do, my thoughts will be first and foremost on what is truly good for George. Yes, I worry about him being sent to Iraq; I worry about his safety. But he’s leaving childhood behind. His parents and youth leaders must accept that part of his growth narrative will be the acceptance of great, even lethal risk. I can pray that God watches over him, as I pray for all the All Saints kids. But I won’t pray that God redirects his heart towards, say, the community college after high school. I don’t get to write the scripts my kids follow. I just get to love them through whatever they choose, and I get to give a little advice and a lot of encouragement.
I think that’s exactly right; military service is a good option for some people, and not a good option for others, and all that I can reasonably ask is that people who are considering it take the time to ask themselves if it’s right for them.
Loving people entails wanting to support them in making the best choice *for them*, not in constraining their options to fit my preconceived notions of what would be good for me in their shoes.
I absolutely, fundamentally agree with the general gist of this post, and I’d endorse it without reservation in the year 2000, and I hope and expect I’ll endorse it without reservation in the year 2010. That said, given the particulars of our current military situation, there is far too great a likelihood any new soldier will be sent unprepared to fight in an illegal, immoral, and profoundly pointless war. I’d strongly encourage anyone I care about to put themselves in that situation.
We spoke briefly last week. I have used our exchange to help prove a point I am making over at a blog help run.
Nothing personal, but I think its only dare that I inform you.
http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/
fare that I inform you
(I’m NOY double dog “daring” anyone :)
I admit that I’m pretty surprised by this post. I guess my own assumptions about your politics given your commitment to minimizing suffering through veganism (one example I could think of off the top of my head, I’m sure there are others), as well as your oppositon to abortion on the basis of respect for human life (a position I disagree with, for the record). My surprise comes from my own deep opposition to militarism, and my belief violence is a continuum - that interpersonal violence and interstate violence are linked, and are part of the a zero-sum system of thinking and being in the world. For me, this connection is best illustrated by the abuses of Abu Gharib, by the women soldiers who are coming forward with their stories fo abuse as the hands of male soldiers, by the high rates of domestic violence in military families. These problems are not limited to the American military - they seem to happen in all organizations that depend on these strict hierarchieis: militaries, police forces, prisons. And of course they are gendered - Iraqi men tortured through feminizing sexual violence, prison rape, etc.
My opposition to militarism also comes from my own experiences living (albeit briefly ) in a highly militarized society - Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories this past summer during the war with Hezbollah. Living in a society where guns are always present, having to pass through multiple security checkpoints to get to class, passing through a military checkpoint in the West Bank and witnessing the routinized dehumanization of Palestinian people - it’s really soul destroying.
It can’t just be about this kid making some money, getting some skills, learning discipline - what if he does get sent to Iraq? What about the things he may have to do while he’s there? I’m not even talking about torture or rape, I’m talking about searching people’s houses - I’m sure we’ve all seen the videos of terrified Iraqi families dealing with soldiers who have busted into their homes as 2 am.
I guess what I wonder is this - what is the militarized ideal of masculinity, or even humanity, and is that okay? I think my answer is obvious, and I’m wondering how this sits with your own beliefs about feminism and masculinity.
Thanks, Fitz; I do appreciate hearing from you directly rather than noticing it from my stats counter.
DJW, I am convinced you are missing a “not” in your last sentence.
So American kids get to “find themselves” at the expense of Iraqi lives. What do the Iraqis get out of it? Is getting your house bombed by the American military a profound experience that brings you closer to God? This just seems like an enourmous double-standard to me, a way of saying American lives are somehow worth more than those of the rest of the world.
Just one question, Hugo: How many Iraqis does a disaffected, directionless young man have to murder before he comes back “transformed”?
Huh, I wrote a great (and lengthy) comment, but it seems to have disappeared into the ether of the internets. Unless it’s stuck in moderation? If it has in fact gone *poof* I will try to rewrite it to the best of my ability.
Debbie, comment recovered! It went in the spam folder.
