A Libertarian Problem with the Military Pt. 2

Mr. Hornberger replies... and I respond. Note the comments by Mr. Hornberger are presented as they were sent to me.

Thank you for your thoughtful and interesting feedback on my article. First of all, I couldn't agree with you more about your assessment of basic training in the air force, but wouldn't you agree that it has always been rather cush, especially compared to that in the army? And I could be wrong but I've got a hunch that "drop down for 10" is still an integral part of training at Quantico. I also agree with your point about NCOs and boot camp. I should have made that clear in my article. However, I must disagree with your comparisons between the military mindset and way of life and that of civilian life. For example, your comparison of the "contract" signed by soldiers and that signed by people in the private sector, including sports teams, is totally inapt. Please permit me to explain to you why. In the military, the contract that the person signs effectively requires him to surrender his conscience, especially as part of obeying orders to kill people. That is, soldiers are expected to obey the orders of their superior officers and their commander in chief to kill people by invading another country, regardless of whether such an invasion is morally or legally justified or not. That's why basic training--left-face and right-face--etc is so important--to inculcate a sense of conformity and obedience and loyalty--and not questioning whether the president should be invading another country or not. For example, if the president today told soldiers, "I am ordering you to kill Bolivians as part of an invasion of their country to oust their socialist president," 99.99 percent of American soldiers would obey those orders. During the invasion, they would proudly proclaim, "We're killing the bad guys." Only one or two would say, "My conscience will not permit me to kill people who don't deserve to die." Most all of them would say, "I don't need to exercise my conscience. My boss has decided to deploy me to Bolivia and I have a right to obey his orders because that's the contract I signed. The same applies to an invasion of Venezuela, Panama, Cuba, Granada, or whereever. How do we know this? Because we know that only one soldier--Lt. Watada--refused orders to attack Iraq, a country that never attacked the U.S. If U.S. soldiers would faithfully obey orders to attack Iraq, they'll faithfully obey orders to attack any country and kill countless people in the process. Don't forget that an estimated 650,000 Iraqis have been killed, none of whom ever attacked the U.S. When added to the 350,000 Iraqi children killed by the sanctions, that's close to 1,000,000. That's not a small number of people killed by U.S. soldiers. Even thought Watada has refused orders to attack and kill people who have never attacked the U.S. -- and even though a war of aggression was punished as a war crime at Nuremberg--the Pentagon is doing its best to punish Watada for refusing orders to commit an immoral and illegal act. I don't know of any sports team that orders its players to intentionally kill people. In fact, my impression is that there are severe infractions for intentionally or even accidentally fouling another player. Moreover, the danger that the American people face is that the president's military would obey orders to employ their force against them--against Americans. That is, if the president ordered U.S. soldiers to kill and torture Americans, they would obey those orders too, especially if the president told them that national security depended on it. And if a soldier refused orders to do so, he would be punished, just as with Watada. After all, how many soldiers have you seen resign or protest the torture of Jose Padilla or any of the people at Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, Bagram, or the CIA overseas torture centers? How many refused to participate in the wrongdoing? How many CIA agents, who in reality serve as the president's secret private army, have been indicted for killing and torturing detainees? They faithfully followered orders,which is exactly why they've been indicted in Germany and Italy. After all, you don't really think that they're going to be extradited to those countries to stand trial, do you? How many soldiers and CIA agents have protested the CIA's rendition program? As I understand it, Capt. Fishback is the only officer who has taken a public stance against the torture. Our Founding Fathers clearly understood the differences between militirism and the civilian way of life. I assume you're familiar with their antipathy toward standing armies and their preference for citizen soldiers (no, not the National Guard--that's a govt operation), but just in case you're aren't, here are a few quotes to reflect upon: Madison: A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people. St. George: Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. Henry: A standing army we shall have, also, to execute the execrable commands of tyranny; and how are you to punish them? Will you order them to be punished? Who shall obey these orders? Will your mace-bearer be a match for a disciplined regiment? Henry: that standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power. Pennsylvania Convention: as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil power. U.S. State Department website: Wrenching memories of the Old World lingered in the 13 original English colonies along the eastern seaboard of North America, giving rise to deep opposition to the maintenance of a standing army in time of peace. All too often the standing armies of Europe were regarded as, at best, a rationale for imposing high taxes, and, at worst, a means to control the civilian population and extort its wealth. Fields and Hardy article on Third Amendment: The experience of the early Middle Ages had instilled in the English people a deep aversion to the professional army, which they came to associate with oppressive taxes, and physical abuses of their persons and property (and corresponding fondness for their traditional institution the militia). This development was to have a profound effect on the development of civil rights in both England and the American colonies.... During the seventeenth century, problems associated with the involuntary quartering of soldiers and the maintenance of standing armies became crucial issues propelling the English nation toward civil war. Finally, I would agree with you that boot camps tear people down. But we should keep in mind that the means by which to producta mindset of conformity and obedience rather than a means for nurturing human growth and development with independent thinking and exercise of conscience. I would like to invite you to subscribe to our FFF Email Update. Also, be sure to check out our big June 1-4 conference: Restorign the Republic: Foreign Policy and Civil Liberties: http://www.fff.org/whatsNew/index.asp

