Hi Dan-- thanks for setting down some stakes here on substack and expressing your views. As a former fellow Ad Fontes centrist, I share many of your views, although I'm a generation behind you.
I'm particularly interested in this musing that appears above, and think it would make for a longer, thoughtful post:
"I reasoned that in a democratic republic when the majority votes to commit the nation to war, the citizenry, even those who doubt the consensus, should support it. I’m still not entirely confident I was right."
Some things to take into consideration are; the errors of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution that rested on faulty intelligence reports; and the nature of current conflicts where a broad Authorization for the Use of Military Force covered all kinds of operations over a 20-year period, even those inside sovereign countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria or perhaps even in Venezuela.
Surrendering one's moral agency in the face of national security judgements by one man, the president for instance, i.e., George W. Bush's call to war in Iraq, despite the lack of insurgent activity in that country and the lack of Title 7 authorization for the use of military force by the U.N., is another case in point where citizens cannot be expected to be involuntarily summoned to wars abroad without a great deal more scrutiny and shoring up of the democratic republic's procedures. As I awaited "D" day in Qatar, I justified the call based on Bush's State of the Union Address. Indeed, by our rules, the call was his to make, and Bush said that he was not willing to risk Iraq becoming a nuclear-capable adversary...
If that were not enough to consider, soon our military forces may be expected to participate in police actions all over the United States to round up and deport those who are inside our country without authorization. So, the stakes are again very high, albeit not as high as with Viet Nam or other conflicts. Still, the people currently serving in our military signed up of their own volition to help protect and defend our country from all enemies. It's certainly not the case that all immigrants in the country can be considered enemies.
Perhaps the vaunted "Overton Window" will leave radical moderates like us not only joining the Democratic Party, but fully fledged "libs" notwithstanding our commitment to checks and balances and traditional Founder's logic. I hope not. I hope you can influence people to adopt more balanced views by explaining your thoughts here.
I have told this story of my mindset during my Army service before; maybe I need to fully think it through.
"I reasoned that in a democratic republic, when the majority votes to commit the nation to war, the citizenry, even those who doubt the consensus, should support it. I’m still not entirely confident I was right."
There may have been some self-justification going on. In 1965, I was at loose ends, having dropped out of college after two years and taking a few community college courses, and the draft was looming. So, volunteering for the draft was a way of dealing with life. Plus, short-term military service was a family tradition. My father, both his brothers and their father all served. My maternal grandfather, Archibald Evans Centennial Smith, was in the Navy during the Spanish-American War.
Should a citizen surrender her moral agency in the face of national security judgment calls by one man, the President of the United States? The short answer is no, but the way a citizen should express his agency will vary. A US military member has a sworn obligation to follow orders, ultimately from the commander in chief. However, there is the right to refuse an unlawful order. I would be interested in any cases you know of a service member exercising that right. Would you say that a service member has less moral agency than a civilian citizen?
You know a lot more than I do about the events leading up to the Iraq War. It’s interesting to me that you don’t mention the justification that I heard the most for the war, the existence of weapons of mass destruction inside Iraq. Was that justification more for external consumption than within the Bush administration and the military then?
Though the world liberal world order is touted as a great triumph, the more you look at armed conflict since World War II, the less splendid that vaunted system appears. There have been so many cases in which the government has misled the people of our democracy. I believe that’s one of the factors leading to the loss of trust in the establishment, however you want to define it.
Moral agency can be expressed through freedom of speech. This freedom is integral to our rights as citizens but can come in conflict with society’s need for order and security. There is a fundamental conflict here which can never be permanently resolved. I deeply respect my friends who made different decisions than mine during the Vietnam War.
If Trump 2 uses military force to deport millions of illegal aliens, regardless of how deeply embedded they are in our society, there will be civil disobedience and almost certainly politically related violence. I am working on an essay about violent political protest.
Thanks for addressing my comments Dan. I appreciate it. I'll try to answer the questions you posed here. I'm thinking they weren't just rhetorical in nature.
1. I would be interested in any cases you know of a service member exercising that right. Would you say that a service member has less moral agency than a civilian citizen?
The case of Lawerence Rockwood is a good case in point. You can read the details on Wikipedia, but essentially, he was given an order he believed to be immoral, and he disobeyed it to his own detriment, but believe he saved the lives of others and thought it was a fair tradeoff.