Labyrus and Debbie, I share with you a revulsion at the ugliness of war. I agree with Debbie that that ugliness is to some degree universal, found in all armies.
At the same time, I wonder if having bright, kind, thoughtful young men and women avoiding the military means leaving it in the hands of those who are none of these things. Young people are changed by the military, indeed — but they also have the capacity to do justice and love mercy, even in small ways, within an authoritarian culture.
One reason why I came to believe that ROTC was a good thing at Berkeley was because I wanted the future officers of the USA to be influenced by and in conversation with progressive voices. If Berkeley got rid of ROTC, our officers would come out of the Baylors of the world — where (sorry, Waco folks) there are considerably fewer progressive voices.
If All Saints kids don’t join the military, then only kids from conservative churches do. And that reinforces the conservative and authoritarian nature of the institution.
Hugo, don’t be surprised if there’s a flip: the more conservative commenters will be the ones applauding your open-mindedness, while the more liberal ones will be up in arms.
…and since we’re talking about college kids…
BMMG39’s annual Final Fourcasts:
WOMEN: Duke, Tennessee, Connecticut, Georgia
MEN: Ohio State, Oregon, Kansas, Georgetown
I just put mine up, bmmg. I hope you’re right and the Hoyas and Ducks go far for the men; I don’t see anyone stopping Gail Goestenkors from her long-deserved ring on the women’s side.
Not to self: MUST preview comments…
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/03/07/women_in_military/index_np.html
Hugo, I strongly affirm your treating each person as unique, and relating to them as a mentor in an open-minded, listening-first, non-judgmental way. Amen to that, for all kinds of situations.
Your local community college is not the right place for everyone, nor is any college. I think far fewer kids should go straight to college out of high school - many have little direction or sense of what they want to study or why, and would be best served by some time in “real life” before college. (Thus your observation about study habits and focus. I think you’re misguided when you attribute that to the Army, I think you’d find the same with most kids who take some time between high school and college for any kind of real-life experience).
Since when are college and the Army the only options available out of high school? You don’t have to write their script, but it’s a real failure of imagination to limit yourself and them to the scripts handed out en masse by military recruiters (especially to kids who are poor and not white). For kids who need a sense of direction, deepened moral sense, and real challenging experiences, why not hook ‘em up with Christian Peacemaker Teams instead?
American kids needing to “find themselves” is an awfully weak rationale for sending them to kill and be killed by Iraqi kids.
I live on an Indian reservation, and folks here have the highest per capita rate of military service in the country. The military takes advantage of the lack of good options for kids here by flooding the schools with military recruiters. There are dedicated people here working hard at counter-recruitment in the schools, to provide positive opportunities for their kids and keep them from being exploited by the US military machine and killed in wars that benefit rich white people somewhere else. I think they’ve got it right (I’d be glad to put you in touch with some of them directly if you’d like), and you’ll really be failing George and his family if you don’t at least outline some other interesting, exciting, challenging options for him.
I can accept that the military could be the best option for a young person today, but I can’t accept that it must be that way. Surely there is no inherent connection between violence and discipline–quite the opposite, in fact. Shouldn’t it be possible to create another option for those seeking discipline other than war? Just because college isn’t for you doesn’t mean killing is for you–or at least, not in an overseas war.
Gandhi had an interesting relationship with military service and recruitment. One of his essays considers the idea that training with arms is necessary for the discipline of a satyagrahi, though he, as one would expect, rejects it.
I think the argument that nonviolent people should join the military makes more sense before the actual unjust war is launched. The virtue of having reasonable people in the armed forces is that they will refuse to follow unreasonable orders. But if the unreasonable order is already in effect when you sign up, it’s no longer as reasonable to refuse compliance.
I can understand that someone else’s decision to join an armed service must be approached with humility. But, surely the negative externalities are far more obvious with military service than sex.
Carl, I am familiar with a lot of anti-recruiting materials, particularly those put out by the peace churches. I am always happy to see more.
Let me be clear that George isn’t just considering the army because he wants to avoid college right away or wants money — he genuinely believes, or says he believes, that he can do some good.
