Operation Ranch Hand Usaf UC-123b Prowler Aircraft Spraying Agent Orange Defoliant in South Vietnam. (Photo: ClassicStock/Getty Images)
War, Herbicides, and Moral Disengagement
What gives political leaders the wherewithal to violate basic human values—established moral standards—and perpetrate the inhumanity of war?
And the least secret agent of all . . . Agent Orange!
On August 10, 1961, the United States, several years before it actually sent troops, started poisoning the forests and crops of Vietnam with herbicides. The purpose: to deprive our declared enemy, the commies of Ho Chi Minh, of food and ground cover that allowed them to trek from North to South. It was called, innocuously, Operation Ranch Hand.
To sum it up as simply as possible, war is insane--and growing ever more so.
Agent Orange, the most powerful of the herbicides used in Operation Ranch Hand, contained dioxin, one of the most toxic substances on the planet. We dropped 20 million gallons of this and other herbicides on Vietnam, contaminating 7,000 square miles of its forests. Half a century later, we are fully aware of the consequences of this strategic decision, not just for the Vietnamese, the Laotians, the Cambodians, but also for many American troops: hundreds of thousands of deaths and debilitating illnesses, horrific birth defects, unending hell.
History, in all its moral primness, has relegated our use of Agent Orange to the status of "controversial."
Much to my amazement, I learned the other day that August 10 is now a day with official status. Numerous international organizations, many of them Vietnamese, have declared it Agent Orange Awareness Day.
I say, let's keep this awareness alive and evolving at least for the next decade, which is how long the United States continued to wage its chemical warfare on Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. And they didn't wage it in ignorant innocence. Top military leaders, whose personal lives, of course, were unaffected by Agent Orange, were fully aware of its toxicity.
This raises what I choose to call The Question from Hell: How is it possible to make such a decision--to place short-term military strategy ahead of moral restraint and compassion for civilians? And this leads to a second, larger question: Why are military and political leaders so unwilling or unable to envision the long-term consequences of their decisions, that is to say, the consequences that utterly transcend the significance of the war they're trying to win? Why are they so indifferent? Why are they so . . . stupid?
Pondering these questions was how I spent Agent Orange Awareness Day. Whether the U.S. won or lost the war, stopped or failed to stop the communist dominoes from tipping, the landscape would still be ravaged, the infected would still be dying, newborns would still have shocking birth defects (missing limbs, extra limbs, misplaced organs and so much more).
As the War Legacies Project notes on its website, the U.S. was trying to fight an "invisible enemy" who was hiding in the jungle, living off the land, by--what's the big deal?--killing the jungle itself. As a result: "Ever since the war's ending, the people of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia have been saddled with an invisible enemy of their own."
To sum it up as simply as possible, war is insane--and growing ever more so. The military establishment isn't just brutal and cruel. It is so advanced in the technology of lethality that its capable of destroying the world. Hasn't the time come to defund war--completely!--and rethink how we deal with conflict?
Well yes, of course, but we all know this isn't going to happen. Nonetheless, the creation of Agent Orange Awareness Day could well be a moment of human awakening, a chance for there to be a collective focus on that Question from Hell: Why?
Here's a starting place, thanks to psychologist Albert Bandura, as quoted by Russell P. Johnson in an essay published by the University of Chicago Divinity School. In essence, Bandura has sought an answer to the Question. What gives political leaders the wherewithal to violate basic human values--established moral standards--and perpetrate the inhumanity of war?
He calls the phenomenon of doing so "moral disengagement" and posits four forms that this behavior takes:
1. Euphemistic labeling: We may drop bombs and kill dozens or hundreds or thousands of civilians, including children, but the action is described by the lapdog media as, simply, an "airstrike." We may torture Iraqi detainees but it's not such a big deal when we call it "enhanced interrogation." We may poison the jungles of Southeast Asia, but what the heck, there's Jed Clampett leading the way in "Operation Ranch Hand." The list of military euphemisms goes on and on and on.
2. Advantageous comparison. If the enemy you're fighting is evil--and he always is--the actions you take to defeat him, whatever they are, are ipso facto justified. The alternative is doing nothing, a la Neville Chamberlain, appeasing Hitler. Violent response to evil--carpet-bombing Hamburg or Tokyo, nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki--is not simply justifiable but the essence of morally necessity.
3. Displaced responsibility. I was just following orders, cries the Buchenwald guard. I did what I was told. As Johnson writes: "Decisions are made and justified without anyone ever having the sense of a moral threshold being crossed." Indeed, "an entire society can rely on displacement of responsibility to shield themselves from moral scrutiny." A pernicious side effect of this is known as "moral injury." Once a soldier is out of the military, the justification for killing someone may completely vanish; the result is a high suicide rate among vets.
4. Attribution of blame. They made us do it! "One's actions are treated as mere reactions, caused not by one's own decisions but by the actions of the enemy," Johnson writes. ". . . If our actions are excessive or barbaric, it is the other side's fault for driving us to such extremes." When both sides in the conflict resort to this, which is almost always the case, Bandura calls the result "reciprocal escalation." The war gets increasingly bloody.