Another case is that of Ian Fischback, who influenced the legislative banning of U.S. torture after his experiences in Iraq.
Currently, the right to refuse a lawful order is in question because as of a recent Supreme Court opinion, the President cannot give unlawful orders, he cannot be prosecuted or accused in office, nor can evidence of his state of mind or considerations be uncovered-- so a fortiori, the morality of his orders cannot be questioned.
After meeting L. Rockwood and talking to him about his experience, (He said he regretted refusing to follow orders, and wished he had instead simply let our French allies know about the prison conditions. They would have acted.)
I felt that the military had acted in good conscience, and that we could not have a system where any member-- especially a military member could substitute his own judgment for the judgement of the chain of command.
This is an idea that is tension with the moral agency imperative. The U.S. and its allies carried out capital executions for a lot of German soldiers who claimed after WWII they were only following orders. The upshot of that experience and that of the Laws of Land Warfare in the Geneva and Hague Conventions pointed to a duty to exercise one's own moral volition in matters that might shock the conscience of mankind. Things like systematic, mass execution of civilians.
So, the tension is still there morally, and Ian Fischback and Lawerence Rockwood both felt and ultimately acted in the face of that tension. It was very difficult for them to do so because they were subject to the Uniformed Code of Military Justice-- which is a stricter standard. So, yes, military members have a more difficult time acting on their moral convictions than military members do. They have to follow orders that they sometimes believe to be immoral or suspect to be illegal. They have to "fall on their swords" and bet their careers on their decisions.
2. Regarding not mentioning the "existence" of nuclear weapons in Iraq as a cause for war. I do mention this, but I couched it as a possibility versus a certainty of nuclear weapons in Iraq. I say President Bush was "not willing to risk Iraq becoming a nuclear-capable adversary." That's because there was no evidence that Iraq had become a nuclear nation.
Within the military the justification was manifold, and went under the heading of WMD-- a broader term that included chemical weapons and potential biological weapons. But recall that the Neocon rationale and the Axis of Evil was at the base of these causes of war.
As you work on your essay about violent political protest, I hope you'll also have a look at "A Force More Powerful" a documentary series from the 90s that covers the inner workings of non-violent protest.
Welcome to Substack! (as if I have any presence here with which to welcome anyone)
I think Excessive Moderation is a good title.
Hi Dan-- thanks for setting down some stakes here on substack and expressing your views. As a former fellow Ad Fontes centrist, I share many of your views, although I'm a generation behind you.
I'm particularly interested in this musing that appears above, and think it would make for a longer, thoughtful post:
"I reasoned that in a democratic republic when the majority votes to commit the nation to war, the citizenry, even those who doubt the consensus, should support it. I’m still not entirely confident I was right."
Some things to take into consideration are; the errors of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution that rested on faulty intelligence reports; and the nature of current conflicts where a broad Authorization for the Use of Military Force covered all kinds of operations over a 20-year period, even those inside sovereign countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria or perhaps even in Venezuela.
Surrendering one's moral agency in the face of national security judgements by one man, the president for instance, i.e., George W. Bush's call to war in Iraq, despite the lack of insurgent activity in that country and the lack of Title 7 authorization for the use of military force by the U.N., is another case in point where citizens cannot be expected to be involuntarily summoned to wars abroad without a great deal more scrutiny and shoring up of the democratic republic's procedures. As I awaited "D" day in Qatar, I justified the call based on Bush's State of the Union Address. Indeed, by our rules, the call was his to make, and Bush said that he was not willing to risk Iraq becoming a nuclear-capable adversary...
If that were not enough to consider, soon our military forces may be expected to participate in police actions all over the United States to round up and deport those who are inside our country without authorization. So, the stakes are again very high, albeit not as high as with Viet Nam or other conflicts. Still, the people currently serving in our military signed up of their own volition to help protect and defend our country from all enemies. It's certainly not the case that all immigrants in the country can be considered enemies.
Perhaps the vaunted "Overton Window" will leave radical moderates like us not only joining the Democratic Party, but fully fledged "libs" notwithstanding our commitment to checks and balances and traditional Founder's logic. I hope not. I hope you can influence people to adopt more balanced views by explaining your thoughts here.
Good luck!
I have told this story of my mindset during my Army service before; maybe I need to fully think it through.
"I reasoned that in a democratic republic, when the majority votes to commit the nation to war, the citizenry, even those who doubt the consensus, should support it. I’m still not entirely confident I was right."