Like others, I could sort of kind of see your point if this were peacetime or the middle of a justifiable war, though some kind of constructive volunteer work would still probably be a better way to serve the world and build character. But America is in the middle of an egregious war of aggression, not self-defense–clearly unjust by any ethical and certainly any Christian criteria. If there were still a draft, it would be commendable, but perhaps not be absolutely required for Christians to refuse conscription in these circumstances, if this led to extraordinary suffering. The same goes for Christians already serving in the military when the war began; it would be praiseworthy for them to refuse to cooperate, but not clearly morally required given the dire consequences. But how can it possibly be ethically neutral or beneficial for any Christian to voluntarily enter a military mired in an unjust war, which includes committing to help support and carry it out — which includes killing foreign soldiers and many innocent civilians, or assisting others to do so? This is not like discerning committed and protected premarital sex, it’s like “discerning” joining a fraternity whose parties regularly feature roofie-laden punch and gang rape, and with less chance of influencing the situation for good.
I just helped a good friend of mine who I have known for 25 years help bury his son who was killed last month in Iraq. (by a roadside IED while on patrol). I knew that young man since he was a toddler. It was heartbreaking.
I beg to disagree with you on the value of military service…
Hugo, as a former student of yours, an active duty soldier, and a Christian, I feel it is my place to respond.
Most importantly, everyone needs to realize that the US Military only fights wars that the politicians (and indirectly the American people) send us to fight. We do not choose which ones. We just choose to serve the American people.
Regarding pacifism, at the sake of sounding like a recruiter, there are many “jobs” in the military besiseds infantry — while all are trained to use a weapon, not all of us are focused on killing as our primary duty. And for those who are in the infantry, they are some of the most highly disciplined people I know — they do NOT kill for fun. In particular, my job is to PREVENT violent actions. Something for which I believe I am well suited.
While their may be some who disagree, I truly believe the best way to influence people are from the inside. Preaching either to the choir or from the outside brings no change. To truly make a difference, you have to be “in the trenches.” That is where I find my calling.
Well, off to formation…
Most importantly, everyone needs to realize that the US Military only fights wars that the politicians (and indirectly the American people) send us to fight. We do not choose which ones. We just choose to serve the American people.\
What everyone needs to realize is that you can’t sign away your moral responsibility. If you are told to do something unethical, then you’re morally required to refuse. Maybe your actions are ethical, maybe they are unethical, but regardless they are YOUR actions, period, end of story. If someone gives you an order, it is still your CHOICE whether to follow the order or accept the consequences of disobedience.
The point your missing is that the job George takes in the Army isn’t just about shaping George’s character, or shaping the character of the institution. It also involves the innocent civilians and enemy combatants on the other side of the world. I’m not really worried about the spiritual health of the US military. I’m worried about the people they shoot at. They’re human beings just the same as George. They deserve some consideration, too.
If All Saints kids don’t join the military, then only kids from conservative churches do. And that reinforces the conservative and authoritarian nature of the institution.
It also makes the military smaller, which reduces its ability to occupy other countries and terrorize the rest of the world.
Onward Christian soldier…
I’m so glad to know that Hugo consider a career of killing people to be analogous with early sexual activity.
While Hugo may consider the military good preparation for the real world, in that real world, the military is prep. school for the after-life: sometimes yours, sometimes theirs. If there’s something salvatory about that, I’d sure like to know.
Until the United States government ceases to be a force of militaristic aggression, joining the military simply means signing up to be a bully boy for Wall Street and Pennsylvania Ave. Changing that requires better civilians, not better soldiers (civilian leadership and all that).
Well, I agree with you here I believe theologically that Jesus’ call to nonviolence is binding on Christians in both their private lives and in their public service, but disagree here but my head tells me that sometimes violence, while never redemptive, can protect the vulnerable. I think violence can be redemptive–not in the complete sense, but that it can make the world better. I’m alternately stirred and appalled by the kaleidoscopic imagery of
But I’ve seen force, or the credible threat of force, make everyone better off enough times that I end up stirred more than appalled. Justice is a good thing, even if mercy is a better one.
