A Question For Veterans And Active-Duty Personnel:

[tucsonlib]

In 1940 a conscript in the Wehrmacht, having concluded that his country is waging an illegal and immoral war, deserts - and seeks asylum in a neutral country.
Are his actions:

a. Cowardly and Treasonous?
or:
b. Courageous and Patriotic?

[Captain Hilts]

1. Neither. They're unfaithful to the guys in his unit depending on him. nt

[atreides1]

3. So

It's okay to fight in a war that is morally wrong, and the main effort is directed at the eradication of an entire race of people, just so long as you keep faith with the guys in your unit?

I leave you with this quote:

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)

[Captain Hilts]

5. Your options were not adequate. nt

[fasttense]

2. Why does it have to be one or the other? n/t

[atreides1]

4. Depends on who you ask

It's all a matter of perspective, there is no right or wrong answer.

[tucsonlib]

6. Yes, I Know

I just thought it would be interesting to read those different perspectives. (Like the ones put forth in comments #1 and #3.)

[kristopher]

7. A key element of the question

A key element of the question is that the individual is an involuntary participant (conscript) in an act that the individual considers morally wrong. In such a circumstance no previous commitments are in conflict with the current decision. Therefore I don't see a conflict with duty to unit as a factor.

Your two choices are, indeed, inadequate. For example, what about the option pursued by Lt. Ehren Watada (and many others during Vietnam) of challenging the system from within? If you are going to characterize those choices with judgmental labels (cowardly, courageous, etc.) then this one must rank in the Marvel comic's superhero realm, however in my view, it would simply be the right moral course.

[tucsonlib]

8. Thank You. Great Response.

I realize the two choices I offered are inadequate and extreme. This was intentional - How better to encourage the postings of intelligent alternatives?

:toast:


Just a thought, though - Perhaps choice "a" isn't really too extreme. After all, if captured, wouldn't our fictional deserter in fact be accused of and tried for "cowardice" and/or "treason"?

[kristopher]

9. Sure,

Sure, and if the poor schmuck went to the press corp of England and offered to publicize his reasoning for opposing the aggression of his native land, then he might well be characterized by segments of govt and media in England as in choice b. However, since you directed the question to vets and AD military, I took the perspective as being one of an individual actually facing the choice.

[tucsonlib]

10. Thank You Again

As someone who long ago also "faced the choice", my prayers and best wishes go out to you. I have no advice, just this assurance - When you're 60, you'll look back on a few unforgettable instances when a single decisive act irrevocably altered the course of your life. This will be one of them. (Along with "If I had married Gwendolyn instead of Drucilla, today I wouldn't be
a. happy, wealthy and loved.
b. serving life in Attica.)

[kristopher]

11. Do they have a "chuckle, chuckle" smiley?

I'm a Vietnam era vet.

[tucsonlib]

12. How 'bout

[noamnety]

13. Half of B.

Courageous. I'm not sure about where patriotism falls into that. Answering a higher moral code rarely has to do with patriotism, I think.

I believe it's cowardly to allow yourself to remain in a situation where you have to kill people for an immoral reason.

I don't know if you are familiar with Camilo Mejia, I spent a week with him (and others), and have a tremendous amount of respect for him. I found his letter from prison (Regaining My Humanity) to be particularly powerful.

Many have called me a coward, others have called me a hero. I believe I can be found somewhere in the middle. To those who have called me a hero, I say that I don’t believe in heroes, but I believe that ordinary people can do extraordinary things.

To those who have called me a coward I say that they are wrong, and that without knowing it, they are also right. They are wrong when they think that I left the war for fear of being killed. I admit that fear was there, but there was also the fear of killing innocent people, the fear of putting myself in a position where to survive means to kill, there was the fear of losing my soul in the process of saving my body, the fear of losing myself to my daughter, to the people who love me, to the man I used to be, the man I wanted to be. I was afraid of waking up one morning to realize my humanity had abandoned me.

He ends his letter with this:
While I was confined in total segregation, I came across a poem written by a man who refused and resisted the government of Nazi Germany. For doing so he was executed. His name is Albrecht Hanshofer, and he wrote this poem as he awaited execution:

GUILT
The burden of my guilt before the law
weighs light upon my shoulders; to plot
and to conspire was my duty to the people;
I would have been a criminal had I not.

I am guilty, though not the way you think,
I should have done my duty sooner, I was wrong,
I should have called evil more clearly by its name
I hesitated to condemn it for far too long.

I now accuse myself within my heart:
I have betrayed my conscience far too long
I have deceived myself and fellow man.

I knew the course of evil from the start
My warning was not loud nor clear enough!
Today I know what I was guilty of…

full letter: http://www.freecamilo.com/words.htm#humanity

[tucsonlib]

14. Beautiful Post. Thank You. n/t

[noamnety]

15. I almost lost my job in the army once

because I could not answer your question, or variations of it, in the way that Mookie did above.

In our program 5% of our people were polygraphed each year. There were a number of people sort of "under me" in the security chain - though I guess many of them outranked me by pay grade - who randomly were selected for a polygraph. I was brainwashed into the "don't-eat-until-your-troops-are-fed leadership mentality, and I still hold onto that in a romantic/idealist way. As part of that philosophy, I volunteered myself to go through the polygraph as well. Three separate times I failed it. I can't think in the black and white ways that some people do. They asked questions like would I ever betray my commander, and the only honest answer was that yes, yes there are situations were I might take action that would be considered by some to be a "betrayal" - and that I would do it because it was the moral thing to do. Looking back now, I wish I could have cited Sibel Edmunds as an example, but this was before her time.

I never did pass that test. They could not accept "yes, given the right circumstances, I might betray anyone" as an answer. We had conversations where they said "No, you have to say No to this question." And I'd say "But the answer is yes" - we'd go round and round. Eventually I'd answer no, and the machine would show I was lying. (As anyone who has been reading my criticism of Obama can tell you, I am not capable of doing the blind support thing. Some folks are downright pissed at me over that, but it's how I have been for decades, I don't see it changing.)

Technically they aren't allowed to fire a person over a polygraph result alone. But also they have to keep testing until you pass. We had a lot of failures in my office - about half the people failed on their first attempt, but I was the only one who kept failing. I probably would have been doing a polygraph once a week for the rest of my career, or until it drove me insane, which I think it was starting to do on some levels ... but the secretary of the army suspended the polygraph program between my third and fourth exam. My office got a copy of that memo, I remember pulling it out of the safe several times to reread it, verifying that it was still there and still real. :)