A veteran reflects on the left and the peace movement

IraqVeteranAgainstWar

As a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom, and a veteran of sorts of the antiwar movement, I feel that the left as a whole has done a poor job of speaking to veterans. This is unfortunate considering they are an extremely important resource and could be great allies in our fight for democracy and freedom for the people of America and the world. We must find a way to communicate with them without parroting rhetoric that is frankly inapplicable to today's military and today's war.

When we protest war, do we protest the war itself, the warrior, or the people who truly started the war in the first place? Vets feel they are being protested as well as the war. How can we separate the war from the warrior? It's like trying to dissociate a shoe from a shoemaker or an exterminator from their poison. Soldiering requires a high level of training and skill. It also requires a sense of honor, self-sacrifice, courage, duty and loyalty - noble values that we on the left hold in high esteem as we work for peace and justice. However, in our zeal for opposing war, we often have failed to recognize these positive traits in U.S. soldiers. We often generalize and dehumanize them.

However, we can all agree that most soldiers are certainly not psychotic killers who enjoy death and suffering. If this were the case, then why are the VA hospitals filling up with people horribly traumatized with PTSD, their humanity and consciousness scarred? For the rest of their lives, veterans will experience guilt, horror, terror, confusion and anger. And yet, these scars validate their humanity. Soldiers are good people who have gone through hell. By all accounts they should be considered victims, although their pride would never let them accept our pity.

So why do they fight unpopular wars? The reason is simple. Soldiers themselves correctly point out that they did not choose the war, therefore we cannot hold them responsible for the facts of the war. They have no control over where they go, who they fight, and when they return. They can literally do nothing about their lot, and, despite the screeching on the far left, it is delusional for us to believe that soldiers will commit mass disobedience against this or any war. In any case, such disobedience would lead to the military clamping down on civil rights and possibly cutting us off from the soldiers completely. We must face the fact that massive disobedience is simply not practical or possible in an all-volunteer military. Soldiers operate under too many rules and they have been trained too well for this to ever occur. In our rhetoric, we must therefore be sure to separate soldiers from the war.

But what do we tell a soldier who has just come back from Iraq - who has seen combat for three years, has had many friends killed for what feels like no reason, and comes home to a lukewarm welcome and a broken-down VA system that leaves them out in the cold? How do we reach them? How can we gain the trust of those who believe that we hate them because we dislike the war they fight? Who believe that we "hate America" because we dislike some of its leaders and major aspects of its economic structure?

How do we address soldiers experiencing alienation from the society they once belonged to? Their dissatisfaction can be fodder for right-wing extremist groups. Such groups are working to recruit these alienated and troubled soldiers and Marines and twist them into foot-soldiers of hate and death. Or they are tricking them into Quixotic crusades for unrealistic candidates like Ron Paul and his "libertarian" circus. This trend may have terrible consequences for the future of this country. We may be moving toward a similar situation as the one in post-World-War-I Germany when legions of disaffected German soldiers were recruited by fascist thugs to fight progressive reforms and help turn Germany into a fascist state. Today, the myriad "tea party" groups, whose anger at any kind of progressive reform is to some degree fueled by closeted racism, are feeding the feelings of victimhood already present in many soldiers.

To reach veterans, disaffected and otherwise, we must clearly communicate the nature of war, the Iraq War in particular, and their role in it without attacking their honor or dignity, or else we lose their ear. We must separate them from the war without lying to them or talking down to them.

We must explain the truth:

  • - Soldiers fight and die in wars to secure natural resources and captive markets for capitalists to exploit.
  • - Most wars fought over the last 200 years have had nothing to do with freedom or democracy.
  • - As working-class Americans they share a common brotherhood with 90 percent of the world. They share a deeper brotherhood with the average Iraqi than almost nine-tenths of the U.S. Congress by this simple class measure - a Congress that sends young men and women to kill, fight and die so that they can secure profits for large multinational corporations and the "defense" industry.

We must do this without the conversation devolving into superficial liberalism or pacifism. It is not enough for them to think "killing is wrong" and leave it at that. This would be ignoring the bigger picture and doing them a great disservice. They must be told about the nature and origin of war and imperialism truthfully and scientifically so they can decide for themselves about war and why they feel so much doubt and alienation.

We must communicate that we do not hate America when we disagree with policies of its leaders and their marriage to big business. We must communicate the class roots of warfare and the veterans' role in it. We must tell them that it is morally right to use their freedom of speech to talk about their experiences. We must convince them that we are fighting FOR them if not WITH them. Most of all, veterans need to hear that values of honor, self sacrifice, courage, duty, and loyalty - their values - are needed to fight for democracy and freedom here at home. We need them to help us build a better future for America, and to bring peace at last for the rest of the world.

Post your comment

Comments are moderated. See guidelines here.

