Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiEscalating Afghanistan: What Did You Do in the Class War, Daddy?
Thirty-four years ago this month the young James Fallows published (in the Washington Monthly) what still remains a definitive article about the class divide in times of war—“What Did You Do in the Class War, Daddy?” I still have a yellowed original copy somewhere. Fallows was writing about the sickening reality that as a Harvard student he, like so many other Ivy Leaguers, could quite easily avoid fighting in Vietnam. They had the ways and means to avoid military service: exemptions, deferments, lawyers, connections.
I was reminded of Fallows’ awkward question a couple of weeks ago when I was in New Haven to receive Yale Divinity School’s William Sloane Coffin ‘56 Peace and Justice Award. Coffin famously commenced his 17-year chaplaincy at Yale by telling the members of the 1959 freshman class that “the Lord forbids our using our education merely to buy our way into middle class security.” Coffin and other antiwar religious activists of the time never could persuade a majority of upper-middle class students to take to the streets against the Vietnam madness, though they made a valiant effort—and they understood the ugly race and class dimension of American imperialism.
Thinking about Coffin’s legacy, I had to ask myself exactly what I have been doing during the current class war—a siege that is far more severe and ugly than the one that sent mainly working-class and rural kids to fight and die for nothing in the rice paddies of Vietnam.
Today, obviously, our privileged young people do not have to worry about a military draft: there is absolutely no chance that they will be compelled to serve. But what is far worse than Vietnam-era draft evasion by the young and well-connected is the complete insulation from the consequences of bad policy enjoyed by today’s jeunesse doree. Not only do they not have to go to the burning deserts of Iraq or to the chilly forbidding heights of Afghanistan: they don’t even have to know anything about the lives of those who are going. The idea that they might experience any Fallows-like guilt or have any second thoughts about their degree of insulation is simply not an issue today.
This extreme stratification and insulation of the privileged is what weighs on my mind—and what should weigh on all concerned religious leaders—on the cusp of President Obama’s decision whether or not to let Gen. MacArthur (oops, sorry—Gen. McChrystal) steamroll him into increasing U.S. troop strength in Afghanistan by 40,000—or even 85,000.
Earlier this month the Pentagon crowed that it had just completed its best recruiting year in three and a half decades. The announcement made no secret of the fact that a devastatingly bad job market is just terrific news for military recruiters waving hefty signing bonuses. The question of conscience: How do we feel about taking advantage of the economic vulnerability of the majority of American youth in order to make them still more vulnerable: i.e., vulnerable to suicide bombers, IEDs, mortar rounds, and even “friendly fire”?
We might do well to recall that the ancient military state of Sparta used a class of people called helots to wage its many wars. The helots were not exactly private property in the manner of Athenian slaves; rather, they could best be described as serfs or slaves of the public: available and expected to do the public’s bloody business of conquest and pillage.
Let us say it clearly and see how it feels upon the tongue: today’s “all-volunteer” military represents a contemporary form of helotry. We give the great majority of our young very little hope for a foothold in our collapsed economy; then we send them off to fight and die (or, given the significant advancements in military field medicine, to return home horribly damaged) in order to “defend” the grossly unequal society that dealt them such a bad hand in the first place.
There is nothing new about this, you say, and you are right. But tell me when it has been quite this bad? Two-thirds of all income gains between 2002 and 2007 went to the top one percent of Americans. The ratio of CEO compensation to average worker compensation in 1965—when the catastrophic Vietnam “surge” began—was bad enough at around 25-to-1. Today that ratio is 300-to-1 and soaring, despite the fact that Wall Street’s best and brightest just pushed the economy over the brink.
People ask why there is so little outrage over the absurd idea that we can make ourselves more secure by putting down a huge military footprint in a little-known (by us) region of the world and by routinely assassinating that region’s indigenous leaders (bear in mind that Obama ordered more drone attacks in his first six months in office than Bush ordered in his last three-and-one-half years).
I will tell you why I think there is so little outrage: the people making these decisions remain as arrogant as ever while enjoying more insulation than ever from the consequences of their bad decisions, whereas the people being deployed to fight come from a population that has been rendered effectively voiceless. After all, economic desperation is about much more than just having no money; it’s about being anxious and stressed and having to hustle in two or three junk jobs just to survive.
