Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 02:53:55 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Black
To: tips @global16x9.com
Subject: "war resisters", no deserters
I disliked the title (at the least) of your piece on January 24th about US military deserters.
All of these so called "resisters" voluntarily joined the army, and then didn't like what they got themselves into. They flee to Canada, seemingly without any clue of what they are doing, and then take on the title of "war resister" to move their cause forward.
They don't realize that during the Viet Nam war, draft dodgers and deserters (and men exempt from the draft and women opposing the war) came to Canada as immigrants. They had the education that Canada wanted, and Canada was in an expansive mood so it was open to a lot of immigration from the US. The only thing special about deserters and draft dodgers back then was that Canada overlooked the fact that they were technically criminals in the US.
But they were never refugees. Despite the fact that back then they had a lot more claim on being a refugee, since the draft was mandatory. You had no choice if you were called up but to serve, go to jail, or go into exile.
This current generation seems fueled on that rather than the basics of pacifism. They think they have a right to pick and choose once they join the military, they think they can proclaim one war is invalid when they don't want to fight, yet reserve the right to go to war on those wars they deem "just".
So they run to Canada, likely with no real understanding except to get away from the US, and somehow they think they can be refugees
I'd love to see a story on where they get that notion, is it groups in Canada that suggest it after the deserters get here, or is it that the kids thought dodgers and deserters 40 years ago got refugee status, or is it that they have seen examples of people coming from other countries who truly deserve refugee status and think it applies to them?
Even though they don't get it, they believe they are here to stay and thus have relationships and children. Or, did they believe that having children would be a reason for them not being sent back?
I doubt they have an understanding of pacifism or the long history of real war resistance. They don't know about the people forced into uniform (because of a draft) who refuse to serve and went to prison as a result. They don't know of religious students like David Dellinger who were exempt from the draft during WWII but refused anyway, and went to jail. They don't know about Jim Peck who went to prison during WWII, and immediately started campaigning to desegregate the dining area in the prison, and then among many other things was part of the 1961 Freedom Rides to desegregate interstate bussing and got badly beaten as a result. Or Bayard Rustin who likewise went to prison for refusing WWII and later was the foundation of the non-violence underlying the civil rights movement. Even against Hitler, these and others felt that war is wrong.
They don't know that in WWI the only condition for being a conscientious objector was being a member of a traditional peace church, and to refuse war meant doing long time in prison (though most were commuted after the war ended) or being deported. They don't know that as a result, groups got together to campaign to make it easier for someone to refuse war, which meant more could sit out WWII (though even then, some walked out of the CO camps set up for alternative service, refusing the privilege and knowing they'd go to prison).
They don't know about people serving who changed their minds and became pacifists after the war was over, like Philip Berrigan, or Albert Bigelow (who in the fifties sailed a boat into a nuclear test zone). Or people who refused and then went to military prison for refusing orders, ultimately far more serious than draft dodging.
They don't know about how people campaigned against the US draft registration when it returned in July of 1980, including some being charged for refusing to register (I can't remember if they served time for that). Or Jim Bergeron out of Vermont who in late 1981 went to a nuclear disarmament rally while in uniform, and faced a court martial (ultimately he was given a discharge "for the good of the service").
They seem to miss that many people oppose war, but since the US no longer drafts people, it's a simple thing to simply not enlist. But then there are others who go out and break laws to oppose war, and sit in prison right now.
15 months isn't much time. Lots of people have done that time for war resistance, some have served much longer sentences. That it's perceived as "long" is the mindset of these youngsters, who joined the military in the first place and then changed their minds. But doing that time would be more war resistance than coming to Canada begging to be refugees and wrapping war resistance around themselves to give them greater power than the simple fact that they don't want to go to war.
How can someone taking the easy way out change people's minds about war? These deserters have done nothing to indicate that they are against war, all they've indicated is that they don't want to go to war. THey don't even want to serve the sentence for refusing orders. Their "sacrifice" of trying to go into exile is minimal compared to what real war resisters have sacrificed.
Or having written all this, I wonder if I'm misinterpreting things. Could it be that it's not the deserters and even groups who are making these people important, but the news media who haven't looked any further and think this is just an extension of what happened during the Viet Nam war?
Michael Black