Anger in Uniform
Why it’s wrong for students to take their war outrage out on the ROTC.
By Paul Abowd, University of Michigan
Wednesday May 10, 2006
Camouflage doesn’t really work on college campuses. Among the legions of coordinated North Face fleeces, Nalgene water bottles and UGGs, Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) students in uniform tend to stick out in a larger army of book-toting students. Military garb can become a target for criticism and ridicule on campus. As recent events at the University of Texas illustrate, student anti-war activists are increasingly turning to anti-military recruitment efforts. One member of the ROTC at the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, who asked to remain anonymous, reports being called a “baby killer” on his way through campus. Other students in uniform have spoken of feeling harassed by mocking salutes or other hostile gestures. Several members of the ROTC report feeling indicted for the errors of policy makers and military officials beyond their control. While Americans have good reason to criticize a mission in Iraq that was proclaimed “accomplished” almost three years ago, it is wise to distinguish our President – who wears the uniform for PR stunts – from those who don the military dress as part of a real commitment to service or as an opportunity for advancement.
Students angered by the presence of the military on campus are careless in their knee-jerk reactions against members of the program. According to the US Army website, the purpose of the ROTC is to provide “individuals with the tools, training and experiences they need to become Officers in the U.S. Army.” Students join the ROTC for myriad reasons. Whether motivated by the desire to serve their country, the promise of an instant career path upon graduation, or the ROTC scholarships that allow students to go to school first and serve later, one thing is for certain: students in uniform espouse a range of political beliefs and are in the military for a variety of reasons. As Michael Owens, a Naval ROTC officer, explained, “The majority of them tell me that service to the country motivates them, but obviously, we’d be kidding ourselves if we didn’t think the scholarship money was important to them.” After a thirty year career in the Navy, even Capt. Owens had a hard time pinpointing one particular reason why individuals enter the ROTC. In addition to service and financial need, he referred to “a mixed bag” of family tradition, patriotism, and a desire for adventure or leadership, but ultimately conceded, “Every time I talk to a different student, I tend to get a slightly different answer.” In this light, it is senseless to target and prejudge those in uniform without knowing their back-story.
Even worse, defaming the uniform only lends credibility to the puffed up conservative rhetoric about elitist liberals overrunning universities, while episodes of blind harassment on the University of Michigan campus easily provide ammunition for conservative claims that opposition to the war translates into opposition to our troops. These actions alienate an essential ally – service people and war veterans – from a national movement intent on bringing the troops home.
Though it goes without saying that harassment of ROTC students is wrong, these campus incidents beg a tougher question: What does it mean when people advertise their support for our troops? Though we are bombarded daily by magnetic ribbons, yard signs, t-shirts, and partisan rhetoric, Americans have left the issue of what “support” really means relatively untouched. Does support suggest that we blindly condone any actions that service people carry out overseas just because they are our troops? I hope not. Support should include an understanding of the dangers faced by many servicemen and women. Demonstrating our support for troops means advocating for decent pay, adequate safety equipment, and good health benefits. For years, the Bush Administration repeatedly cut benefits for veterans who put their lives on the line for their country. As recently as last summer, the Department of Veteran Affairs admitted to being short $1 billion for the fiscal year, and according to the White House budget, veteran medical benefits budget would increase in 2007, but decrease afterwards.
Support means understanding the enduring economic draft in this country that has compelled many into uniform because they seek access to higher education as opposed to a role in the “War on Terror.” A National Priorities Project study conducted last November showed that “nearly two-thirds of all [military] recruits were from counties with median household incomes below the US median … [and] that 15 of the top 20 counties had higher poverty rates than the national average.” So, supporting our troops doesn’t mean a blind adherence to the military policies they carry out, but, instead, solidarity with those members of the armed forces who are most adversely affected by its policies.
No matter what your definition, the “support our troops” mantra is unfulfilling because it is impossible to really pass judgments, positive or negative, on the troops as a unified entity. The partisan debate over who really supports the troops is a mindless political football game that turns people into statistics and overlooks the individuality of those in the military and the differences between each soldier, unit or division. The actions of an individual in the armed forces should be judged on a case-by-case basis taking into account, among other things, one’s place in a chain of command. By virtue of their immense power, commanding officers at the Pentagon and officials in Washington war rooms have primary responsibility for the results of war. The military structure subjects individual autonomy to its will, and rallies individuals under an ideology of duty and country. In this way, it is difficult to assign responsibility to soldiers for the things that happen in war, however atrocious or valiant. And yet, to strip these men and women of responsibility is to deny them the very humanity which we must remember and confirm.