Agent Orange Awareness Day, as I noted, was Aug. 10. I think we should spend the rest of the year honoring War and Dehumanization Awareness Day.
Urgent. It's never been this bad.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just two days to go in our Spring Campaign, we're falling short of our make-or-break goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
And the least secret agent of all . . . Agent Orange!
On August 10, 1961, the United States, several years before it actually sent troops, started poisoning the forests and crops of Vietnam with herbicides. The purpose: to deprive our declared enemy, the commies of Ho Chi Minh, of food and ground cover that allowed them to trek from North to South. It was called, innocuously, Operation Ranch Hand.
To sum it up as simply as possible, war is insane--and growing ever more so.
Agent Orange, the most powerful of the herbicides used in Operation Ranch Hand, contained dioxin, one of the most toxic substances on the planet. We dropped 20 million gallons of this and other herbicides on Vietnam, contaminating 7,000 square miles of its forests. Half a century later, we are fully aware of the consequences of this strategic decision, not just for the Vietnamese, the Laotians, the Cambodians, but also for many American troops: hundreds of thousands of deaths and debilitating illnesses, horrific birth defects, unending hell.
History, in all its moral primness, has relegated our use of Agent Orange to the status of "controversial."
Much to my amazement, I learned the other day that August 10 is now a day with official status. Numerous international organizations, many of them Vietnamese, have declared it Agent Orange Awareness Day.
I say, let's keep this awareness alive and evolving at least for the next decade, which is how long the United States continued to wage its chemical warfare on Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. And they didn't wage it in ignorant innocence. Top military leaders, whose personal lives, of course, were unaffected by Agent Orange, were fully aware of its toxicity.
This raises what I choose to call The Question from Hell: How is it possible to make such a decision--to place short-term military strategy ahead of moral restraint and compassion for civilians? And this leads to a second, larger question: Why are military and political leaders so unwilling or unable to envision the long-term consequences of their decisions, that is to say, the consequences that utterly transcend the significance of the war they're trying to win? Why are they so indifferent? Why are they so . . . stupid?
Pondering these questions was how I spent Agent Orange Awareness Day. Whether the U.S. won or lost the war, stopped or failed to stop the communist dominoes from tipping, the landscape would still be ravaged, the infected would still be dying, newborns would still have shocking birth defects (missing limbs, extra limbs, misplaced organs and so much more).
As the War Legacies Project notes on its website, the U.S. was trying to fight an "invisible enemy" who was hiding in the jungle, living off the land, by--what's the big deal?--killing the jungle itself. As a result: "Ever since the war's ending, the people of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia have been saddled with an invisible enemy of their own."
To sum it up as simply as possible, war is insane--and growing ever more so. The military establishment isn't just brutal and cruel. It is so advanced in the technology of lethality that its capable of destroying the world. Hasn't the time come to defund war--completely!--and rethink how we deal with conflict?
Well yes, of course, but we all know this isn't going to happen. Nonetheless, the creation of Agent Orange Awareness Day could well be a moment of human awakening, a chance for there to be a collective focus on that Question from Hell: Why?
Here's a starting place, thanks to psychologist Albert Bandura, as quoted by Russell P. Johnson in an essay published by the University of Chicago Divinity School. In essence, Bandura has sought an answer to the Question. What gives political leaders the wherewithal to violate basic human values--established moral standards--and perpetrate the inhumanity of war?
He calls the phenomenon of doing so "moral disengagement" and posits four forms that this behavior takes:
1. Euphemistic labeling: We may drop bombs and kill dozens or hundreds or thousands of civilians, including children, but the action is described by the lapdog media as, simply, an "airstrike." We may torture Iraqi detainees but it's not such a big deal when we call it "enhanced interrogation." We may poison the jungles of Southeast Asia, but what the heck, there's Jed Clampett leading the way in "Operation Ranch Hand." The list of military euphemisms goes on and on and on.
2. Advantageous comparison. If the enemy you're fighting is evil--and he always is--the actions you take to defeat him, whatever they are, are ipso facto justified. The alternative is doing nothing, a la Neville Chamberlain, appeasing Hitler. Violent response to evil--carpet-bombing Hamburg or Tokyo, nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki--is not simply justifiable but the essence of morally necessity.
3. Displaced responsibility. I was just following orders, cries the Buchenwald guard. I did what I was told. As Johnson writes: "Decisions are made and justified without anyone ever having the sense of a moral threshold being crossed." Indeed, "an entire society can rely on displacement of responsibility to shield themselves from moral scrutiny." A pernicious side effect of this is known as "moral injury." Once a soldier is out of the military, the justification for killing someone may completely vanish; the result is a high suicide rate among vets.
4. Attribution of blame. They made us do it! "One's actions are treated as mere reactions, caused not by one's own decisions but by the actions of the enemy," Johnson writes. ". . . If our actions are excessive or barbaric, it is the other side's fault for driving us to such extremes." When both sides in the conflict resort to this, which is almost always the case, Bandura calls the result "reciprocal escalation." The war gets increasingly bloody.