Best regards and thanks again, Jacob Hornberger

I also appreciate your reply.

I addressed my comments to your article as written, not to what you may have intended. Your comments regarding boot camp were very general. Speaking to the cushiness of USAF Basic Military Training, I think that would be a matter of perspective. While it may be viewed as cushy by the sister services, I imagine it is not viewed as such by the millions of people who are unable or unwilling to submit to even its ‘relatively’ lower expectations and requirements. Further, while all the services share some goals with their boot camps, they tailor much of it to a specific audience or population groups.

I queried a marine regarding push ups in boot camp. As of 1990, push ups were used in their training process. I have not queried further as the original statement was yours. It is my belief that future articles regarding the military would benefit from more specificity and fact checking.

I never feel that I made a comparison between the military and civilian mindset. For one thing, the civilian mindset is incredibly diverse and the mindset of military members, as stated in my last message, is hardly uniform. I made a comparison between organizations based on teamwork and traditions that serve no purpose other than their existence as traditions and their unifying experiences. In this I think a sports analogy is appropriate. Yelling and certain types of drill may make no difference to the particular sport at hand, but the coach is seeking to create a team that is greater than the sum of its parts. Traditions, such as those I described in my prior message, simply exist to bond groups. The military is composed of its own traditions and they serve similar purposes.

I also am forced to disagree with some of your feelings regarding the contract. Your article focused primarily on the applications of boot camp not the utilization of the military in present world events. Being a lawyer, you must be familiar with the concept of an illegal contract. It seems that you propose that the potential performance of illegal acts renders the whole idea of the military contract invalid. However in the time frame under discussion, boot camp, I think you must concede there is nothing illegal or immoral even with the standardization of an organization, push ups, drill and inspections that are agreed upon by both parties. You also extend the argument at this point to conscientious objection where before the example you used was going fishing. Those represent entirely different situations and while one can be given serious thought the other cannot.

I do not think I would put forth that the purpose of the military institution is to create moral thinkers or nurture human growth; it is certainly not a church. However, I do think it puts more emphasis on ideas of integrity and character then other institutions. The expectations are higher. This can be witnessed by the recent AF Academy ‘scandal’ regarding what would be in most eyes a pathetic case of cheating. This same event at another institution would not even make the campus paper, let alone CNN. What you identify as a problem, I would more apply to an institutional respect for civilian oversight. The military member is free to vote and appeal to his representation in the manner any citizen can. But when the civilian government acts then the military submits. This is in line with most of the quotes you provided from the founders. This obviously does have both good and bad applications in practice. However a military that does not submit to the orders of its civilian government is one more likely to march on Rome, so to speak. I am curious what institution you think does work towards the promotion of human growth and independent thinking. I hope with all my heart you aren’t implying the American university system. At this point I will submit a comment my father made when I directed him to your article. “The comparison to public school is erroneous. The military reduces chaos and enhances focus. Ultimately a young recruit focuses on a particular skill set despite their public school experience. The public and private schools conduct a one size fits all program usually so that their students can get into a one size fits all university. Even the military sizes people in equipment, uniform and marching...”