Anyone steeped in anabaptist culture who quotes Martina McBride to make a theological/political point is definitely my brother in Christ.
At the same time, I wonder if having bright, kind, thoughtful young men and women avoiding the military means leaving it in the hands of those who are none of these things. Young people are changed by the military, indeed — but they also have the capacity to do justice and love mercy, even in small ways, within an authoritarian culture.
I will refer back to my time in Israel, where military service is compulsory for men and women, as opposed to depending on an economic draft or voluntary service. Lots of thoughtful men and women do military service, and the IDF does not lack for massive human rights abuses, including the routine use of torture. Israel also has a huge problem with domestic violence, a problem that is directly related to the highly militarized nature of Israeli society.
Soldiers who rape and torture aren’t doing it because they’re bad people, or because they’re a “few bad apples.” They are doing it because war requires the dehumanization of the “enemy,” and once someone is less than human it’s much easier to do the things you have to do to stay alive (or the things you think you have to do to stay alive). That may include torturing prisoners to get needed information, or not reporting a fellow soldier because in a war zone you have to depend on that guy to have your back. Or knowing that there’s no one to report wrongdoing to because of the strict hierarchy of the military, the complicity of high ranking military officials, and the repeated cover ups (I’m thinking of US, Canadian, and Israeli militaries here, I’m sure a global perspective would only turn up more).
It may also be because giving 18, 19, and 20 year old guns and putting them in dangerous situations where they’re required to make split second decisions that may mean the difference between life and death is a bad idea. Because they lack life experience, because young people don’t always have good judgement, because they’re more susceptible to pressure from their peers, because of the macho military masculinity that leads them to take stupid risks and ignore any inklings of empathy or compassion.
I just want to end by repeating something from Amira Hass’ book “Drinking the Sea in Gaza.” An Israeli soldier asks Hass why all of the Palestinians hate him and are afraid of him, even though he tries to be kind. She points out that to people who have experienced nothing but brutality from Israeli soldiers, the individuality of the people inside the uniforms doesn’t matter. It’s a mark of the privileged to demand to be seen as an individual, even when they willingly take part in brutal organizations. And I really can’t think of any more brutal organization than the American military. At this point in time, it really is the ultimate symbol of militarism and imperialism. I’m not sure how many Americans are really aware of that, and how ridiculous statements about the importance of rights and freedoms, and liberating the oppressed through America’s military might seem to those of us who are a little more removed.
Hugo - Far too much on which to comment. I think your overall sentiment is right..and SamChevre stated far more eloquently than I a point I was going to make.
Perhaps this initiative will be around in time as another option:
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0307/031407b1.htm
Carl- I would attribute to the military better time management and study habits (on average), but agree other options can provide the same benefits. I also think the same point is true (gaining “real-world” context) for people attending graduate institutions. I recall in my grad school cohort far too many Ivy League BA; Ivy League MA/MBA; Ivy League Law school track folks who had no “operational” perspectives to put theory into context and practice.
(btw - note how Salon had to make significant corrections to the article)
For those of you who make claims about the kinds of people in the military and their behaviors, you can read the actual demographic statistics or take the time to read the literature (couple of suggestions among a large spectrum of data sources)
http://www.dod.mil/prhome/poprep2004/download/2004report.pdf
Family Violence in the Military: A Review of the Literature
Trauma Violence Abuse 2006 7: 93-108
>>>”there is far too great a likelihood any new soldier will be sent unprepared to fight in an illegal, immoral, and profoundly pointless war.”
First, the military does more than “war” and more than just OIF (I’m assuming that is what you mean by war). The military is more about conflict and conflict resolution — operations that run from high end war to domestic consequence management and humanitarian assistance. Whether the military should be involved in all those operations is a good policy question, but both the Democrat and Republican Administrations and Congress have increasingly made the military the instrument of choice in tackling many issues.
