Cooperation In Unjust War

[Darrel_V]

I have been wondering about nilitary cooperation in an unjust war. I have studied the difficult issue of remote and proximal cooperation in sin .In the book RIGHT AND REASON a Jesuit priest says one must declare conscientious objection if drafted for an unjust war and if not granted then make cooperation as remote as possible. In Vietnam only one in seven actually served in combat I am told with the rest being supporting troops. Can one participate in a manner other than being a medic? Obviously one cannot directly kill anybody…

 

[Joe_5859]

Welcome, Darrel V!

The Catechism of the Catholic Church speaks about the Catholic view on war: CCC 2307-2317

This section really speaks of the responsibilities of the state more so than the responsibilities of the individual, so I think you raise an important question, but one that is difficult to answer. The Church gives us the general priniciples of a “just war”, but most often leaves it up to the individuals to apply the principles to a specific situation.

Things get further complicated because you might have a just war, but people committing unjust acts within the war. (For example, one might argue that World War II was a just war, but that the US dropping atomic bombs indiscriminately was an unjust act within that just war.) So, even if you can, in good conscience, fight in a particular war, it doesn’t necessarily mean the discernment process stops.

Not being in the military myself, I can only guess, but it seems there would be many non-combative roles one could play if they were drafted and unable to appeal to “conscientious objection”. In addition to be a medic, you could also be a cook, or perhaps a maintenance guy or a tech guy of some sort.

It’s hard for me to imagine this situation actually arising in the USA today.

 

[Swan]

It’s hard for me to imagine this situation actually arising in the USA today.

Actually, it is all too common:

truthout.org/docs_2006/040208J.shtml

*I had the opportunity to interview Logan Laituri, a former sergeant in the United States Army, about his time in Iraq and the religious awakening that led to the end of his military service. Laituri joined the military in 2000 to earn money for college. He served for two years as a paratrooper with the 82nd Airborne Division, after which he reenlisted with the 25th Infantry Division. He deployed to Iraq in January 2004 and spent 14 months in the war zone.

His experiences in Iraq made him question the legitimacy of the invasion and subsequent occupation. He struggled to reconcile his religious beliefs with the bloody reality of Iraq. Upon returning from combat, Laituri began to study the Christian Bible. He had always identified with Christianity, but had never fully examined his faith. During his testimony at Winter Soldier, he talked about turning to his faith as a way of understanding what was happening in Iraq.

Then, on April 20, 2006, at 9:40 AM, while riding in a bus on the way to Fort Erwin, Laituri experienced what he described as his “point of crystallization.” He said all of a sudden he had a vision of himself back in Iraq but, this time, without a weapon. This moment confirmed a feeling that had been building inside him for some time. Laituri applied to be a conscientious objector - someone who refuses to participate in combat on religious, moral or ethical grounds. “COs” as they are known in the military, are stigmatized and called “traitors” and “cowards” because they refuse to fight. His commanders said he was “aiding his enemies” by refusing to fight.

Laituri hoped to return to Iraq when his unit was called back to action. He wanted to serve as an unarmed noncombatant, as conscientious objectors have in previous wars. However, his request was denied; his commanding officers thought he was being dishonest and was trying to avoid service. Laituri said watching his unit deploy with out him was one of the most difficult moments in his life. Instead of becoming recognized as a conscientious objector by the military, Laituri waited out his contract and was discharged from the Army.

Since leaving the military, Laituri has become a Christian peace activist. He spent four weeks in Palestine with a Christian Peacemaker team, where he spent time speaking with Palestinians and Israelis about the ongoing violence in the region. He plans to move to Jerusalem in the future to study and work to end the fighting there.*

See also: objector.org/

antiwar.com/glantz/?articleid=10776

*Civilian Court Sides With ‘Conscientious Objector’

When Zabala realized he couldn’t kill another human being, he submitted an application for conscientious objector status to the Marine Corps reserves. He saw two chaplains and a clinical psychologist, who all agreed his moral objections were legitimate and that he should be discharged from the military. Hundreds of such applications have been granted in recent years.

But his platoon commander, Major R.D. Doherty, called Zabala “insincere” because he did not request discharge as a conscientious objector until nearly a year after basic training.

“What did you think you were joining, the Peace Corps?” court documents quote Major Doherty as saying. “I don’t know how anyone who joins the Marine Corps cannot know that it involves killing.”

Zabala sued and on Mar. 29, a federal judge in Northern California overruled the military justice system, ordering the Marine Corps to discharge Zabala as a conscientious objector within 15 days.

In his ruling, U.S. District Court Judge James Ware noted Zabala’s experiences with his first commander Captain Sanchez. During basic training, Sanchez repeatedly gave speeches about “blowing s*** up” or “kicking some fing ." In 2003, when a fellow recruit committed suicide on the shooting range, Sanchez commented in front of the recruits, "f him, f his parents for raising him, and f*** the girl who dumped him*.”

