The Right to Moral Refusal / Choice in War

The fact is that war is carried out not by the President and his Generals and advisors, but by those who follow his command. In absolute truth, there would be no occupation of Iraq without the active participation of soldiers. While the war is constructed by those in power, it is executed by ordinary Americans. While the law says that this is okay - that it is okay to participate in war - the law does not determine what is moral.

The best analogy I can think of is that of slavery. Most white Americans did not think of slavery as immoral. It was just the way things were. But there were Americans who asserted that slavery was immoral and illegal. All slaves had the right to freedom, whether recognized by the government or not.

It is possible to talk about moral accountability without attacking or blaming the soldiers. And is required that we do so. This is because the frame around this discussion is so tight as to prevent almost any discussion about the morality of the occupation without seeming to be attacking the American soldiers.

I contend that this occupation is totally immoral, and for this reason I do not participate in it directly. I would like others to come to this same conclusion.

But I also understand that those who do not come my conclusion face a complex and difficult choice. Most don't even realize that there is choice. Most don't want there to be choice, as well. But the choice remains - although costly and difficult. Liberals should love and support those who are exploited by the government to carry out an immoral and illegal occupation. But liberals should not support collective denial, should not further the lie that there is no choice in war.

The best analogy I can think of is that of slavery. Most white Americans did not think of slavery as immoral. It was just the way things were. But there were Americans who believed that slavery was immoral, and they asserted this strongly. They also asserted that all slaves had the right to freedom, whether recognized by the government or not. The right was a moral right, and it did not matter that the government imposed costs on those who helped assert this right. While all white Americans had the choice to help free the slaves, by all means available, they were actually legally compelled to act otherwise. The choice of moral refusal in slavery was complex - since the costs of nonparticipation were high and the immoral aspects of slavery were not uniformly accepted.

1: Every American has the right of moral refusal to participate in immoral or illegal war (even if this right is not recognized by the government, the right exists nonetheless).

2: The right of moral refusal may be applied to all armed conflict, or to a specific military campaign.

3: The choice of participation in war is complex. Here are some reasons why a person might choose to participate in the current occupation:

The current frame works this way:

Asserting war as a moral choice opens up this frame:

7: Soldiers are victims of war.  While they may have a choice, the government is exploiting them.  The choice made is in the context of propaganda, lies, cohesion, legal powers and acculturation.  War is hell for all involved.  Bush and the neocons are to blame for this hell.