American war vets from Iraq and Afghanistan were testifying
before the Congressional Progressive Caucus last month when Barbara
Lee, a Democrat from California, wondered how the US military
dehumanizes the “enemy,” making it easier for soldiers to kill.
Kristofer Goldsmith, a former US Army sergeant who fought in Iraq,
replied that in basic training, recruits are ordered to shout “Kill”
every time they stab a human-shaped dummy with a bayonet. He added that
drill sergeants also require trainees to shout out a response to a
question. (Goldsmith said that at first, he had trouble shouting the
answer because he thought it sounded weird.) “Soldiers, what makes the
green grass grow?” “Blood, blood, blood, drill sergeant!”
To me, Goldsmith’s story illustrates both the barbarity and futility
of war. The idea that human beings should settle their political
differences by inflicting massive violence and bloodshed may be as old
as the hills, but it’s also pretty stupid. It was bad enough when war’s
main victims were soldiers killed or maimed on far-off battlefields,
but now, its victims are increasingly civilians—mainly women and
children. Historian Howard Zinn notes, for example, that in the First
World War, there were 10 military deaths for every civilian killed; in
the Second World War it was 50-50; but in Vietnam 70 percent of the
dead were civilians. In the wars since, the proportion of civilian
deaths has increased again to between 80 and 85 percent. That means
that for every thousand who die in war, up to 850 are innocent
bystanders.
The reasons why are obvious. Industrial nations like the US and
Canada use sophisticated killing machines to deal death and destruction
on a massive scale. Unprotected civilians are helpless against weapons
that kill with such force and speed. In the current US air assault on
Pakistan, for example, military pilots sitting in Nevada are flying
robotic bombing machines over targets thousands of miles away. These
pilotless drones can drop bombs nonstop for 24 hours. In his recent
book, Wired For War, Peter Singer describes other war robots
such as SWORDS which can fire an M-16 rifle and a rocket launcher. Such
technological systems may be efficient killers, but they’re also
hellishly expensive. They’re part of the reason world military spending
has reached record levels. The highly respected Stockholm International
Peace Research Institute announced last week that military expenditures
topped $1.46 trillion (US) in 2008, a four percent hike over 2007 and
an astonishing 45 percent increase since 1999.
No wonder people who object to war for reasons of conscience or
religion are increasingly frustrated over having their tax dollars
conscripted to help pay for the slaughter of innocent people. On the
same day that Kristofer Goldsmith testified before Congress about the
dehumanizing effects of war, Bill Siksay of the NDP introduced a
private member’s bill in the Commons that would allow Canadians to
divert part of their income taxes into a special conscientious objector
account. The federal government could use the money for peaceful
purposes, but not for military ones. It’s the sixth such bill to be
introduced in Parliament since 1993, but with luminaries such as Harper
and Ignatieff running the show in Ottawa, there’s little chance it will
even get debated, let alone passed. It’s got a snowball’s chance in hell. For more information on the
campaign against being forced to finance international slaughter,
readers can surf to the Conscience Canada website at consciencecanada.ca The site also
features a well-researched essay by law student Darren McLeod. It
analyzes the legal arguments against military taxation under the
freedom of conscience and religion provisions of the Charter of
Rights.
OK, I realize there are always those who assert, as George W. Bush
did, that war can be used to promote democracy, justice, security and,
yes, even peace. I would urge them to ponder this persuasive aphorism
from the pacifist A. J. Muste: “There is no way to peace. Peace is the
way.”
Do you support income tax diversion for peace? Email
brucew@thecoast.ca.
This article appears in Jun 18-24, 2009.
Stupid and ill thought out idea.
The whackos to the left and right could ask to be an ‘objector’ for any number of government expenditures. Abortion, modern art, the symphony, schools, car vmanufacturing, paving road. You won’t believe the number of times I have heard ‘ I don’t have kids, so why should I pay an education tax. The list is endless and I bet there would be more objectors to federal arts funding than the Siksay idea. We all have our pet likes and dislikes and I just pay my taxes, express an opinion about funding priorities, and leave the decision up to the elected. That is how a civil society works, we don’t get to fund what we like and ignore what others like.