Comments

  • I just love this story. We need to honor our soldiers for the fine work they do. These brave souls should be respected by all who cherish peace and freedom. I agree we need to re-think our approach to soldiers. Without these brave soldiers we would never be able to look towards a future of peace. Have you considered running recruitment advertising in your paper? Lots of our youth could use one of these jobs. Mary Howes NYC

    Posted by Mary Howes, 12/01/2009 5:58pm (5 years ago)

  • Excellent analysis and ideas on how the peace movement can better communicate with soldiers. Mr. Turrcotte's criticism is exemplified by the resistance among peace groups and protesters (and most on the left) to carry the American flag at anti-war demonstrations and events. I am not a vet, but I worked with many Vietnam vets over the years. Many often looked at the peace movement as anti-American--flag burning, not flag carrying. The peace movement cannot hope to improve communications with vets and the millions of their family members when the movement visually portrays an underlying attitude that seems to reject the very symbol military people value. Refusing to carry the flag or its absence communicates to military personnel that the peace movement has a disdain for the flag or are ashamed of what it represents.

    I can imagine when a vet or active duty person sees images of tens of thousands of protesters and they strain to see even one flag it must raise feelings of suspicion and resentment. Imagine the communicative value of a 1,000 American flags at a mass demonstration of tens of thousands. It is a statement that can help bridge the gap in communication and cultural identity that Mr. Turrcotte so vividly describes. In some small way I have felt the critical look that he says military personnel feel. I have carried the American flag at large demonstrations and although the comments and looks are sometimes understanding, sometimes confused, all too often they are critical. I have offered small flags (free) to people to carry and typically find no takers and when I do the people are tentative and nervous at being so conspicuous. We can make the flag a symbol of peace and anti-imperialism, but if we don’t try it will remain a tool of the right wing to manipulate public opinion and when support for war. Peace organizations have worked hard to broaden their appeal and communications, yet as Mr. Turcotte points out the movement and its participants still need to work at creating a more open and inviting identity. One step that can be taken is to carry the flag.

    Wayne, Minnesota

    Posted by WayneN, 12/01/2009 10:19am (5 years ago)

  • Comrades,
    The concept of "serving with honor" is highly subjective. If you mean that you got an Honorable Discharge, then yes, I served with honor as well. As have most of IVAW.
    I do suppose you could flip it and say that I "fought for your right" to be a reactionary ignoramus using the same logic.
    More to the point is the nerve to insist that the only correct ideological view a vet can have is to be a right-wing, war-mongering, Palin-supporter.
    Since we are all free individuals and we have more then one political party in America (some even say two!) then actively engaging in politics is a right, one which Republicans or Democrats do not hold a monopoly on.
    I have chosen to follow my conscience to its logical conclusion. I suggest if that bothers anybody then perhaps you should stop frequenting sites that you disagree with.
    -joe T.

    Posted by Joe T., 12/01/2009 6:58am (5 years ago)

  • Also, the movie Sir, No Sir, and the book Spitting image by Jerry Lembcke shows the extent of the anti war resistence in the military during the Vietnam era and exposes myths of the peace movement being anti-soldier.

    Posted by Sean Mulligan, 12/01/2009 1:10am (5 years ago)

  • Why isn't their any biographical information about this author? His name doesn't seem to work as a link.

    Posted by Sean Mulligan, 12/01/2009 1:06am (5 years ago)

  • These former members of the military are an embarrassment to all of us who have served with honor. This site is an embarrassment to American ideals in general. I fought for your right to be a pussy, but I don't agree with your ideology. Eat Shit.

    Posted by Jack, 11/30/2009 11:55am (5 years ago)

  • I agree with the views by Joseph Turcotte on how to relate to vets, as well as active duty GIs. However, I disagree somewhat with his views towards the possibility of "mass disobedience" within the all-volunteere military (AVM).

    It all depends on how many "massive" is. Leaving aside major revolts in AVMs in other countries over the centuries, the U.S. has had its share of major and minor instances of mass disobedience. Since the revolution the U.S. has mostly had a professional military, with the exceptions of the Civil War, WWI, WWII and the Cold War up to the end of the Vietnam War. That did not prevent instances of large-scale disobedience, including unit mutinies, in such ventures as the wars with Mexico and the Philippines. Also, the Marines, Navy and Air Force--AVMs--were well represented in military revolts during the Vietnam War.
    It is also noteworthy that there are active-duty chapters of Iraq Veterans Against the War currently on military bases.

    Obviously, the military has honed its repressive and cooptive measures based on its studies of the GI movement in the Vietnam era. But that does not eliminate the potential--under appropriate conditions--for a large-scale GI movement against specific wars and for better social conditions within the military. Most GIs, for instance, are unaware of the role and influence of GI unions and soldier's committees in a dozen or so countries. In Denmark, for instance, the soldier's union can bargain over length, frequency and number of its foreign deployments. There are issues, in other words, worth fighting for, and the left should not ignore its historic role of organizing within the military around these concerns.

    Finally, I think Torcotte's comments suggest another look at universal--as opposed to the conventional SELECTIVE--service, so that all citizens become vulnerable to wartime call-up. That's another old leftist position, advocated by Marx, Engels and subsequent Marxists who analyzed war and the military.

    Posted by Al Sargis, 11/28/2009 7:43pm (5 years ago)

RSS feed for comments on this page | RSS feed for all comments