The Nuremberg trials following World War II determined that individuals who played a role in the genocide would not be exonerated by the defense that they were simply following orders. As Principle IV of the Nuremberg code states, “The fact that a person acted pursuant to an order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.” The principle articulated by the Nuremberg code simultaneously re-infuses agency into an individual while tacking on a clause that highlights the difficulty, which persists today, of addressing moral responsibility. In combat, soldiers inevitably enter another world where accountability withers, and where individual moral choices are tugged at by so many external forces. For most of us, nothing we have ever experienced comes close to this kind of moral dilemma, and so it is difficult to see this as anything but black and white. But it is critical that students empathize with the harsh realities of military service and war, before making blanket statements about the troops.
No matter how great your distaste for war, or your disapproval of militarized college campuses, it is senseless to project these frustrations indiscriminately onto students in uniform. Whether in training or returning from service, members of the military deserve to be engaged before they are judged.
This article originally appeared in the Michigan Independent, a Campus Progress sponsored publication.
--------
Comments
|
!
I like your article but I have to disagree with your statement of the role of ROTC on college campuses. I believe that the military actively recruits from low-income and people of color communities because they know they can entice youth that the college money is worth it. That this uniform and this country is worth dying for in a senseless war. Considering that only 15% of soldiers actually recieve their college benefits, it’s a tactic that the military uses to get recruits. But going back to the original question of ROTC on college campuses, I believe they really are sucking the best and brightest into a war machine that they will ultimately end up in a coffin. I believe that the government must fund more into education, so students can get more financial aid, instead of being forced to join the military just so they can go to college. I do understand what you’re saying about not harrassing ROTC members, but for the same reason, ROTC students have too critically understand their role in this war, even if they are not “officially” commissioned, they still play a big part in funneling more smart and capable college soldiers into the war.
— Yvonne Tran - May 11, 01:13 PM - #As a veteran with an open mind, I have to disagree about people using their freedom of speech to members of the ROTC. The ROTC member is making a statement when he/she wears the uniform. It may not be their personal statement. It is nonetheless a statement. To stop a reciprical statement on the grounds that it may offend the members feelings is bogus. The uniform that some, myself included, take pride in, is offensive to others. I would never encourage a service member to remove their uniform. Why should a non-service member keep their mouth shut. If they can’t take the heat of being called names. How are they going to act when the bullets start flying? I’ve been called a baby killer more than once in my life. I didn’t like it then and I damn sure don’t like it now. I do however take great pride in knowing that I helped protect the rights of that dumb sob who called me that. Yes, sometimes I even smile when someone calls me that because I know…I know that they couldn’t call me that if it wasn’t for my selfless actions.
— Dilligaf ? - May 11, 04:30 PM - #I,m one those people who is torn by this behavior toward those who ware the uniform, as I wore the uniform in the 1960’s. On the one side it clearly is the neocons that have provoked this misguilded attitude about this police action in Iraq which is backrupting our country,killing many of our bravest and best. The other side says we the American puplic must make our feelings known in the srongest possible way posible, and to every other American rather civilian or uniform.[peasefull]
— Dennis Moss - May 11, 08:30 PM - #I agree that the harrassment of ROTC students is both misplaced and inappropriate. Dissent and disagreement should always be civil, especially within a community of students living and studying together.
But I want to play devil’s advocate here and make an opposing case:
The issue is a bit more complex when talking about soldiers currently serving in Iraq. It seems almost axiomatic that “support” requires believing in the morality and the legality of the Iraq occupation on at least some level. And because the soldiers there are tacitly accepting the administration’s goals by willingly participating in the conflict, how can we grant them our unequivocal support if we believe in neither the goals nor the means used to achieve them? Certainly, some soldiers join the military for financial reasons and don’t necessarily believe in the war, but the fact is that they are still voluntary participants who have presumably made some sort of moral calculation in deciding to sign up (and if they haven’t, then that’s not really an excuse either).
You’re right that we can’t paint the whole military with a single brush stroke – characterizing the troops as all good or all bad. But one trait that they all share is that they are active and willing agents in executing the administration’s military strategy. And the morality of the administration’s Iraq policy is one of the most important criteria in determining whether or not to support the troops.
Of course, I’ve just been working with one definition of “support”, and I think the only conflict among most war opponents on this issue is over syntax. If support means, as you say, “advocating for decent pay, adequate safety equipment, and good health benefits,” as well as wishing for their safe return, then anyone who does not support the troops should not be taken seriously in public debate.
