Of War and Politics: Closing the gap between the veteran and peace communities

author : Jeff Berryhill topic : Iraq occupation

by Jeff Berryhill

A disturbing, yet illustrative article appeared in the New York Times on Nov. 10 entitled "The Struggle for Iraq; Marines Get the News from an Iraqi Host: Rumsfeld's Out. 'Who's Rumsfeld?'".

The article reveals that soldiers currently serving in Iraq failed to recognize the name Donald Rumsfeld. Published two days following the resignation of the embattled defense secretary, this demonstrates a sad reality all too familiar in my encounters with members of the armed forces. Aside from the knowledge of their immediate commanders, soldiers were generally unaware or unconcerned about their civilian and military leadership or the politics of war. This is especially troubling considering the decisions enacted by Rumsfeld and his associates with the consequences they entailed.

For a number of reasons, both frustrating and tragic, soldiers consider themselves either disinterested or unaware of the political climate in the domestic or international arena. I recently attended a forum at St. Martin's College in Lacey where returning soldiers and witnesses to warfare shared elements and perspectives from what they witnessed. A recurring theme for the panelists who served in Iraq was how they considered themselves fairly apolitical, yet steadfastly in favor of the current war effort and occupation.

This pro-war position can certainly be perceived as political in nature, just as much as the fact that joining the United States military has a number of accompanying political ramifications. Yet, service for GIs is understood as a simple matter of duty; duty to our country, its citizens, its ideals, and most importantly to the fellow soldiers they go to battle with. Accordingly, partisanship and the various other ways political discourse is represented in this country appear very distant or insignificant to the soldier attempting to earn a living and, at the same time, preserve their own life.

Coming to terms

Following the conclusion of the panel, I approached one of the panelists, a young man discharged after being injured in Iraq, for further questions. What he revealed was both heartrending and illuminating. I asked why he felt he was not very political. He responded by saying that in light of his sacrifice and the sacrifice of a number of his friends and peers, some losing their life in combat, he did not want to explore the motives or circumstances surrounding the decision to invade. He indicated that if he were to see that his efforts had been made in vain or had been conducted with less than altruistic intentions, his service (which he viewed as humanitarian and liberating in nature) would be tainted.

Recently, a friend of mine who served in the Marine Corps returned from a tour of duty in Iraq. At one point during his service, prior to his mission in Iraq, this friend of mine berated me for not supporting the President during the 2004 election cycle while identifying himself as politically disinterested. After his return, the friend was singing a completely different tune: remarking about his frustrating experience in Iraq and his perception that the occupation served no effective purpose. In fact, he said he hoped we're involved in that region to secure access to oil or else we would have no other reason to continue any further. This type of cynical and frustrated response to the experience is commonplace in my interactions with members of the service after their return. A different panelist from the St. Martin's event expressed considerable disdain at the penny-pinching practices of the federal government, with regards to supplying soldiers with deficient equipment and low salaries.

Among his friends

The insight and perspective veterans provide from the unique narrative they possess is invaluable in understanding the politics of war, making effective interaction critical for those involved in peace and justice movements. I come from a town where we've had five young men within a year or two of my age (22) serve one or more tours of duty in Iraq. From my graduating class, I have had about half a dozen or so friends join some branch of the armed forces. Due to these friendships, I have considerable contacts with soldiers which have provided me with insight on how to communicate with them in a very non-confrontational or informal yet often inquisitive manner. From my experience, I have found it is important to be sensitive and respectful of their decisions, perhaps asking questions or conveying opinions in a subtle and non-confrontational fashion.

The New York Times article I referred to earlier also indicated that most veterans become more politically active later in their lives. Due to this reality, it is important to forge strong and meaningful relationships with GIs as many are dealing with post-traumatic stress disorder. A combat Vietnam veteran friend of mine told me how understanding the manipulation of patriotism and the immorality of such wars as Vietnam and Iraq can actually help veterans begin to heal their own emotional wounds. It can actually be therapeutic for veterans who become actively involved in ending the type of wars they once participated in by diverting PTSD-related self-destructive behavior into constructive anti-war involvement.

While many of us would like to see the type of heroic stance exhibited by Iraq war resister Lt. Ehren Watada increase in numbers, this act of Herculean courage is relatively rare. What may be more likely is the hope that those returning from Iraq and Afghanistan would recognize the systemic problems with these invasions and be open to joining a peace and justice veterans group (like Veterans for Peace or Iraq Veterans Against the War) to vocalize their critiques or concerns about the armed services.

Crossing the gap

Veterans speak with tremendous authority on matters of war and peace and we must recognize this reality. They provide a wealth of information and insight on the nature of conflict, revealing a perspective only a first-hand account can provide. Therefore, our contacts with veterans should be done in a manner that could facilitate the internalized criticisms or reservations of how war is conducted to come to the surface, rather than alienating the soldier. Often our contacts with veterans are both ill-advised and combative, failing to move beyond our own reservations about war and failing to humanize the exchange. Many veterans and current members of the service are frustrated by the condescension and ridicule they perceive from the 'enlightened' peace community and often immediately disregard our efforts.

Goals to set

Repairing our relationship with soldiers is an important step we should take towards actualizing our goals of eliminating war and ensuring justice. Constructive communication with combat veterans is a responsibility for all members of the peace and justice community precisely because it has the extraordinary potential to play an integral component in creating a more equitable and just society we so vigorously labor to build.

Jeff Berryhill is a Senior at The Evergreen the State College studying political economy. He is currently involved with the local group South Sound Project for Military Resistance and Justice, and has worked on projects in solidarity with war resisters Lt. Ehren Watada and Spc. Suzanne Swift.