Print this post.
By Rowan Wolf, Senior Editor, TGP, and Editor in Chief, CYRANO’S JOURNAL TODAY
[Photo: Dean Terry / flickr.]
This is Memorial Day, and it is a sombre day for remembering those who have fallen in (foreign) wars, and secondarily those who “served” but who have not died. For much of my life I have wondered how to address this holiday and the ideology upon which it rests. When I was younger, the big war was Vietnam and there was a peace movement. There was a draft then rather than the contemporary “volunteer” force (I’ll explain below), and hence more motivation to take a stand on war and militarism.
Rightly or wrongly there developed an “Us” – “Them” mentality as even with the draft, there was a choice. Many became draft dodgers and some left the country. Some registered as conscientious objectors. Some who were conscripted walked away regardless the cost to their lives and families. But then, as now, there were a lot of “kids” being sent off to kill in the name of country. Then as now, “Support the troops” meant de facto support for the decisions which put them “in harm’s way.” However, it was a less ideologically nuanced time. Put simply, those who fought were tarred with the same brush as those who made the decisions for military action. The troops were not well received when they came home, and the taste of that has lain sour on the amerikan palate ever since. So when the first Gulf War started there was the beginning of an effort to sort out the troops from the war mongers. There was the beginning of an effort to carve out an ideologically nuanced stance of supporting the troops while vigorously opposing militarism. In this rather militaristic nation, such a stance continues to be the preserve of the few, but not as few as one might be led to believe. While flag waving and nationalism still seems to rule, those who expect more of our nation do not stand invisible.
“Volunteers” vs Conscripted Troops
There are at times semi-heated arguments about those who are choosing to join the military and voluntarily participate in the nation’s military adventures. This argument was much more noticeable with Bush Jr.’s also voluntary war in Iraq. Those who argued and marched against US military engagement in Iraq had some infighting about the culpability of those who were serving, and whether to even attempt to skate the thin ice of “support the troops means not putting them in harm’s way.” Meanwhile, on the nationalistic side of the argument there was a fissure about just how weepy to get over those who were being sent to fight. After all, they had volunteered.
Underneath all of that ideological formulary lies the ugly truth that is as old as the nation. Namely, those without resources are largely those who fight the wars. Early in our history, those who could afford to do so paid others to fight in their place. When that option disappeared and the draft was implemented, those who had the resources could get deferments for their sons (as happened with Cheney), or could get “champagne” posting for their sons (as with George W. Bush). At the time of the decision to invade Afghanistan, many of those swept up and sent off to fight were in the National Guard. They were “weekend warriors” who were largely deployed in cases of search and rescue and emergency situations. For many, this was a part time job that offered access to educational and occupational benefits. Little did they know that they were essentially the first line of defense, and they moved from “weekend warriors” to front line troops with the wave of a pen.
Many others of this new “volunteer” force had chosen the military because it was simply the only path out of poverty. Whether rural or urban, the disadvantaged’s last pathway was to sign up and serve. Across economically failing rural amerika, there are towns where the majority of the young, including both men and women (and husbands and wives) were members of the National Guard. When deployments hit (followed by multiple redeployments), the burden fell disproportionately on the poor. I would argue, and others have also, that lack of other choices does not make a volunteer. It makes a coerced decision. Before “Obamacare,” there were even those who joined up so that they and their families would have health care. Now that is pretty fundamental.
All this trip down the “volunteer” path is to highlight the complexities – that to this day – are driving how we approach (conceptually and personally) those who serve in the military. And brings me back to my quasi-dilemma with Memorial Day.
Memorial Day and Those Who Serve
I think that one of the most difficult things to do is to acknowledge one’s role in something arguably questionable such as invading another nation and killing its people. Those who make the choice to fight, and their families behind them, have a vested psychological and social need to see themselves in the best light. This is particularly true for families who have lost someone to the war. The basic need to see the person and the action as noble is beyond understandable. Likewise, for those who served but survived, they too have a deep need to see themselves in the best possible light. The more at odds their war time experiences are with whom they see themselves as, the deeper the need to see the importance of what they did. The root problem is labeled as “cognitive dissonance.” Simply put, cognitive dissonance is when an individual (or a group) holds either conflicting sets of beliefs, or more importantly when one’s behavior conflicts with one’s beliefs. This creates “dissonance” and the individual (or the group) will attempt to contextualize the behavior to fit the belief (or sometimes change either belief or behavior) in order to bring the two back in harmony with each other. This investment is often used by politicians to justify further military engagement. For example, we can’t let “their” loss be in vain. Or, as is happening now as Iraq falls to the Islamic State, there is a growing voice for the US to reengage militarily in Iraq. For many of those who fought, and whose comrades may have died or received dire injuries, there is outright pain in watching Iraq fall to “terrorists.”
The need to support one’s actions goes far beyond cognitive dissonance. It goes to one’s social persona and operation daily within society. If it is known that one is a veteran, there is an ongoing and all too frequent push to explain or justify oneself to others. Some take the “pride” stance with stickers and vanity plates and flags scattered around announcing that they (or their child) serves/d in the military. Others just try to let the whole issue slide. And then there are those I truly want to honor on this Memorial Day. These are the military personnel who take a cold, hard look at their service and the actual roles the US is playing and take a stand for peace. This has to be one of the hardest choices for both those who served and their families – particularly families of the fallen. This stance takes tremendous internal strength and courage in my opinion. It requires the individual to embrace their role in a process that was far from honorable. It requires people take responsibility for their actions, and then standing up to fight against the very system of which they were a part.
So I want to offer my deepest respect and gratitude to those who have served, and their remaining family members, who stand tall against militarism and for peace. You, more than any others have experienced the atrocities of war and rather than justifying them you stand for a better world and a different path. I want to thank and remember the conscientious objectors who took an unpopular stand against war. I want to thank all of the people who have marched, and written, and called, and agitated for peace – again and again.
Peace is not simply the surcease of war. It demands constant vigilance against militarism and for justice. Thank you all past and present Warriors for Peace.
[box] Senior Editor Rowan Wolf obtained her doctorate in Sociology from the University of Oregon and has been teaching sociology since 1992. Her specialized areas of interest are systems of inequality (particularly race, class, and sex); globalization; organizations; and culture and socialization. She lives with her partner (Kelly), and their three dogs (Cody, Fox, and Crow). Rowan serves as Editor in Chief of Cyrano’s Journal Today, a fraternal site of The Greanville Post, part of the Greanville Publishing group. Rowan’s email is rowan@greanvillepost.com [/box]
Remember: All captions and pullquotes are furnished by the editors, NOT the author(s).