And this only scratches the surface…is “supporting the troops” a state of mind, or does it require action?
Anyway, nice article…this issue is rarely treated with such (necessary) nuance.
— Mike - May 11, 09:19 PM - #Thanks for the thought-provoking feedback. I have more to offer in response at a less groggy time, but for now, check out this really good article by Chrisitan Parenti in a recent Nation issue, entitled “When GI Joe Says No”. As usual, Parenti has a provocative take: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060508/parenti
— Paul Abowd - May 11, 09:54 PM - #The idea that ROTC students should be able to accept abuse is ridiculous and actually creates a hostile environment for all students. As a veteran, with many years of service, I truly believe that Freedom of Speech is one of the most valued rights we as citizens enjoy. What I have found in academia is that the right to speak is unconditional for a select few, anyone who chooses another point of view seems to lose the same right. However, Freedom of Speech comes with an important responsibility – appropriateness. ROTC students chose to take courses in leadership, decision-making, history, and are encouraged to follow a code of conduct to include fairness – all important elements in functioning in today’s volatile and complicated world. How many of these students attack those recruiters or representatives of corporations making a killing (pun intended) on supplying and supporting the Defense Department (including many schools involved in research and grant money). Freedom of Speech does not include the right to disparage and attack another human being without consequences. By all means students should be encouraged to speak constructively, not destructively.
— Paul - May 12, 08:03 AM - #The Mission of the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln in Operation Iraqi Freedom, was to provide close air support for ground forces and destroy the Strategic and tactical military assets of Saddam’s regime. They accomplished this mission with record sortie rates and with historic effect and efficiency. Any assertion to the contrary is demonstrably false and an insult to the sailors, pilots and air crew of the U.S.S. Lincoln, and her Battle Group.
One cannot support the troops and publicly oppose their mission. Victory is achieved when the enemy is dead or loses their will to fight. Anyone who demonstrates against the war is encouraging the enemy to continue fighting and that results in a longer conflict, possible defeat, and more dead and wounded US soldiers. The enemy can’t defeat us on the battlefield, their only hope(and their stated strategy) is to defeat us on the home front. Anyone who has studied the Vietnam War from the enemies’ perspective understands this, and so do our current enemies. Do what your conscience says, but don’t delude yourselves into thinking that you are supporting the troops. As for the ‘economic draft’ I’ll just past part of my response to Boston Globe columnist Derrick Jackson when he wrote on the subject. I was a little ticked at his condescending tone. I passed up full scholarships to three universities, as well as took a cut in pay from my construction job, to enlist in the U.S. Army on my 18th birthday in 1984. I proudly served under Presidents Reagan and Bush. I and many others like me would appreciate it if you would quit questioning our patriotism by claiming or insinuating that we were trapped or fooled into volunteering for the service. The overrepresentation of my demographic and geographic (Southern) group in the military is a source of pride, not shame or pity, and it is insulting for you or anyone else to say otherwise.— Marc - May 12, 02:35 PM - #A 39 year old former officer, grad student, and loyal Democrat checks in:
Yvonne: you and I both seek a better allocation of our nation’s resources. We have to win elections to do this. Harrassing service members will not get us there, especially in Texas. Kerry lost in part because of the anti-military baggage of the ‘60s.
Mike: service members swear no allegiance to a particular party or Administration. They take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, and obey the orders of those appointed over them by the citizenry. The officer corps that serves Bush today obeyed Clinton’s orders yesterday, and would have obeyed Kerry. We don’t want a Service that picks and chooses whose orders they’ll obey.
Even if one takes issue with the war, active support of YOUR uniformed servicemembers is a moral and practical good. Our time in Iraq is winding down – we want these young cadets to stick around and assist our incoming Democratic administration in reconstituting our Nation’s tired Services, who could be called upon again in places like the Balkans or Darfur.
College campuses the world over are places of high passion. I hope the more level headed of you young ‘uns will recognize this, and not let your friends do things that will set Dems back in Red America for another 30 years.
— Daniel - May 12, 02:50 PM - #To Marc
I think that you missed the point of the fanfare and sensationalism surrounding the USS Abraham Lincoln PR stunt. Sure, one phase of the mission, the one you detail, was indeed accomplished. However, the intent of this ploy was to give Americans a false impression about the path that lay ahead. The effect was to appease and calm the doubts about the war at a time when Americans should have been vigilant. Of course now we know that these celebrations of success were, like the invasion itself, egregiously pre-emptive. Like much of this administration’s strategy, the “mission accomplished” hullabaloo was meant to declare success before anything substantial had been done to actually achieve, cultivate or secure it.