Do the stressed-out strike you as people who are likely or able to articulate and express a strong antiwar view and then to vote accordingly? I don’t think so. And this is in part because these likely military recruits are not simply cannon fodder—they are also fodder for the well-heeled demagogues who tell them all the time that what holds them back is Big Government, or brown people sneaking across the border to steal their jobs, or Jews, or even a Black (possibly foreign? possibly Muslim?) president.
And even if economically desperate Americans do actually see the proposed Af-Pak surge as a looming catastrophe (as I believe many do), does it really matter to the policymakers what they think? The economically distressed and marginal count for less than ever in this hollowed-out and corrupt formal democracy. The Democratic Party’s dirty little secret for the past 30 years is that it has as little interest in mobilizing the poor and marginal as does the Republican Party. What was once the party of “the little guy” has unmistakably hitched its wagon to the party of wealth.
Religiously speaking, the right descriptor for a system that insulates some and exposes others to the horrors of imperial war—and that relies on the same growing inequality to stifle dissent—is demonic. These are demons that won’t be cast out until we first name them properly. For clergy, naming them is not just an option or something that only some bold and reckless colleagues might wish to undertake. Religious leaders are not allowed to sit out the class war. It’s our job to be combatants, ready or not.
26 Comments so far
Show AllThe other day I met a young man, 18, who has enlisted to enter the US Navy despite his objections to American war efforts.
His parents are both out of work and will likely losing the home he occupies with his younger siblings.
Each surviving generation of his family has found honor in working for the American military.
He worries about dying and about killing, particularly killing innocents and civilians, but he worries more about coming back home damaged or deranged and unable to treat his family well.
His descriptions suggest experience, and apparently he already has no one better to talk to than an old stranger in a cafe.
I repeat my prediction of a few days ago namely that President Obama will soon announce the sending of more troops to Afghanistan but not as many as General McChrystal has asked for. It is the political classic of "let's split the difference" which makes both sides look less bad losers. Presidents Johnson and Nixon, wherever they now are, must be furious that they did not get Nobel Peace Prizes.
I also repeat my conclusion that the raising of a national Afghan army and police force is a chimera of the worst kind.
Yesterday President Obama told service men and women at Naval Air Station Jacksonville "I won't risk your lives unless it is absolutely necessary". I gagged. This man has a knack of digging himself into the deepest holes. He has already risked the lives of the service men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan by leaving them there apparently for "absolute necessity" whatever that is other than "absolute bullshit". Ergo he will not absolutely and unnecessarily risk additional lives of service men and women by escalating the war in Afghanistan because that is an "absolute necessity" in his feverish mind. Absolutism reigneth!
Much as I agree with Laarman's philosphical position and admire everything about Sloan Coffin's good works in the peace movement, I really question the accuracy of his description of the economics at work undergirding modern US militarism.
It used to be that US military pay was abysmally low by civilian standards, but what you got in return was a guaranteed three hots and a cot, full health coverage, and a job security and promotion heirarchy that was a relative meritocracy compared to the civilian work force outside. There was always a thin layer of elites at the very top, but for the vast majority of those serving in the US armed forces either for a single active duty tour or as a career, these were the trade offs.
In today's all volunteer force, particularly since 2001, the economic incentives have become spectacular, especially if you serve in an overseas duty station and learn skills that are marketable in the bustling mercenary contractor segment of the US economy, or skills which transition smoothly into police, corrections, and other lines of "security related" work back stateside. Buck sargeants take home almost what UAW assembly line workers used to make. Mid-level members of the officers' corps clear six figures. And the material perks - PX "privileges", discounts on consumer items, availability of credit - are incredible. Plus, of course, you still get your three hots and a cot with full health coverage.
In my opinion, it's not so much cruel, grinding poverty that's causing the post-Vietnam all-volunteer army meet its enlistment goals. It's the hollowing out of the American middle class that has made hopping on the Pentagon gravy train for a short stint or maybe for the long ride such an attractive move for many young people, except (of course) for only the offspring of the super rich.
Bill from Saginaw
Peter Laarman said it all. A great and important article about us who serve in a military that has been turned into an army of helots for war-profiteers and Zionists.
This is as important and powerful and profound statement of an article as any to have been read in so long.