 

[Della]

Every war that the USA has ever engaged in, even WWII, has been characterized by someone as “unjust.” It is for governments to decide if, informed by the teachings of the Church, the military actions they take are just or unjust and it is up to each individual to decide if s/he will be a willing participant in whatever wars his/her country declares/engages in.

In the case presented by Swan, the man’s commanding officer was right. No one who joins the Marines goes into it thinking s/he is not going to be called upon to kill. That’s a given. But, if this man could no longer participate as a full soldier, then he should be discharged for the good of whatever unit he might have been placed in. Just because someone might be assigned to be a cook or secretary doesn’t mean s/he might not be called upon to use his/her weapon.

And as for the comments by the sergeant, they are beside the point. Sergeants very often say things they think will bolster their men that the rest of us would consider crude, although I do think he stepped way over the line.

 

[bilop]

Actually, it is all too common:

truthout.org/docs_2006/040208J.shtml

*I had the opportunity to interview Logan Laituri, a former sergeant in the United States Army, about his time in Iraq and the religious awakening that led to the end of his military service. Laituri joined the military in 2000 to earn money for college. He served for two years as a paratrooper with the 82nd Airborne Division, after which he reenlisted with the 25th Infantry Division. He deployed to Iraq in January 2004 and spent 14 months in the war zone.

His experiences in Iraq made him question the legitimacy of the invasion and subsequent occupation. He struggled to reconcile his religious beliefs with the bloody reality of Iraq. Upon returning from combat, Laituri began to study the Christian Bible. He had always identified with Christianity, but had never fully examined his faith. During his testimony at Winter Soldier, he talked about turning to his faith as a way of understanding what was happening in Iraq.

Then, on April 20, 2006, at 9:40 AM, while riding in a bus on the way to Fort Erwin, Laituri experienced what he described as his “point of crystallization.” He said all of a sudden he had a vision of himself back in Iraq but, this time, without a weapon. This moment confirmed a feeling that had been building inside him for some time. Laituri applied to be a conscientious objector - someone who refuses to participate in combat on religious, moral or ethical grounds. “COs” as they are known in the military, are stigmatized and called “traitors” and “cowards” because they refuse to fight. His commanders said he was “aiding his enemies” by refusing to fight.

Laituri hoped to return to Iraq when his unit was called back to action. He wanted to serve as an unarmed noncombatant, as conscientious objectors have in previous wars. However, his request was denied; his commanding officers thought he was being dishonest and was trying to avoid service. Laituri said watching his unit deploy with out him was one of the most difficult moments in his life. Instead of becoming recognized as a conscientious objector by the military, Laituri waited out his contract and was discharged from the Army.

Since leaving the military, Laituri has become a Christian peace activist. He spent four weeks in Palestine with a Christian Peacemaker team, where he spent time speaking with Palestinians and Israelis about the ongoing violence in the region. He plans to move to Jerusalem in the future to study and work to end the fighting there.*

See also: objector.org/

antiwar.com/glantz/?articleid=10776

*Civilian Court Sides With ‘Conscientious Objector’

When Zabala realized he couldn’t kill another human being, he submitted an application for conscientious objector status to the Marine Corps reserves. He saw two chaplains and a clinical psychologist, who all agreed his moral objections were legitimate and that he should be discharged from the military. Hundreds of such applications have been granted in recent years.

But his platoon commander, Major R.D. Doherty, called Zabala “insincere” because he did not request discharge as a conscientious objector until nearly a year after basic training.

“What did you think you were joining, the Peace Corps?” court documents quote Major Doherty as saying. “I don’t know how anyone who joins the Marine Corps cannot know that it involves killing.”

Zabala sued and on Mar. 29, a federal judge in Northern California overruled the military justice system, ordering the Marine Corps to discharge Zabala as a conscientious objector within 15 days.

In his ruling, U.S. District Court Judge James Ware noted Zabala’s experiences with his first commander Captain Sanchez. During basic training, Sanchez repeatedly gave speeches about “blowing s*** up” or “kicking some fing ." In 2003, when a fellow recruit committed suicide on the shooting range, Sanchez commented in front of the recruits, "f him, f his parents for raising him, and f*** the girl who dumped him*.”

True conscientous objectors should volunteer as combat medics. They face the same dangers as the infantryman, but are not called upon to carry arms. If you’re not willing to serve in this manner, “conscientous objection” looks a lot like trying to avoid danger.

Good Bless

 

[Dale_M]

It is for governments to decide if, informed by the teachings of the Church, the military actions they take are just or unjust and it is up to each individual to decide if s/he will be a willing participant in whatever wars his/her country declares/engages in.

I don’t think that governments assess the justice of a war based upon the teaching of the Church. This really is up to the individual.
But once a person signs a contract to belong to the military, they are giving up their right to determine whether or not a war is just or not. In the United States, conscientious objection is legally regarded as an either/or proposition - either you are conscientiously opposed to all war or you are not.