I also take issue with your statement that: “One cannot support the troops and publicly oppose their mission.” This logic fails to make the essential separation between the government and those who serve it. It’s pretty clear that the government continues to, as in past wars, devise policies which are detrimental to its own citizens, even to those who are carrying out the directives as part of the military apparatus.
By challenging the validity of this war in principle, and the wisdom of a continuing occupation, we are in fact supporting military personnel who are embroiled in what has been a dishonest and inept war effort. It is our patriotic duty as citizens of an (albeit withering) democracy to criticize, inquire, and hold public officials responsible, not to be cowed into submission by rhetoric that labels dissent as treason.
Bush and co. have done everything they can to buttress your view that criticism of the war is somehow damaging to the troops and aiding the enemy. I know several people who have returned from this war urging me and others to make the distinction between policy makers and troops. By criticizing an ill-conceived and illegal war we actually support those men and women who are putting their lives at risk for policy makers and big Oil. Also, I am always wary of those who talk about “the enemy” without defining them in concrete terms. I’m critical of this rhetoric which has facilitated internment camps and congressional witch-hunts in the past, and which rationalizes today’s Patriot Act and the prison camps in Guantanamo and elsewhere.
One more thing. By pointing to the economic draft as a powerful force in filling the military ranks, I do not mean to ignore the fact that there are people who enter the service willingly and with pride. I personally think that to be proud of service in this particular war is to be delusional, a true victim of the military propoganda machine. That doesn’t mean we defame people who are proud of their service, it just means we engage them, criticise them, and even empathize with them. The point of the article was to make clear that we have to engage individual servicepeople in order to find out what they believe in, what motivates them to be in the military, and what sorts of things they did willingly or under coercion while in combat. On this basis we can make informed judgments and level a narrower, better-guided critique at those who are really responsible for this war. You may be proud of your service under Reagan and Bush, but there are many others in uniform; some who paid the ultimate price for an illegal war, and some who are injured, traumatized, disillusioned and angry about their experiences in the military. Those of us against this war need to band together with servicepeople who seek our help in ending an occupation that has spawned needless chaos.
— Paul Abowd - May 12, 04:30 PM - #Daniel:
You’ve made a couple of compelling points and have rightly pointed out a flaw in my argument that I had not seen, namely, that my argument does not address soldiers who have signed up not knowing that they would be fighting in Iraq. I tend to think that troops who have been serving since before Iraq appeared on the radar screen are more or less immune to moral reproval of their participation in the Iraq War (unless, of course, they take it on themselves to torture Iraqis or something). But that ALONE cannot entitle them to a positive showing of support.
Certainly, support of the troops is a practical good insofar as it promotes cohesion among them. But a practical good is not necessarily a moral good. In fact, cohesion can be a moral “bad” if our troops are ordered to engage in the systematic slaughter of innocents (admittedly, something that has occurred repeatedly in our nation’s history).
If universal and unconditional support of American troops is a moral good, it seems to me that one must be prepared to defend one of the two following propositions:
1) The actions of the military are always moral.
2) It is always morally good for citizens of other countries to support their own troops, even when they oppose ours.
Both seem to be tough positions to defend.
I’m being a bit theoretical, though. Overall, your argument is well-taken. For example, I think this makes a lot of sense:
“We want these young cadets to stick around and assist our incoming Democratic administration in reconstituting our Nation’s tired Services, who could be called upon again in places like the Balkans or Darfur.”
Just so you have a better idea where I’m coming from: While I believe that the invasion was unjust, I do believe that the current strategy of remaining in Iraq until it is stabilized is morally defensible. And while I think it is likely that such efforts will ultimately fail, supporting the troops at the present moment presents no fundamental moral issue to me (Abu Ghraib and similar incidents aside). I’m a bit more skeptical about the principle that we shoud unconditionally support the troops, and to me the correct moral position to take ultimately depends on what constitutes support.
I guess what I would like to know is, what do you personally mean by “active support”?
— Mike - May 12, 06:52 PM - #I wish we’d focus more on the economic draft concept.
As i’ve said, a draft in this country is ongoing, only now it is tied to economics. I believe we should reinstitute the draft, so those that can easily escape, will instead have to serve.
We’ll see how shortsighted politicians in washington react, when powerful families and interests argue against the War in Iraq, rather than some poor mother who has lost her son.
— Michael Radtke - Jul 15, 07:57 AM - #