What disturbs me however is the more direct burden you place on the military member to uphold certain lines of thought than you would put on others. You want a small segment of the population to put their financial lives, families and even physical liberty at stake for your point of view. The view you, and one I would not claim differently, believe as correct. But I ask you, where are the libertarians who take these shots at the military? They publish on websites and run organizations and send newsletters around. The founding fathers may have abhorred a standing army, but enough of them physically rose up against that which they found incompatible with freedom as they defined it. Where is the similar physical and moral courage in this generation? You want resignations of service members. Where is the resignation of the engineers and manufacturers of our weapon systems? Where are the resignations of the politicians? Where is the exodus of people who believe that we are an evil warmongering country? Where is the refusal of the taxpayer to finance the war fought in their name? People submit to things they disagree with all the time out of utility. To most people, what is good for them and their family ultimately trumps what happens to another group. That is the nature of human existence. I would also ask you to cite what legal American entity (cite case and court please) that has determined that this current military action is illegal. Until that happens the soldier is bound by his oath to fulfill the orders of his civilian government. If you are basing this simply on your moral feelings about the war then that will mean there are thousands of different opinions on the morality of the situation. Who is the soldier to obey?

If the president orders anything, I do not believe 99.99 percent of soldiers (as our general term for all service members apparently) would proudly proclaim anything. Again, some people will feel as you describe. Many more will simply worry about their buddies, how long they will be away from their families and if they will be hurt or killed. I will concede that a lot will probably at least feel that what they are doing is valid or acceptable because the government said it was okay. How is that different from general culture and society? People conflate legality and morality frequently. Culture across the board is shaped by what is considered legal. Perhaps you feel that because the soldier deals in death that his offense is worse. But Patrick Henry said give me liberty or give me death. The agents who steal liberty in my view could be viewed as worse than the agents who steal life. And who has truly stolen more liberty than lawyers? In your own field sir, can you state that the profession of Law and the Attorney’s Oath has resulted in more honest applications than the military and the oath that service members take? For the right price you can certainly find a lawyer who will say anything. You can find a lawyer who will say ‘if the glove doesn’t fit’ regardless of whether he knows for a fact his client is guilty. And lawyers do this without fear of retribution from the organization or even something as general as a mistaken belief in the good of the country or ‘defending our freedoms’. Do we not have lawyers claiming that Habeas Corpus is not a right? Do we not have lawyers involved in putting Padilla away? Whose character is higher sir, the group who might in the future turn against the people or the group that effectively already has?

I also find your statements on Watada interesting. While not familiar with this case directly, I am curious if this Lieutenant is likely to face branding or a firing squad. You seem to feel that taking a conscientious stand should not impart any risk or discomfort. I think that is unrealistic. The moral high ground, the position of righteousness etc can be lonely and harsh places. I think the example of Jesus and the apostles would suffice to prove that point. While one might be able to say that a 18-21 year old enlisted person might not have the knowledge, thanks again to the public school that was one of the focuses of your article, about the use of the military, I find it hard to have sympathy for a 22-24 year old person who took the oath of a military officer being so ignorant. Assuming Watada chose to object for the reasons you state as opposed to justifying fear with high sounding causes (which really is no different then justifying killing with high sounding causes in terms of the truth of our actions) then temporary suffering is a suitable exchange for a preventing a mark on your soul. Perhaps Watada is not being treated that terribly anyway. I do not think George Washington was very agreeable to people who wanted to leave his army either. As for sports teams, you should take a look at baseball and hockey and give some thought to the ‘code’ they have (though granted, not killing).

I am familiar with the majority opinion of the founding fathers on a standing military. I imagine they would have antipathy towards a large amount of what passes for American civilization now. However, they did make allowances in the Constitution for a standing navy. The reason, I believe, being that a navy could not readily be created and stood up. Unfortunately the modern military is the exact same way. You cannot manufacture and field a modern force in a short time. What answer the founding fathers would have come up with for this particular problem would be pure speculation.

All this being said however, it is my fervent hope that the American people put reigns on the governments use of the military. I am not optimistic, as the American people have not put reigns on the government in many areas that I can think of. Thank you for your time.

P.S. I think the following news piece demonstrates the variety of opinion in the military. Additionally, these members seem to place strong emphasis on submission to civilian authority.

P.P.S. Wall of text crits you for 9000 damage... you die.