On the Duty to Counter Recruitment

Camillo (Mac) Bica

I have been quoted in two recent Newsday articles (Recruiting for military life: a challenge on LI Recruiting, 1/14/07, and Worried about War, LI Parents Restrict Access to Recruiters, 1/15/07) examining military recruitment on Long Island.  I intend this essay as an addendum to the Newsday articles –  to expand upon the concerns of many within our community regarding military recruiting practices – and as a response to Professor Jeffrey Whitman’s Editorial Let kids hear them out (01/21/07).  In doing so, I hope to explain why I and many other  Long Islanders, choose to leave the warmth and comfort of our homes to brave inclement weather and the wrath of frenzied and, at times, irate recruiters and unsympathetic passers-by to stand outside  local armed forces recruiting offices to pass out literature and counsel prospective enlistees.

I think it important to begin by establishing that my activism in countering recruitment is not motivated by a hatred of America nor of the military. In fact, my activism is inspired by love, like that of a responsible parent, who realizes that in addition to praise and approval, sometimes true love and responsibility require providing direction and even correction to a child who has gone astray. My activism is motivated as well by compassion and concern for the well-being of all Americans and Iraqis. Moreover, as a former United States Marine Corps Officer and veteran of the Vietnam War, I am especially sensitive to the plight of members of the military who are asked (no better, ordered) to fight and die unnecessarily.

Like Professor Whitman, I also realize the realities of the dangerous world in which we live and accept the necessity of maintaining a proficient and well-trained professional military. Since I am not an absolute pacifist (slap my cheek and I will slap you right back), I may even be convinced (though it will take some doing), in very dire situations of last resort (not of our own creation and after all alternatives have been exhausted), that war may be a just and necessary response to defend America and the values we hold sacred. Since I am idealistic enough actually to love America (I truly consider myself a patriot and my activism as patriotic), and realistic enough to understand that there are madmen in the world (some very close to home), in such situations of real and imminent threat, I would not object (I would, perhaps, even encourage) ALL citizens (not just the underprivileged) to fulfill their obligation to the state and voluntarily enlist in the military.

Like Professor Whitman, I also agree that the war in Iraq does “color” this issue. I, however, would argue that not only do moral and legal judgments about the war not hinder the debate, they are critical to understanding our obligation to counter recruitment. It should be clear by now to all rational human beings (to many it was clear long ago), that the war with Iraq was a mistake. Many, of course, have arrived at this conclusion only because of the frustration of not having enjoyed a quick and total victory and an unwillingness to sacrifice further American lives and treasure attempting to resolve the quagmire of sectarian violence and civil war. However, the preemptive invasion and occupation of Iraq, a sovereign nation, are much worse than a mistake. Though Professor Whitman chooses the language of prudence rather than of morality in his editorial, I think he agrees that the war is a violation both of international and moral law based as it was on misinformation, faulty intelligence, and lies. There were no weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was not the mastermind behind the events of 9/11, nor was he harboring Al Qaeda terrorists. Further, and this is critical at this juncture, to continue to wage – even escalate – an illegal and immoral war and occupation – “to finish the job and achieve victory” – merely because we started it or from a concern that out nation would lose credibility in the world were we to “cut and run,” makes no moral or legal sense. It is like arguing that though rape is illegal and immoral, since the crime has already begun, we must persevere and “finish what we started” for fear that our reputation as a bully and a rogue would be diminished. Finally, even from the perspective of a pragmatist, tactically and strategically the war in Iraq is clearly a tragic and utter failure. As we surpass the number of Americans killed on 9/11 (a John Hopkins study puts Iraqi deaths at more than 600,000) and enter our fourth year of occupation, it is clear as well that a military resolution of the debacle is impossible and our continued military presence in Iraq merely serves to exacerbate the turmoil and violence.

Faced with the reality of a continuing, even escalating, illegal and immoral war, of a President who arrogantly ignores the advice of his military leaders and, most important, the will of the American people, it is not only permissible, it is morally required, that we bring pressure to bear upon our leaders to end both the aggression against the Iraqi people and the exploitation and victimization of members of our own military. Though this obligation is complex and multifaceted, I will mention only the two aspects relevant to this discussion. First, we must encourage our troops to refuse to serve in Iraq by making clear its immorality and illegality and by reminding them that, at least since Nuremberg, their moral and legal obligations as soldiers require neither blind obedience nor unquestioning trust in the decisions of their leaders. To fulfill this obligation requires creating an environment in which adolescents/young adults feel empowered to act upon their moral convictions and refuse to fight. That is, moral refusers and deserters must be supported and provided protection through selective conscientious objector laws, legal defense funds, or, more drastically, by providing sanctuaries from military apprehension and prosecution

With the decreasing popularity of the war in Iraq and the President’s approval rating at an all time low, I think it fair to say that prospective enlistees are not flocking to their local recruiter eager to sign on the dotted line. Consequently, under threat of losing their jobs and possibly finding themselves in Iraq, recruiters, to meet their quotas, have become overly aggressive, some abusive, in their enlistment practices according to a recent report by the Government Accountability Office (dated 08/06/06). Given these conditions, morality requires that we act to protect those most vulnerable – impressionable young people in our high schools and colleges and the underprivileged who see the military as their only alternative to poverty, crime, and unemployment. This duty to counter recruitment requires that we seek to remove recruiters from our schools or at least severely limit their access to our children; that we inform prospective enlistees and their parents of the realities of military service, the horror of war, the immorality and futility of the war in Iraq, and of other employment and educational opportunities/options available to them other than to join the military. I doubt very seriously that this information is contained within a recruiter’s motivational packet of hats, tee shirts, and violent video games.

In conclusion, I would suggest to Professor Whitman that judgments regarding the legal and moral value of the Iraq war are not distractions in this discussion. They are critical since those who are being recruited will not be risking their lives and physical, psychological, and emotional well-being, to defend America, our freedoms, or the values we hold sacred. Rather, they will be made complicit in the crimes of aggression. Morality demands that we protect our young people from being enticed, seduced, brainwashed, and deceived, into becoming killers and cannonfodder for corporate war profiteers. We counter recruit because we must. It is our moral and civic duty. To do anything less would be unpatriotic, nay treasonous and morally irresponsible.