A couple of days ago, I heard this
href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5746173">interview
on NPR, with Steve Inskeep. Inskeep was
interviewing
href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/01/ap/national/mainD8JRRH080.shtml">Spc.
Mark Wilkerson, just before he turned himself in for having
gone AWOL.
Wilkerson served one tour of duty in Iraq, but refused to go back.
He sought CO status, but was told it would take a
long time before his status would be reviewed. Apparently, he
was told to go ahead with his redeployment, and they would let him know
later whether it was granted.
He never went. Now, he has turned himself in. The
military has revealed that no charges have been filed, and the case is
under review.
href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-laufer/rummy-scores-in-san-franc_b_28576.html">
Peter Laufer points out that this is bad publicity for the
military.
The whole thing got me to thinking, would I qualify for Conscientious
Objector status?
The military guidelines are
href="http://www.objector.org/girights/gettingout/conscientious-objection.html">paraphrased
here:
- you must object to
participation in war in any form; - you
must base your objection on "religious training and belief" (which can
include moral or ethical training and belief) that "crystallized" after
you entered the military; and - you must demonstrate that
your position is "sincere and deeply held."
The actual military guidelines are
href="http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/130006_082071/130006p.pdf">here
(PDF document).
The Directive (DODD 1300.6) is written with the degree of clarity that
we have come to expect from the military. It starts out
saying one thing, they says that it is not saying that but it in fact
saying something else. And so forth.
At first, it says that CO status must be based upon religious belief.
Then it backtracks, saying that the beliefs do not have to be
religious. At that point, it appears that secular humanism
would be a valid basis for CO status. But then, it states
that it does not include a belief that rests solely upon considerations
of policy, pragmatism, expediency, or political views.
that would seem to imply that there is something fundamentally
different about pragmatic philosophy, something that disqualifies it as
the basis for morality. Are they not aware that
href="http://www.rodopi.nl/senj.asp?SerieId=CP">Pragmatism
is a serious branch of philosophy?
I'm curious about that, because that is what my case would rest upon.
I guess I am assuming that they lump together
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatism">pragmatism
with pragmaticism;
perhaps they actually have a degree of discernment that is not
immediately apparent.
- Log in to post comments
I heard the interview. They'll get him on being opposed to this particular war instead of being opposed to all wars. I doubt that, in his case, the matter of religion or philosophy or sincerity will even come up. Anyway, about half of CO cases are decided for and about half against the objectors, so it appears that the game is not totally rigged and that they do have a method to their madness, though it may have nothing to do with what is on the books.
I'm sure that when the military code was being written the term 'pragmatism' is being used in its everyday, non-philosophical sense. They weren't separating pragmatists from empiricists, rationalists, materialsts, idealists, etc, etc, for special treatment.
Well, one of the odd things about the document is that they took such pains to make some distinctions, but not that particular one.
One of the perplexing things to me, in addressing the question of whether I might be considered a conscientious objector, is the nettlesome question of whether there is such a thing as a "just war," as in morally justified war. The problem with that concept is that war always involves at least two sides. At most, only one side can be right. So if one asks the question, "Do you object to all wars?" I would have to say yes. But if you ask "Do you object to every instance of a person participating in war?" I would have to say no.