POWERFUL statement of TRUTH.
that there ARE still people of conscience after all these years ....is what is amazing.
I remember reading that, of the U.S. communities that had paid in death's of their young soldiers per 1000 citizens in the Iraq War, tops by far was American Samoa. And I thought, 'Are they even Americans?'
All that needs to be done is draft everyone between the ages of 19 and 26 - men and women - from the 150 or so most affluent zip codes in the US. No exemptions, exceptions, or deferments. They stay in and available for deployment for three years(after training), are in active reserve for a year, and then in country reserve for a year. Once they're in-country on reserve, they go back from whence they came - school, job, beach, whatever. Even though they may be rich, all of the GI Bill benefits would be available to them, as it should be for anyone who serves. For those who may have a legitimate medical, moral, or religious concern, there would be a 5 year hitch in civilian service. WPA/CCC types of endeavors. The civilian benefits would not be as far-reaching as a GI Bill; if they want the big stuff, they'll have to pick up a rifle.
Actually, not only were the Helots not armed, the Spartan Army was composed exclusively of the upper class. They could afford the expensive armor and weapons used in "phalanx" fighting and it was those weapons that guaranteed their continued domination. Access to the upper class became increasingly restricted, their army consequently shrank and eventually they were overrun in a battle w/(far more inclusive) Thebes. Now the Athenian Navy... there was a middle class fighting force!
Life is like a crap sandwich. More bread you got less crap you eat.
So, the author claims that Spartan victories such as Tanagra (mentioned in the Star Trek/TNG episode 'Darmok and Gilard'), Plataea (the last scene of '300'), and Aegospotami (which was actually a Spartan naval victory)...
all due to their slave army.
I beg to differ.
- Religious leaders are not allowed to sit out the class war. It’s our job to be combatants, ready or not. -
Please make sure that you join the correct side (not the right side) in that struggle.
Religion has often been used to perpetuate evil. Please stop that.
(cont'd)
Does anyone know - do they still hold Xtian meetings inside the Pentagon?
from 2007 --
In a shocking breach of security, Defense Department officials allowed a Christian Embassy film crew to roam the corridors of the Pentagon unescorted while making a promotional video featuring high-ranking officers and political appointees. (Christian Embassy, which holds prayer meetings weekly at the Pentagon, is so entrenched that Air Force Maj. Gen. John J. Catton Jr. said he'd assumed the organization was a "quasi-federal entity.")
And the article's author wants to blame the helots. Get real.
Periodically, helots were subjected to killing sprees so that young Spartans could develop a taste for blood and to keep the helot population low.
While I appreciate the opinions, I don't agree with what the writer says regarding the kind of people the military attracts. As a father of a son who volunteered and has been fighting in Afghanistan I will offer this:
He is a highly moral, intelligent young person from a strong family with means who made a decision to serve his country. I have had the honor of meeting some of his fellow soldiers and believe some of our greatest future leaders will come from this group of young people.
I would absolutely agree with the writer when he states the majority of the country who doesn't serve and who's parents didn't serve have no idea what it means to serve. It is obvious the writer hasn't. I haven't either, and if my son didn't volunteer, I would be ignorant as well. My son's service has inspired his family, his friends, my work associates, my clients and all who have known him.
your son must be a fine young person - and surely you have brought him up as well as you could.
but the problem of WAR and signing up , even out of "good character" - is that a country whose stated purposes for "national interests" results in actually engaging in wars that are NOT REALLY for "self defense" but IMPERIAL reasons defined merely as "national defense" or "national interests" - so demonstrable by how the USA maintains hundreds of Military establishments throughout the world , produces what WARS and a WAR NATION , whch is what the USA IS...
people who BECOME enablers and participants in something that is INHERENTLY evil..no matter how noble they may have been to start with.
one of the saddest, most poignant of these stories concerning the current wars of the USA for imperial reasons is a dead soldiers - from an article in Atlernet.org
google "THE PEACEFUL WARRIOR".
he was a noble spirit who said "I signed up during the clinton administration so that i could find legitimacy to speak out AGAINST war...."
and "studied philosophy, religion, economics ..etc...to understand"....
and wrote a will:
some of which includes such poignant words:
"...I believe that this war in iraq is criminal ....but even if things turned out right in the end...what does it really say about US as a nation? that we will do whatever we wish just because we CAN...
and yet he "served"..and then died for it....
his will said:
"the Plight of the suffering of others CONSUMED ME...and I seeked to find ways to alleviate suffering for all...if you know me at all...you know that...that i have died...means that I FAILED ....so honor my memory by trying to find the means to end suffering for others".
except for having become PART of the WAR CULTURE - in which he thought was the only way he could find "legitimacy"...
this was a young american of such decency and a beautiful soul whose life was "CONSUMED by the suffering of others"...
and WAR consumed HIM for it.
