Who is Putting the Troops in Harms Way?
vvawai | 18.03.2003 21:50
War is never safe. Standing in resistance to war is never safe either. Acting one's conscience requires moral courage and sacrifice. No soldier can know beforehand when enough will be enough, when she or he must dissent from what is clearly wrong
Who is Putting the Troops in Harms Way?
The Call to Conscience from Veterans to Active Duty Troops and Reservists (www.calltoconscience.net) has unleashed a debate among veterans. In fact many of the veterans who oppose a new war with Iraq have also said: When the war starts they must support the U.S. government and support the troops.
The logic of this position is that once the shooting starts the troops must stand together. At that point it becomes-them and us. By calling upon the troops to follow their conscience and "do the right thing" we are actually endangering their lives by "dividing" them. Troops depend on each other for survival.
First, straight up - it is the U.S. government that is placing the troops in harms way, compelling them to kill or be killed. Is the U.S. morally justified to kill Iraqis, military or civilian, in an invasion of their country? If this war is unjust and about the U.S. dominating the regions oil as part of their war on the world, and we temper our opposition because they are "our boys," aren't we upholding and contributing to the murder of Iraqis? Aren't we saying that their lives are worth less and American lives are worth more? We say you cannot support the troops without also supporting the war. Period. The only troops that we support are the troops who resist and refuse to fight.
As veterans we cannot support the U.S. governments turning our "brothers" into killing machines, complete with the nightmares, drug and substance abuse and life of horror that they will face - if they come home. Who could ever want that for a fellow troop? That is why we support GI resistance.
There is also the question of the Nuremberg and the Geneva conventions. Article 6 of the Geneva Convention states:
"(c)Crimes against Humanity: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated."
We have to take on the whole "my country right or wrong" because we do not want our fellow vets (and movement activists) to become the "good Germans" of our time. The Call to Conscience states that there comes a time when being a citizen of the world takes precedence over being a soldier of a nation. It is very clear that the U.S. government has only the interests of the rich and powerful in going into Iraq. Following the orders of a country bent on imperial rule and genocide could result in the filing of charges by a world tribunal (if the U.S. no longer dominated the world!)
Back to who is putting the troops in harms way?
Another invasion of Iraq in 2003 will be very different from the invasion of 1991. The war's mission has changed in the intervening years, from removing Iraq from Kuwait to removing the entire Iraqi government and military establishment from power. Because the goal of the U.S. military has changed, the Iraqi army may retreat to the cities, where they may face better odds than in the desert.
U.S. troops are vulnerable to Iraqi chemical and biological warfare agents-if Iraq is capable of using them. Their gas masks, detection alarms and protection suits don't work, according to internal Department of Defense documents uncovered during investigations by the U.S. General Accounting Office.
Research shows long-term adverse side effects from mandatory vaccines given to U.S. soldiers deploying to the war zone.
The Gulf War battlefield remains radioactive and toxic.
Many post-cease-fire military actions of the first Gulf War were deplorable. In March 1991, the Iraqi army was in a full route inside Iraq. Against orders, former General Barry McCaffrey slaughtered thousands of retreating Iraqi soldiers after the cease-fire (documented in the article, "Overwhelming Force," by Seymour Hersh, The New Yorker, 2000). Many U.S. soldiers returned home with serious objections about the course and consequences of such actions, including the horrific carnage of the "highway of death," littered with hundreds of destroyed cars, tanks and human remains. Will there be another massacre of Iraqi soldiers? Will Iraqi troops slaughter U.S. soldiers in retaliation, killing U.S. prisoners or retreating U.S. soldiers? And will the press be allowed onto the battlefield to record what really happens?
The Department of Veterans Affairs will not be able to care for additional casualties because the VA can't even take care of current patients. Most veterans now wait six months to see a VA doctor. Over 1/3 of all Gulf veterans are ill from a variety of unknown symptoms they got when they came back from the Gulf. [See article on DU on page 12.]
Aren't the troops less in harms way if they follow their conscience and don't participate in another Gulf slaughter? What if a GI did resist? How have forms of resistance affected the safety of U.S. troops in past wars, such as Vietnam? The Vietnam War especially had a rich legacy of GI resistance which took many forms. The most violent resistance was directed against commanders at various levels who put troops in harms way as cannon fodder. Fraggings were common. In 1969 a GI underground newspaper publicly put a $10,000 bounty on the head of the Lt. Colonel who ordered and led a costly assault on Hamburger Hill (he lived). A widespread form of resistance was the "search and avoid" mission. Informal local truces occurred in many parts of Vietnam. These troops were acting on their understanding of the situation with a clear sense of their collective survival, well being and of who the real enemy was. These acts of resistance saved lives on all sides. There is also the incalculatable life saving effect of having a clear conscience. Sure they have the "blue pill" now for PTSD but will it really work? [see page 10.] Do we even want it to work for what they are planning?
War is never safe. Standing in resistance to war is never safe either. Acting one's conscience requires moral courage and sacrifice. No soldier can know beforehand when enough will be enough, when she or he must dissent from what is clearly wrong. When that time comes, she may lay her life down against war; or he may, like Hugh Thompson, the U.S. hero of the My Lai massacre, act to save lives. As veterans we are laying out our experience on these questions. As this connects with the experience of the present day troops, we expect they will seek ways to resist and we will find ways to support them. This will save many lives.