Agent Orange Awareness Day, as I noted, was Aug. 10. I think we should spend the rest of the year honoring War and Dehumanization Awareness Day.
And the least secret agent of all . . . Agent Orange!
On August 10, 1961, the United States, several years before it actually sent troops, started poisoning the forests and crops of Vietnam with herbicides. The purpose: to deprive our declared enemy, the commies of Ho Chi Minh, of food and ground cover that allowed them to trek from North to South. It was called, innocuously, Operation Ranch Hand.
To sum it up as simply as possible, war is insane--and growing ever more so.
Agent Orange, the most powerful of the herbicides used in Operation Ranch Hand, contained dioxin, one of the most toxic substances on the planet. We dropped 20 million gallons of this and other herbicides on Vietnam, contaminating 7,000 square miles of its forests. Half a century later, we are fully aware of the consequences of this strategic decision, not just for the Vietnamese, the Laotians, the Cambodians, but also for many American troops: hundreds of thousands of deaths and debilitating illnesses, horrific birth defects, unending hell.
History, in all its moral primness, has relegated our use of Agent Orange to the status of "controversial."
Much to my amazement, I learned the other day that August 10 is now a day with official status. Numerous international organizations, many of them Vietnamese, have declared it Agent Orange Awareness Day.
I say, let's keep this awareness alive and evolving at least for the next decade, which is how long the United States continued to wage its chemical warfare on Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. And they didn't wage it in ignorant innocence. Top military leaders, whose personal lives, of course, were unaffected by Agent Orange, were fully aware of its toxicity.
This raises what I choose to call The Question from Hell: How is it possible to make such a decision--to place short-term military strategy ahead of moral restraint and compassion for civilians? And this leads to a second, larger question: Why are military and political leaders so unwilling or unable to envision the long-term consequences of their decisions, that is to say, the consequences that utterly transcend the significance of the war they're trying to win? Why are they so indifferent? Why are they so . . . stupid?
Pondering these questions was how I spent Agent Orange Awareness Day. Whether the U.S. won or lost the war, stopped or failed to stop the communist dominoes from tipping, the landscape would still be ravaged, the infected would still be dying, newborns would still have shocking birth defects (missing limbs, extra limbs, misplaced organs and so much more).
As the War Legacies Project notes on its website, the U.S. was trying to fight an "invisible enemy" who was hiding in the jungle, living off the land, by--what's the big deal?--killing the jungle itself. As a result: "Ever since the war's ending, the people of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia have been saddled with an invisible enemy of their own."
To sum it up as simply as possible, war is insane--and growing ever more so. The military establishment isn't just brutal and cruel. It is so advanced in the technology of lethality that its capable of destroying the world. Hasn't the time come to defund war--completely!--and rethink how we deal with conflict?
Well yes, of course, but we all know this isn't going to happen. Nonetheless, the creation of Agent Orange Awareness Day could well be a moment of human awakening, a chance for there to be a collective focus on that Question from Hell: Why?
Here's a starting place, thanks to psychologist Albert Bandura, as quoted by Russell P. Johnson in an essay published by the University of Chicago Divinity School. In essence, Bandura has sought an answer to the Question. What gives political leaders the wherewithal to violate basic human values--established moral standards--and perpetrate the inhumanity of war?
He calls the phenomenon of doing so "moral disengagement" and posits four forms that this behavior takes:
1. Euphemistic labeling: We may drop bombs and kill dozens or hundreds or thousands of civilians, including children, but the action is described by the lapdog media as, simply, an "airstrike." We may torture Iraqi detainees but it's not such a big deal when we call it "enhanced interrogation." We may poison the jungles of Southeast Asia, but what the heck, there's Jed Clampett leading the way in "Operation Ranch Hand." The list of military euphemisms goes on and on and on.
2. Advantageous comparison. If the enemy you're fighting is evil--and he always is--the actions you take to defeat him, whatever they are, are ipso facto justified. The alternative is doing nothing, a la Neville Chamberlain, appeasing Hitler. Violent response to evil--carpet-bombing Hamburg or Tokyo, nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki--is not simply justifiable but the essence of morally necessity.
3. Displaced responsibility. I was just following orders, cries the Buchenwald guard. I did what I was told. As Johnson writes: "Decisions are made and justified without anyone ever having the sense of a moral threshold being crossed." Indeed, "an entire society can rely on displacement of responsibility to shield themselves from moral scrutiny." A pernicious side effect of this is known as "moral injury." Once a soldier is out of the military, the justification for killing someone may completely vanish; the result is a high suicide rate among vets.
4. Attribution of blame. They made us do it! "One's actions are treated as mere reactions, caused not by one's own decisions but by the actions of the enemy," Johnson writes. ". . . If our actions are excessive or barbaric, it is the other side's fault for driving us to such extremes." When both sides in the conflict resort to this, which is almost always the case, Bandura calls the result "reciprocal escalation." The war gets increasingly bloody.
Agent Orange Awareness Day, as I noted, was Aug. 10. I think we should spend the rest of the year honoring War and Dehumanization Awareness Day.