Unprepared - I would agree that some resourcing decisions made by both the Clinton and Bush administrations and various Congresses (by the Constitution, Article I, Section 8) were disconnected from their own strategies. However, no other country has a better equipped or trained military.
Illegal - OIF and OEF have Congressional authorization for use of force.
Immoral - yes, that’s a good issue for debate. If you think OIF and OEF are immoral, I wouldn’t recommend joining the military.
Pointless - Neither you nor I can confirm or refute that claim, especially without understanding what is meant by “the point.”
>>>> Soldiers who rape and torture aren’t doing it because they’re bad people, or because they’re a “few bad apples.” They are doing it because war requires the dehumanization of the “enemy//
Debbie - I would argue the opposite (and I’ve been to Israel and it’s problematic to compare the compulsary service in the IDF to the all-volunteer U.S. military). Whether it’s the viewing highway of death in 91 to handing out shoes to kids in an Afghani village, seeing the effects of death and suffering makes *most* people more human. 1.5 million military personnel (the vast majority under 30) have rotated through Iraq/Afghanistan and the overwhelming majority are trying to do (and have done)decent and honorable service given the constraints placed on them — The guys who think they can rape a young girl and kill her family are truly bad apples. The military gave them the opportunity and tools to show that sooner than in civilian life.
Col Steve, I’m pretty sure when people refer to the current Iraq war as illegal, they’re referring to international law, not the law of one State. The Iraq war is a war of agression - in clear violation of the Nuremberg principals. The US military has also violated the Geneva conventions numerous times in its treatment of prisoners of war.
Labyrus -
We could have a long debate, probably getting off-thread, about UNSCR 687 and 1441 and whether the implications of those resolutions under Chapter VII of the U.N. provided legal justification for OIF. The bottom line is 50+ nations thought it did and many others did not. Who is right? Even John Kerry said “I will never give any nation or international institution a veto over our national security.”
>> One reason why I came to believe that ROTC was a good thing at Berkeley was because I wanted the future officers of the USA to be influenced by and in conversation with progressive voices. If Berkeley got rid of ROTC, our officers would come out of the Baylors of the world — where (sorry, Waco folks) there are considerably fewer progressive voices.
Agree heartily with you on this point Hugo — had a conversation during my Rhodes Scholar process with the President of Brown on this point. I’ve been bothered by those higher learning institution administrators who are more than willing to take Defense dollars for their schools, yet do not want to participate in influencing future military leaders by educating them.
Col Steve - a bit disingenous to mention the UN resolutions, don’t you think? The UNSC considered all those arguments, including high-profile presentations of US propaganda (much of which we’ve since learned was knowingly twisted by the administration even over the objections of intelligence officials). You’ll recall that after considering all those arguments, the UN did not authorize an invasion - remember the “coalition of the willing”, etc? Which makes the war, uncontroversially (except in this country) an illegal invasion and occupation. And if you’re among the crowd that’s willing to claim that a highly-debatable and partially-invented “potential threat to national security” justifies unprovoked invasion and indefinite occupation of another country — well, let’s just say you haven’t just parted ways with pacifists, you’ve thoroughly parted ways with every Christian just-war theologian since Augustine.
All of which is not off-topic, because it cuts to the core of my incredulity at Hugo’s argument, which could be summed up as “I don’t recall them hanging anyone at Nuremberg for having pre-marital sex.”
Has it struck you, Hugo, that your argument in this post could have been lifted almost verbatim from a pastor in Nazi Germany: “Well, I have very serious misgivings about our foreign policy, but really the SS might be the best option for some kids.” By removing the moral character of the war itself from your consideration, your argument loses any moral underpinning at all. (I have trouble understanding why you would care about counter-recruitment materials, having just disavowed the use of them in the precise situation for which they are intended.)
I thoroughly agree with you (Col Steve) that it’s hypocritical for big schools to take DoD money while refusing ROTC and military recruiters. Which, in my mind, is a great argument for why they should also refuse DoD money.