The "5 Deadly Myths About the Military" was published by Pax Christi, Hope House, 916 St. Andrew, New Orleans, LA 70130, (504) 522-3751. Postage was based on the rate for a non-profit organization, permit #1687. From its publication, this appears to be a political action committee. The following are listed as New Orleans Council Members.
The War Resisters League, 339 Lafayette Street, New York, NY 10012 (212) 228-0450, fax (212) 228-6193, e-mail:wrl@igc.apc.org. believes war is a crime against humanity. It purports to use peaceful means to create a society that is democratic, free of economic, racial, and sexual oppression. The methods they use range from education to demonstrations to lobbying to nonviolent direct action (read "civil disobedience"). By placing their names on this publication, Clarita Bourque et al. appear to align themselves with this philosophy.
Unlike organizations such as the Red Cross, the Society of Jesus and the World Health Organization, which actively work to eliminate the causes of human suffering which lead to war, the War Resisters League organizes demonstrations, opposes conscription, including ROTC, and supports seditious acts at all levels. It helps train people in civil disobedience, war tax resistance, and other forms of unlawful activity. It also co-sponsors the Fund for Education and Training (FEAT), which assists young men who refuse to comply with laws requiring registration for the draft.
While we may decry and oppose war, opposition to war is not the same thing as opposition to the military. As a Christian, I am offended that this view is espoused by an organization called "Pax Christi." Most of the Christian religions have always believed and taught that war is a legitimate activity in the face of an overwhelming threat to national security, and that it is the responsibility of chiefs of state to protect those whose safety is entrusted to them, by armed conflict if necessary. Real religion also recognizes that the alternative to obedience to law is anarchy. It is not at all clear to me how a true Christian can affiliate himself with an opposite teaching. The following is a refutation of the "Five Deadly Myths" one by one.
#1: The military prevents wars - The function of the military is to fight and win wars, not to prevent them. Preventing wars is the function of diplomacy and moral teachers. The reason we have a military at all is because the diplomats and moral teachers have historically failed to make armed conflict unnecessary. Guns do not prevent wars. Bombs do not prevent wars. Soldiers do not prevent wars. While it may be true that having a strong military may have an inhibiting effect on a potential aggressor, the military becomes actively involved only after the beginning of hostilities, when diplomacy has already failed. The past century is notable for its diplomatic failures.
#2: More is spent on welfare than on the military - Here we have to define what is meant by "welfare." The military exists to fight and win wars in the face of a threat to national survival. Money spent on the military therefore provides a guarantee of the basic need of survival and preservation of the national socioeconomic structure without which there would be no other welfare programs at all. Therefore, if even one cent is spent on welfare which does not involve the military, what is spent on welfare (which includes maintenance of a strong military force) is always greater than that spent on the military alone.
#3: The military provides opportunities - This is a true statement. Military training promotes respect for authority, a sense of duty, honor and responsibility to the community, the necessity of teamwork, and identification and pursuit of goals which are directly applicable to success in civilian and moral life. In the United States, the military has traditionally given opportunities not available in civilian life to blacks, Hispanics and women, by which they have been able to demonstrate their abilities to become more able to secure favorable opportunities as civilians. General Colin Powell, former Secretary of State and the youngest Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (as well as the first one of predominantly African ancestry), has repeatedly stated that he joined the Army to "get a good job." If he becomes our first black President (which I hope he does), we will have the Army to thank.
What the author means by "military skill" is unclear, but it is a proven fact that many occupational specialties in the military can be acquired without any equivalent training prior to entering the military. These specialties are therefore extremely valuable in providing gainful employment to military persons such as the young, the poor and the unskilled who as civilians would be only marginally employable, if at all. Most of the occupational specialties taught in the military have direct counterparts in civilian life, and military training therefore provides a civilian skill.
It is the fault of the civilian educational system, not the military, that minorities have historically not had the same training to allow them to rise to officer rank in the same proportions that their white male contemporaries have. They certainly have the same training once they become military personnel. It is unclear what sexual harassment or assault has to do with military opportunities, unless the author considers that the military provides more opportunities for sexual assault than those in civilian life, which, in view of the fact that sexual assault is punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, is also untrue.
#4: Military spending creates jobs - This is obviously true, since every person in the military has a job by definition, and every piece of military equipment is manufactured by people whose job it is to do that. Even if the author's assertion that 25,000 military jobs cost the same as 47,000 health care jobs is true, this just demonstrates that whatever health care jobs are being enumerated are considered by society as a whole as being of less worth than the referenced military jobs. However, since doctors are paid more than generals, it is doubtful that this assertion is true.
#5: Without the military, we'd be enslaved - While this may or may not be true, even though it is unverifiable in either case, it is totally beside the point. The whole purpose of spending money on the military is to provide the means to preserve the socioeconomic structure of society against the danger of aggression, and to carry out national policy by force, if necessary. Maintenance of military readiness is clearly a function of the state, while it is not clear that the state has any obligation whatever to feed people who don't work.