WAR USED HIS good soul and spat it out .....
here is the article. please read it - and SEE how a beautiful soul - an american -
was DESTROYED by the WAR CULTURE of america. it never fails to make me cry reading it all over again.
===========================================
AlterNet
Peaceful Warrior
By Chris Strohm and Ingrid Drake, TomPaine.com
Posted on July 21, 2003, Printed on October 26, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/story/16443/
As the U.S. occupation of Iraq extends with no end in sight, and the death toll for both U.S. soldiers and Iraqi civilians continues to mount, more voices of dissent from military personnel and families are audible every day.
One of the most poignant so far comes from a young Marine who gave an interview with Pacifica Radio's Peacewatch program the night before he was deployed to Iraq. He discussed his strong commitment to peace, and said the Bush administration was violating constitutional principles and misleading the country into an unjust war.
He was killed in late June, fighting a war he didn't believe in.
Because the interview was given under the condition of anonymity, and out of respect for the current wishes of his family, the Marine will be identified in this story only as John (not his real name). John's friends describe him as a passionate, intense person with an insatiable appetite for knowledge and a commitment to peace. He studied philosophy and peace with an emphasis on Middle Eastern affairs, particularly Iraq and Israel.
His friends say he went into the military under the Clinton administration to gain credibility, so that perhaps someday his beliefs on how to build a lasting peace in the Middle East would be taken seriously. In the months before his deployment, he helped organize anti-war campaigns, mainly working behind the scenes.
In his interview with Pacifica, John expressed outrage that a legitimate public debate on the war had not occurred. Many alternatives to combat were available, he explained, such as using money being spent for war to finance a grassroots Iraqi democracy movement that would rival the Baath regime, or promoting democracy throughout the Middle East to show people alternative forms of government.
"It is almost unimaginable to expect that this war is going to create a better peace for anybody with the exception of a very small percentage of people," he said.
He accused the administration of not talking honestly with the American public about potential consequences of a U.S. war on Iraq, such as the potential for urban combat, the psyche of the Iraqi people, the impact on the United Nations and the fate of the Middle East.
"This could have repercussions in terms of the war on terrorism," he said. "It could have repercussions on international diplomacy. It could have repercussions on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. It could have repercussions in terms of our ability to get anything else done in the United Nations. And even if... everything goes the way it's supposed to go, what does that mean for the world order? It says that we basically can do whatever we want to do whenever we want to do it because we are the world's sole superpower."
But even as he expressed doubts about the Bush administration's decision, he spoke eloquently about his patriotism, and looked to the highest ideals of the country for inspiration:
"I believe in the United States. I believe in the Constitution. I think it's perhaps one of the greatest documents ever written. I believe in the idea that we the people are sovereign and we determine our own destiny. We have a democracy and the Bill of Rights and freedom of expression, freedom of speech, freedom of religion and due process. Until the world is such a place that we can really live without the military, individual Americans have to step up and they have to serve."
The Bush administration, he claimed, had not made a credible case for war with Iraq, and was violating constitutional principles by sending troops into combat. He spoke of the Declaration of Independence, and how its writers vowed to be free of England, where their lives were ruled and determined by one man. "The constant rhetoric of the administration is that there's going to be one person who decides when we go to war," he said, "and that is such a blatant violation of every constitutional principle that our founding fathers came up with."
"But even beyond that, it's 'we the people' that this nation is about," he continued. "It isn't about politics or personal agendas or political agendas or economic agendas. And I believe that this war is not the right thing for America because it hasn't yet been proven conclusively that there is a threat to 'we the people' -- and I think that is the sole determining factor as to whether or not this nation should ever go to war."