The difference between the all volunteer army and the draft is that individuals have a chance to opt out in advance. Change of life situations such as presented by Swan do happen. But the individual shouldn’t be surprised that the military doesn’t take likely to breaking a contract.

 

[jkatpc]

Conscientious objectors have to be opposed to all wars, not just the ones they don’t want to fight in (or with which they don’t agree). Soldiers are having a tough time now, frequently deploying four times in six years for 12-15 months a shot. Leadership has to carefully determine who are opposed to the war in Iraq (for example) and who are opposed to going to Iraq. They aren’t the same thing. Generally speaking, but not always so, there has to be some evidence or indication that moral opposition existed prior to joining the military. Enlisted servicemembers sign a contract. In exchange for pay, medical, training, food, housing, and the promise of a good retirement after 20 years, they agree to go where they are told to go. Officers have obligated service for initial training, and perhaps some more later for education at the government’s expense, bonuses received, etc.

Once you join, you may or may not have the opportunity to serve in a position that regularly involves shooting bullets at somebody else. However, that’s based on ability (ASVAB score) and needs of the service. If you want to serve without a weapon, become a chaplain. Over here, they are the only ones who don’t carry weapons. Everybody else–medics, doctors, chaplain’s assistants, cooks, supply people–carry a personal weapon. If you don’t want to shoot at too many people, join the Navy (although there’s no guarantee you won’t become a “sand Sailor” like me ).

Of course, consideration for conscientious objection might be greater if the Church declared the war unjust. Catholics, at least, might have a leg to stand on.

 

[Holly3278]

I personally could never serve in an unjust war. The only possible way would be to let me serve in a non-combative position and preferably a position where I am not supporting the troops directly either. The reason is because if you are directly supporting the troops, you are indirectly supporting their killings. I also would not cooperate in making weapons for an unjust war. I honestly don’t know if there would be a morally just way of serving your nation in the event of a draft for an unjust war.

 

[Joe_5859]

I personally could never serve in an unjust war. The only possible way would be to let me serve in a non-combative position and preferably a position where I am not supporting the troops directly either. The reason is because if you are directly supporting the troops, you are indirectly supporting their killings. I also would not cooperate in making weapons for an unjust war. I honestly don’t know if there would be a morally just way of serving your nation in the event of a draft for an unjust war.

Actually, even if a war was unjust, you could still support the troops and it would be morally okay. In moral theology, this would be called material cooperation with evil, which can be justifiable. There are four conditions which must all be met for material cooperation to be allowed (I’m borrowing this from Beginning Apologetics 5: How to Answer Tough Moral Questions):

1. 
   *]The action must be good or neutral in itself - Providing food or medical attention to troops (or any human being) is a good thing to do
   *]One cannot share in the evil intention - If you think the war is unjust and you do not desire the killing, then you would not share in the evil intention (If you did share in the evil intention, this would be formal cooperation, which is always wrong)
   *]The action cannot directly cause evil effect - Just making food or cleaning wounds does not directly kill anyone
   *]Sufficient reasons must exist to allow the evil effect - If you are in this position to provide for your family and/or avoid jail or massive legal consequences, that would be a sufficient reason
   
   So you could certainly serve in this way in the event of a draft to an unjust war and be morally just fine.

 

[Darrel_V]

I’ve learned about material cooperation in evil in studying moral theology. There is remote and proximate material cooperation with cases in between i’m sure,.It is a difficult to apply this to practical cases sometimes. My traditional understanding has always been that only medics were able to cooperate in an unjust war. I have not really seen any specific case examples other than medics. Even though most troops in our armed forces are service personnel with few in acutual combat,these service personnel are still considered combatants it seems according to the law of war-except for medics. Indeed the issue of combatant vs. noncombatant is sometimes a difficult issue. I know that the threat of severe penalty sometimes justifiies material cooperation. In 1968 the American Catholic Bishops suggested selective conscientious objection should be allowed with alternative service for those who objected. This has not been enacted.

 

[Della]

I don’t think that governments assess the justice of a war based upon the teaching of the Church. This really is up to the individual.

They may not but they ought to. And, I agree with the rest of your comments.

 

[jkatpc]

I’ve learned about material cooperation in evil in studying moral theology. There is remote and proximate material cooperation with cases in between i’m sure,.It is a difficult to apply this to practical cases sometimes. My traditional understanding has always been that only medics were able to cooperate in an unjust war. I have not really seen any specific case examples other than medics. Even though most troops in our armed forces are service personnel with few in acutual combat,these service personnel are still considered combatants it seems according to the law of war-except for medics. Indeed the issue of combatant vs. noncombatant is sometimes a difficult issue. I know that the threat of severe penalty sometimes justifiies material cooperation. In 1968 the American Catholic Bishops suggested selective conscientious objection should be allowed with alternative service for those who objected. This has not been enacted.

Medics are combatants. Doctors are not. Neither are chaplains. If captured, doctors and chaplains are held in a status as a “retained” person vice an EPW (Enemy Prisoner of War). Medics would be considered EPWs.