The answer to the question "Who exactly is going to invade the U.S. or destroy our cities with nuclear weapons if we don't have a military" is simple, "anyone who wants to and has the means." Without a military, a country must depend on the good will of the rest of the world community, which has historically been abysmal. Since the attack on the World Trade Center and the concern that El Queda or other terrorist groups may gain access to nuclear weapons, one wonders what would happen if Congress would suddenly disband the United States military as being unnecessary.
If Americans go hungry, become homeless, die of curable diseases, remain illiterate, or spend their lives as slaves to boring jobs, it is not the fault of the military. The military in fact provides housing, prevents and cures disease, provides training in basic skills such as reading, and strives to make the military challenging and professionally rewarding for all its members. The remedy of all of these ills in the civilian population is simply for civilians take as good care of each other as military people do. Churches and charitable organizations have the means to accomplish these ends if they choose to do so. They have not, except in relatively isolated cases, so chosen. How many poor people could be fed, or clothed, or housed, or educated with the money it takes to build just one church?
There are some problems, such as unjust aggression, which can be solved only by force, using guns if necessary, regardless of who uses them. This is the whole basis of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution.
While it is true that the military cannot protect all its citizens from acts of terrorism, it has not been shown that the military cannot prevent any acts of terrorism. As a case in point, Libya became much less terrorist-oriented after the United States demonstrated its resolve to curb such acts by the famous military attack under the Reagan administration. It should also be noted that most acts of terrorism in the United States are committed by United States citizens, against whom the military is constitutionally prohibited from taking action.
While the author does not specifically address what he means by "lie to citizens," the safety record in the military has historically been better than the same record in comparable civilian occupations. In fact, the casualty rate for U.S. forces in Desert Storm was lower than peacetime rates. The United States military has the highest standard of accountability to its citizens of any military establishment in the entire world, and maintains and makes available the most detailed records regarding its members and activities of any country in history.
There is no provision in any military order, training manual, publication, or tradition which selects those with power, influence and money as being more worthy of protection than the poor, meek or unknown. Indeed, every member of the military takes an oath to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." The Constitution does not guarantee wealth, power or influence. Its purpose is specifically "to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." All U.S. military members are sworn to protect and defend these purposes against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Nobody in the United States has to be poor, but the military guarantees him to right to be if he so chooses.
On the other hand, nothing in the Constitution guarantees a home, a job, care of one's children, wealth, prosperity, or the success of one's individual goals. The Constitution, which it is the purpose of the military to protect and defend, merely provides the social infrastructure within which life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is a possibility, not a guarantee.
While many, including myself, would agree that the world can never have true peace until military power is no longer necessary, only a fool would argue that the world has now achieved that peace. What we have in the real world is an uneasy peace overall, with notable exceptions in some countries today, and perhaps in others tomorrow. As long as there is ignorance, anger, sin and hypocrisy on our planet, it remains true, as George Washington observed, "To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace." Adolph Hitler demonstrated the danger of allowing any other country to assume that it can win a war with the United States.
I am extremely proud of my military service. During my 16 years of active duty as a member of the Corps of Engineers, and the first member of my family to serve in the military, I built buildings, roads and various other public works which stand today as a tribute of the altruism of the American people toward the people of Korea and Vietnam. I never napalmed a baby, I never initiated a firefight, and I never shot at anyone who was not trying to kill me or those entrusted to my care. While we may, as civilians, debate about whether or not we should have been in Vietnam in the first place, it is a fact of history that the ultimate decision to send us there, and the ultimate decisions about what operations we were to undertake, were made by elected civilians, not military people. We went where we were sent and we did what the People of the United States asked of us, and we did it well. All of us gave some of ourselves to that service, and some of us gave all.
I am also extremely proud of my daughter's service in the military. As an obstetrician's assistant at the Royal Air Force Base, Lakenheath, England, in the military hospital which supports all of the United States Air Force, Europe, her patients were mostly civilians: mothers and newborn babies. She was in a unique position to provide comfort and care to the young and innocent. One wonders if any of the members of the War Resisters League will ever provide as much service to their fellow man.
I challenge the War Resisters League as a group, and its members as individuals, to do as much for impoverished and underdeveloped countries as I have done as a member of the military, or to provide as much real care and love of their fellow man as my daughter. Frankly, I don't think they have either the ability, the knowledge, or the guts!
As far as I can see, they are simply fools and cowards, more interested in shooting off their mouths about things they don't understand than in doing something of positive value for the Country, which, through its military, continues to tolerate them and to uphold their right to express their opinions, however repugnant, odious and mistaken they may be.
John Lindorfer
Lieutenant Colonel, USAR (Retired)
Loyola University of New Orleans
Class of 1962