With chilling foresight, John predicted that much could go wrong in a war with Iraq, saying the outcomes outlined by the administration were based on highly optimistic and rosy scenarios. He said it was unlikely that Iraqis would cheer the arrival of a U.S. occupying force, and that long-term urban combat could be a likely outcome.
Yet he went to Iraq, believing it to be his duty. And continued, even in the midst of combat, to exercise his belief in nonviolent resolution. One of his commanders wrote a letter after his death explaining a situation in which John negotiated a peaceful settlement to a potentially deadly situation. A group of Baath Party officials were found inside a house. Because he spoke Arabic, John entered the house and talked with the officials until he negotiated a surrender. His actions potentially saved the lives of both U.S. soldiers and Iraqis.
In letters home, John described the peace movement as "awesome," and said he hoped it would grow larger, never relent against the Bush administration, and help bring an end to the war.
Around June 20, those letters stopped......
PEACEFUL WARRIOR...CONTINUED
=====================
As of July 14, 32 American soldiers have died from hostile action since Bush declared an end to major combat operations in Iraq on May 1, according to the Pentagon. Forty-three other service members have died in incidents unrelated to hostilities.
Nancy Lessin, co-founder of Military Families Speak Out, says more people are becoming outraged now that the war against Iraq has turned into a highly risky occupation.
"Too many U.S. military personnel and way too many innocent Iraqis have been killed," she says. "And what we predicted to be true has come true, that there are no weapons of mass destruction. Everything we said was going to happen is coming to pass, and one of the most frightening aspects of this is that the people of this country haven't completely risen up in opposition to what's going on."
Her words are echoed, and answered, by John's. Before he was deployed, John wrote a final letter as part of his will.
"THAT I HAVE DIED MEANS I HAVE FAILED TO ACHIEVE THE ONE THING IN LIFE I TRULY LONGED TO GIVE THE WORLD --- PEACE," the letter reads.
"THE PLIGHT OF HUMAN SUFFERING CONSUMED ME AND I DEDICATED MUCH TO TRYING TO FIND THE IDEAS THAT MIGHT LEAD HUMANKIND TOWARD ALLEVIATING IT FOR ALL.
"IT WAS A QUEST WHICH WAS INEXTRICABLY INTERTWINED WITH MY QUEST FOR FREEDOM.
"IF YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT ME YOU KNOW THAT.
"UNDERSTAND IT AND COME TO UNDERSTAND HOW THE SUFFERING OF OTHERS *TORMENTED MY SOUL*.
"THEN SEEK TO HONOR MY MEMORY BY TRYING TO ACHIEVE WHAT I COULD NOT."
Chris Strohm is a freelance reporter and volunteer with the DC Independent Media Center. Ingrid Drake is a correspondent for Pacifica Radio's Peacewatch program.
Andrew Korfhage provided additional reporting for this article.
© 2009 TomPaine.com All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/16443/
Your son has brutalized his soul with scars that will never heal for the exclusive economic benefit of richfilth animals who despise him if they think of him at all, and a general public that sees him as entertainment...and nothing else. And as for what it means to serve, you would be better served reading some Smedley Darlington Butler. Empires are evil and do evil with their every breath, they can't help it. Yes, even this one. Your son is fodder for that evil. He is a killing instrument of Empire. He is also "Fungible" according to Rumsfeld in a moment of candor. So when your son comes home with PTSD and night sweats and cannot sleep and is tortured not only by what he saw but what he did, and your inspired neighbors turn their back, and the media turn their back, and the military turns its back and he eats his pistol, you will know exactly the inspiration they derived from your son...
And yes, I hope your Patriotic son comes back in one piece without scars inside or outside. I hope ALL the sons & daughters come back in one piece without scars inside or outside (or without being gang raped by their fellow soldiers).
Killing humans is bad for everyone. It's just that over here the Xrstians still believe that humans are food. It's not what they say of course, it's what they do. They're Xrstians, of course they're hypocrites. When confronted, the Truth drives them into paroxysms of hysterical killing rage (I've seen it)...that's why they want to be armed everywhere they go...so they can kill you if you displease them....how American can you get...feral bestiality is their hallmark...
