From my favorite soldier, the late Colonel David H. Hackworth, to the active soldiers in the 1960s who started the Vietnam anti-war movement on bases before civilians protested (DVD documentary, "Yes, Sir, No Sir!") to today’s volunteer soldiers who speak and act against the Iraq war, our nation has had soldiers who know and do what’s right, even if it hurts their military careers. Unfortunately, they are the minority.
- Are other soldiers automatons who "just follow orders" or brown-nose in order to help their careers? Are such soldiers good for America?
- Are Generals who exaggerate foreign threats in order to get more funding for new weapons and foreign bases hurting America more than helping?
- Are Generals who strive to greedily expand the "military industrial complex" at the expense of the rest of America actually unwitting enemies of the United States?
- Is a soldier who blindly believes everything he or she is told by superiors a loyal citizen?
Ever since watching Oliver North’s heartfelt unrepentant confessions of criminality co-staring his Labrador Retriever-like ardent eyebrows, I’ve pondered two diametrically opposed concepts of loyalty common in our military and broader culture: animal versus abstract.
The pinnacle of animal loyalty is reached when its practitioner obeys an order that violates a sovereign principle, law. For this malfeasance he or she is lauded by superiors and peers who do not comprehend the higher concept of loyalty to a principle or do understand but fear losing animal benefits, such as a sustaining, promising or lucrative position within their pack.
Dogs and wolves do not weigh abstractions when eating, drinking, defecating, mating or fighting or doing anything else. Labrador Retrievers and other dogs do not ponder the Constitution or the Golden Rule, let alone obey them.
The zenith of abstract loyalty, however, is reached when its practitioner sacrifices his or her animal role in a hierarchy in order to stay loyal to a sovereign principle, such as our Constitution or the Golden Rule -- both abstractions. Such people sacrifice their animal benefits for psychological (some would say spiritual) rewards of mental peace and strength stemming from harmonizing one’s actions with one’s conscience.
Humans wrestle with these loyalties. Mass culture, sub-cultures, peers and families inculcate us with one over the other. Everyone working in a corrupt organization needs to struggle with these, whether in extreme environments like the government of Germany in the 1930s, Jonestown in South America in the 1970s, Enron in Texas in 2000, or in mildly corrupt small groups, such as athletes relying on steroids or doping, high school students relying on cheating, and even music listeners stealing recorded music.
If our soldiers deserve honor and support because they "risk their lives for our country," they should at least be brave enough to risk their careers for their country’s heart and soul: its Constitution and other principles. Risking one’s life is far weightier than risking one’s career or rejection by peers, yet most soldiers (and civilians) behave as if the opposite were true. But soldiers are people of action -- practically by definition -- and if they can comprehend the importance and rightful superiority of a sovereign principle over a person, they might risk their careers and lives for it. They might even get promoted.
Are soldiers truly mentally tough when they can kill on command but can’t stop abuse and corruption around them?
As a foot soldier in the Korean "Conflict," David H. Hackworth blatantly refused his superior’s direct order to shoot a captured North Korean soldier. Then in Vietnam, Hackworth (not yet close to being a colonel) pointed his gun at an officer and threatened to shoot him if he continued torturing a Vietnamese prisoner (using electrodes attached to the testicles). Hackworth knew that the American torturer not only outranked him but was the son of an active General or Colonel, yet he still remained loyal to the higher principles he comprehended and loved. His actions harmonized with his conscience and invigorated him.
Right-wing politicians and think tank hawks who slimed their way out of serving in the military in the 1960s and 70s have a lot of nerve projecting themselves onto liberals when insinuating liberals are cowards and probably would have resisted fighting in WWII. This is ridiculous, of course: America’s WWII was an EASY war to support (except for the likes of Republican Prescott Bush who traded with the enemy during WWII and was party to a coup attempt against Roosevelt in the 1930s [ www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/document/document_20070723.shtml and www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1312540,00.html ]).
Soldiers should always consider whether they are fighting for the narrow interests of an oil, pineapple or other company instead of for the United States. Marine General Smedly Butler didn’t ponder this until he retired, then it hit him like a ton of bricks and motivated him to write his short work, "War is a Racket," which should be required reading for every 18 year old. Go ahead and be a soldier but follow high principles like Hackworth and others.
For you soldiers and civilians who love the statement "My country, right or wrong," realize the United States would not exist if it were true because our rebelling colonial ancestors would have instead remained loyal to England. That fallacious saying is not only completely un-American, it is 100% animal. It’s a fitting motto for a canine pack, not humans in a democracy. It is not even a principle, really, but an articulation of the beast lingering from our evolutionary past.
* Hackworth should have been promoted to General. Before Col. Hackworth died a couple years ago, I loved his website, SFTT.org, and contributed $100 to it a couple of times. Though I no longer visit the site very much, I still like it and think it is important. SFTT.org broke some of the military scandals that eventually surfaced in big media and it always fights for the soldiers with the least clout and most dangerous duty. Even if you don't like all the articles, you will no doubt like many.