There may have been some self-justification going on. In 1965, I was at loose ends, having dropped out of college after two years and taking a few community college courses, and the draft was looming. So, volunteering for the draft was a way of dealing with life. Plus, short-term military service was a family tradition. My father, both his brothers and their father all served. My maternal grandfather, Archibald Evans Centennial Smith, was in the Navy during the Spanish-American War.
Should a citizen surrender her moral agency in the face of national security judgment calls by one man, the President of the United States? The short answer is no, but the way a citizen should express his agency will vary. A US military member has a sworn obligation to follow orders, ultimately from the commander in chief. However, there is the right to refuse an unlawful order. I would be interested in any cases you know of a service member exercising that right. Would you say that a service member has less moral agency than a civilian citizen?
You know a lot more than I do about the events leading up to the Iraq War. It’s interesting to me that you don’t mention the justification that I heard the most for the war, the existence of weapons of mass destruction inside Iraq. Was that justification more for external consumption than within the Bush administration and the military then?
Though the world liberal world order is touted as a great triumph, the more you look at armed conflict since World War II, the less splendid that vaunted system appears. There have been so many cases in which the government has misled the people of our democracy. I believe that’s one of the factors leading to the loss of trust in the establishment, however you want to define it.
Moral agency can be expressed through freedom of speech. This freedom is integral to our rights as citizens but can come in conflict with society’s need for order and security. There is a fundamental conflict here which can never be permanently resolved. I deeply respect my friends who made different decisions than mine during the Vietnam War.
If Trump 2 uses military force to deport millions of illegal aliens, regardless of how deeply embedded they are in our society, there will be civil disobedience and almost certainly politically related violence. I am working on an essay about violent political protest.
Thanks for addressing my comments Dan. I appreciate it. I'll try to answer the questions you posed here. I'm thinking they weren't just rhetorical in nature.
1. I would be interested in any cases you know of a service member exercising that right. Would you say that a service member has less moral agency than a civilian citizen?
The case of Lawerence Rockwood is a good case in point. You can read the details on Wikipedia, but essentially, he was given an order he believed to be immoral, and he disobeyed it to his own detriment, but believe he saved the lives of others and thought it was a fair tradeoff.
Another case is that of Ian Fischback, who influenced the legislative banning of U.S. torture after his experiences in Iraq.
Currently, the right to refuse a lawful order is in question because as of a recent Supreme Court opinion, the President cannot give unlawful orders, he cannot be prosecuted or accused in office, nor can evidence of his state of mind or considerations be uncovered-- so a fortiori, the morality of his orders cannot be questioned.
After meeting L. Rockwood and talking to him about his experience, (He said he regretted refusing to follow orders, and wished he had instead simply let our French allies know about the prison conditions. They would have acted.)
I felt that the military had acted in good conscience, and that we could not have a system where any member-- especially a military member could substitute his own judgment for the judgement of the chain of command.
This is an idea that is tension with the moral agency imperative. The U.S. and its allies carried out capital executions for a lot of German soldiers who claimed after WWII they were only following orders. The upshot of that experience and that of the Laws of Land Warfare in the Geneva and Hague Conventions pointed to a duty to exercise one's own moral volition in matters that might shock the conscience of mankind. Things like systematic, mass execution of civilians.
So, the tension is still there morally, and Ian Fischback and Lawerence Rockwood both felt and ultimately acted in the face of that tension. It was very difficult for them to do so because they were subject to the Uniformed Code of Military Justice-- which is a stricter standard. So, yes, military members have a more difficult time acting on their moral convictions than military members do. They have to follow orders that they sometimes believe to be immoral or suspect to be illegal. They have to "fall on their swords" and bet their careers on their decisions.
2. Regarding not mentioning the "existence" of nuclear weapons in Iraq as a cause for war. I do mention this, but I couched it as a possibility versus a certainty of nuclear weapons in Iraq. I say President Bush was "not willing to risk Iraq becoming a nuclear-capable adversary." That's because there was no evidence that Iraq had become a nuclear nation.
Within the military the justification was manifold, and went under the heading of WMD-- a broader term that included chemical weapons and potential biological weapons. But recall that the Neocon rationale and the Axis of Evil was at the base of these causes of war.
As you work on your essay about violent political protest, I hope you'll also have a look at "A Force More Powerful" a documentary series from the 90s that covers the inner workings of non-violent protest.
Peace!