Kohlerdrums
With all due respect, I must question your belief that it is a good thing that your son is "highly moral". I was under that same misguided belief when I ended up in that hellhole called Vietnam when I also convinced myself that I was serving my country. It was not until years later did I finally come to the realization that I was not fighting for my country but rather to justify American imperialism. It was amazing how long it took me to finally comprehend that the North Vietnamese, like the Afghans and the Iraqis and the Pakistanis today, were never a threat to anyone in these United States.
I strongly suggest that if your son has the slightest hint of morality that he should realize that occupying two countries that never threatened anyone in the United States and dropping 500 lb. and 2000 lb. bombs on innocent Afghan children and grandmothers is not the best way to demonstrate one's commitment to a higher ethic. If he really wishes to show that he is a highly moral person then he should join the IVAW and speak out against the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq. Slaughtering innocent Afghans, Iraqis and Pakistanis and belonging to an organization that does is about as moral as dropping napalm and Agent Orange on the Vietnamese population.
Here is a way that you can inspire your son. Send him a DVD of the powerful documentary Sir! No Sir! which chronicled the GI Rebellion that took place during the Vietnam conflict. Suggest that he read the moving book Mission Rejected: U.S. Soldiers Who Say NO To Iraq by Peter Laufer. That title can also include those soldiers who have had the courage and integrity to say NO to Afghanistan, also. Those soldiers, I submit, are the ones who are truly moral as opposed to those in the military who blindly and willingly obey those orders that they are given. Try not to give in to your patriotic fervor. My sympathy is with the people of Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan and not with those soldiers who take part in the occupation. My sympathy and gratitude is also with those in the military who have the decency, morality, intelligence and common sense to speak out against the military and the government for what they are doing to the people in the Middle East.
The military attracts many altruists. The altruism of its citizens is one of the greatest resources available to a free society. A society that squanders that altruism by sending its young people to kill innocent people in pursuit of goals that have nothing to do with defending the country will pay dearly when they discover the truth.
If your son volunteered for this shit, then he is a fool to be led by fools.
As a Vietnam vet, I know. I was a fool back then myself, naive would be a better description. Drafted right out of high school. If I knew back then what I know now, I'd have burned my draft card.
General Smedley Butler was right.
WAR IS A RACKET.
Not sure I completely buy Laarman's thesis that the military preys on the disadvantaged and prejudiced to reach its recruiting goals. I see the military culture forever lionized--in movies, by MSM stories of military heroism, in video games, in the five days that honor military service, in the way we tell our history. In my local museum we have had two remembrances of WWII veterans in the last four years. MIlitarism is a core American value. It does not depend upon bad economic times or young men juiced up on immigration issues; it pervades our lives--otherwise how could we have fought all those wars few others participated in--Korea, Vietnam, the Balkans, Persian Gulf I, Iraq, Afghanistan plus those endless interventions? Unlike most of the countries of the world, we accept the myth that we are riding forward as white knights to conquer evil throughout the world. Tough economic times might make it marginally easier to recruit soldiers but the military ethic is always present.
Drosera
I think that you raise some excellent points concerning militarism. For that reason you may be interested in reading a very well written book on this subject and how it has pervaded American society. It is entitled The Hollywood War Machine: U.S. Militarism and Popular Culture by Carl Boggs and Tom Pollard. In the book, Boggs and Pollard give numerous examples of how the American cinema has, going back to the invention of movies itself, glorified the American war machine.
Thanks for the reference. I'll check it out.
One thing--as a student of history, I read a lot of old newspapers, especially those printed around the Spanish-American War and WWI. Talk about jingoism. Your life was in moderate danger if you expressed pacifistic thoughts during those eras (especially 1917-19). Can't say how much I admire Robert LaFollete and Emma Goldman who spoke out against the war at that time. All of which is to say--Hollywood plugged into American values when it glorified war and combat. It didn't create GI Joe out of whole cloth.
- the ancient military state of Sparta used a class of people called helots to wage its many wars -
Did Mr. Laarman make this up himself? This is sooooo wrong.
Helots were practically slaves, and the Spartan army never went far away from home for fear that the helots would riot.
There would be no sane reason why the Spartans would let them anywhere near weapons.
For all its faults, the movie 300 accurately shows the professionalism of the Spartan soldier. Gerard Butler was NOT playing a helot.