Some of the information for this article was taken directly from "10 reasons why many Gulf War veterans oppose re-invading Iraq." to see this article and more about this debate see February comments.-www.calltoconscience.net
The Call to Conscience from Veterans to Active Duty Troops and Reservists (www.calltoconscience.net) has unleashed a debate among veterans. In fact many of the veterans who oppose a new war with Iraq have also said: When the war starts they must support the U.S. government and support the troops.
The logic of this position is that once the shooting starts the troops must stand together. At that point it becomes-them and us. By calling upon the troops to follow their conscience and "do the right thing" we are actually endangering their lives by "dividing" them. Troops depend on each other for survival.
First, straight up - it is the U.S. government that is placing the troops in harms way, compelling them to kill or be killed. Is the U.S. morally justified to kill Iraqis, military or civilian, in an invasion of their country? If this war is unjust and about the U.S. dominating the regions oil as part of their war on the world, and we temper our opposition because they are "our boys," aren't we upholding and contributing to the murder of Iraqis? Aren't we saying that their lives are worth less and American lives are worth more? We say you cannot support the troops without also supporting the war. Period. The only troops that we support are the troops who resist and refuse to fight.
As veterans we cannot support the U.S. governments turning our "brothers" into killing machines, complete with the nightmares, drug and substance abuse and life of horror that they will face - if they come home. Who could ever want that for a fellow troop? That is why we support GI resistance.
There is also the question of the Nuremberg and the Geneva conventions. Article 6 of the Geneva Convention states:
"(c)Crimes against Humanity: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated."
We have to take on the whole "my country right or wrong" because we do not want our fellow vets (and movement activists) to become the "good Germans" of our time. The Call to Conscience states that there comes a time when being a citizen of the world takes precedence over being a soldier of a nation. It is very clear that the U.S. government has only the interests of the rich and powerful in going into Iraq. Following the orders of a country bent on imperial rule and genocide could result in the filing of charges by a world tribunal (if the U.S. no longer dominated the world!)
Back to who is putting the troops in harms way?
Another invasion of Iraq in 2003 will be very different from the invasion of 1991. The war's mission has changed in the intervening years, from removing Iraq from Kuwait to removing the entire Iraqi government and military establishment from power. Because the goal of the U.S. military has changed, the Iraqi army may retreat to the cities, where they may face better odds than in the desert.
U.S. troops are vulnerable to Iraqi chemical and biological warfare agents-if Iraq is capable of using them. Their gas masks, detection alarms and protection suits don't work, according to internal Department of Defense documents uncovered during investigations by the U.S. General Accounting Office.
Research shows long-term adverse side effects from mandatory vaccines given to U.S. soldiers deploying to the war zone.
The Gulf War battlefield remains radioactive and toxic.
Many post-cease-fire military actions of the first Gulf War were deplorable. In March 1991, the Iraqi army was in a full route inside Iraq. Against orders, former General Barry McCaffrey slaughtered thousands of retreating Iraqi soldiers after the cease-fire (documented in the article, "Overwhelming Force," by Seymour Hersh, The New Yorker, 2000). Many U.S. soldiers returned home with serious objections about the course and consequences of such actions, including the horrific carnage of the "highway of death," littered with hundreds of destroyed cars, tanks and human remains. Will there be another massacre of Iraqi soldiers? Will Iraqi troops slaughter U.S. soldiers in retaliation, killing U.S. prisoners or retreating U.S. soldiers? And will the press be allowed onto the battlefield to record what really happens?
The Department of Veterans Affairs will not be able to care for additional casualties because the VA can't even take care of current patients. Most veterans now wait six months to see a VA doctor. Over 1/3 of all Gulf veterans are ill from a variety of unknown symptoms they got when they came back from the Gulf. [See article on DU on page 12.]
Aren't the troops less in harms way if they follow their conscience and don't participate in another Gulf slaughter? What if a GI did resist? How have forms of resistance affected the safety of U.S. troops in past wars, such as Vietnam? The Vietnam War especially had a rich legacy of GI resistance which took many forms. The most violent resistance was directed against commanders at various levels who put troops in harms way as cannon fodder. Fraggings were common. In 1969 a GI underground newspaper publicly put a $10,000 bounty on the head of the Lt. Colonel who ordered and led a costly assault on Hamburger Hill (he lived). A widespread form of resistance was the "search and avoid" mission. Informal local truces occurred in many parts of Vietnam. These troops were acting on their understanding of the situation with a clear sense of their collective survival, well being and of who the real enemy was. These acts of resistance saved lives on all sides. There is also the incalculatable life saving effect of having a clear conscience. Sure they have the "blue pill" now for PTSD but will it really work? [see page 10.] Do we even want it to work for what they are planning?
War is never safe. Standing in resistance to war is never safe either. Acting one's conscience requires moral courage and sacrifice. No soldier can know beforehand when enough will be enough, when she or he must dissent from what is clearly wrong. When that time comes, she may lay her life down against war; or he may, like Hugh Thompson, the U.S. hero of the My Lai massacre, act to save lives. As veterans we are laying out our experience on these questions. As this connects with the experience of the present day troops, we expect they will seek ways to resist and we will find ways to support them. This will save many lives.
Some of the information for this article was taken directly from "10 reasons why many Gulf War veterans oppose re-invading Iraq." to see this article and more about this debate see February comments.-www.calltoconscience.net
vvawai
e-mail:
thevets@vvawai.org
Homepage:
www.vvawai.org