Calls to Address Moral Conflict, CO Definition
In light of recent articles on the increasing moral conflict of war — troops told to fight and kill without being provided the moral foundation for those actions — it seems appropriate to note the increasing attention “moral conflict” has recently gotten in the press. The articles even refer to “moral injury” and make a statement similar to that made here before:
The report asserts that “moral dilemmas” have contributed to the rising number of suicides among service members…
Unfortunately, the “moral conflict” on which the advocacy groups focus is that faced by troops who don’t agree with a particular war, not those who are unable to reconcile their conduct in war with their morality. The groups claim the “moral dilemmas” are due to “conflicts” over “one or both” of the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Without any further evidence they vaguely assert that military suicides (“perhaps a substantial number of them”) are directly attributable to violations of the just war doctrine. Without questioning the Commission’s sincerity, their efforts seem to have more of a political tone than a moral one.
As a result, groups like the Truth Commission on Conscience in War are calling for expanding the definition of Conscientious Objector to include those who don’t agree with the basis for a particular conflict, rather than its current requirement that COs object to war in any form.
There is certainly validity to the claim that “moral injury” is contributing to PTSD and even suicides among active and former military members. It is regrettable, however, that groups are choosing to focus on the seeming political popularity of wars, rather than that which most directly impacts troops: After violently taking a life (an action seemingly at odds with their morality) they seek reassurance that their conduct is “morally right” — and they are told that it is neither right nor wrong, it’s just what they’ve been ordered to do.
Such justification is illogical to those with a moral conscience, and if they can’t find someone who can help them cope, they may ultimately contribute to the tragic statistics that increasingly characterize today’s veterans.
The US Military should never have Conscientious Objectors, we are after all, a combat force using weapons of lethal force, to defend our country by combating actual or perceived threats. We do not do enough in the beginning to tell our troops (or the public) just exactly what they are getting themselves into. We sugar coat everything…
For example: recently the Air Force began showing B.S. commercials at movie theaters depicting personnel dressed in black uniforms in some SciFi fantasy to move a satellite so it doesn’t get hit by space debris. In another commercial it shows a fancy airplane morphing into some transformer type hospital plane complete with Dr. McCoy’s scanners from the United Federation of Planets. Why don’t they use the medevac airplanes we have and tell/show the truth about how we move satellites….FOR REAL??
Well, what we do FOR REAL is just not “cool” enough; we can’t show the public our broken old planes and computer systems; who would want to sign up then? We need to put the volunteers through some wringers long before we spend a lot of the tax payers money to find out if Johnny and Suzy can really “pull the trigger” before all of a sudden they get some overwhelming desire to object to it because some imaginary feelings came upon them. Harsh reality and I don’t apologize for telling the truth.
War [killing] is the worst thing to ask a 20 something to do, but it’s gotta be done by someone and if they object after swearing under oath they know and understand what they are committing to — then no CO! Dealing with PTSD is another problem but one we must give 110% to so our troops are cared for the sacrifices they make defending this country.
Pingback: “Calls to Address Moral Conflict, CO Definition” | Truth Commission on Conscience in War