Siksay just thinks we should spend money on what he agrees with, what will he say when the anti-abortion crowd start agreeing with him and ask for their cause to be added to the Conscience Canada campaign. Or as Mr Wark writes “No wonder people who object to abortion for reasons of conscience or religion are increasingly frustrated over having their tax dollars conscripted to help pay for the slaughter of innocent people”
Be careful what you wish for.
Joeblow, you need to think things through a bit more carefully before you shoot from the hip. I mention the excellent essay by Darren McLeod on the Conscience Canada website. On pages 10-11, McLeod disposes of the erroneous argument that allowing people to divert their taxes away from military uses would open the floodgates for “the whackos to the left and right” who would seek similar treatment because they don’t want to pay for modern art, schools or road paving (your examples). McLeod says there is little evidence for this.
“Though there would certainly be a similar motion from Pro-Life groups wanting to divert the money going to abortion services and stem-cell research, and animal rights groups not wanting to invest in animal agriculture, there are few other areas of government spending that would be seen to legitimately infringe on a person’s religious or conscientious rights. The burden of proof would remain on the plaintiff to show that their religious or conscientious right has been infringed, and the court could devise a test to ensure that no frivolous claims were accepted.”
McLeod notes that anti-abortion or animal-rights groups for example, should be able to make their case under the section of the Charter that guarantees the “fundamental” freedoms of conscience and religion. “The government should not be coercing them into paying money into something that, for reasons of strong conscientious or religious belief, they find abhoring.
Bruce, Mr McLeod narrowly defines the debate to support his argument. We now have parents wishing to remove their children from certain subjects of study and they use their religious or strong conscientious beliefs to defend their position. Putting a fence around these types of arguments is very difficult, there is no clear boundary, and I am sure you can appreciate that any political debate will morph well beyond the narrow confines of the McLeod thesis. The recent legislative amendments in Alberta and the outcry by teachers, unions and others clearly indicate the debate would move where McLeod does not want to go. Just try defining which ‘Military spending’ is not objetionable; I doubt either of us would live long enough to come to a acceptable position. Very narrow legal arguments don’t count for much when it comes to public policy and you have been around long enough to know where this mainly academic exercise would end up.
Hey Joeblow, to put it kindly, your answer is pretty woolly. Or to put it bluntly, you seem to be trying to obscure the issues here. You assert that McLeod defines the debate narrowly to support his argument. I’m a retired university professor. If you were a student of mine, I’d ask you to justify this assertion. Why, specifically, is McLeod’s definition too narrow?
Here is the main point: Under the Charter, anyone or any groups are free to argue their cases under its freedom of conscience and religion provisions. It’s then up to the courts to decide whether the arguments are legally valid. And by the way, it’s not a question of defining which military spending is not objectionable. The intent of Bill Siksay’s private members bill is to divert the proportion of taxes that goes to the military into other spending. It’s pretty easy to calculate the percentage of the federal budget that goes to the Department of National Defence. The taxpayer then diverts that percentage into other uses.
This is not a narrow, academic exercise as you assert. It is a matter of individuals exercising their fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Charter of Rights.
Bruce, the Siksay bill is apparently an end run designed to avoid waiting for the outcome of any charter challenge; or just a political stunt to appeal to his base. Even then the Bill has a simple fundamental flaw because it assumes all government revenues come from personal income tax or the GST. As we all know most of us receive services of a value far greater than the sales and income taxes we pay. For example, in Nova Scotia a person over the age of 65 and in receipt of a pension of $18,500 per annum from a pension plan pays no federal income. Even if the person earns $25,000 the federal tax will not cover the services provided. Mr. Siksay, the student McLeod, and apparently you, believe that a fixed proportion of their actual federal income tax should be directed to an activity they approve of, and thus the burden of providing services should become an even greater burden on others. If the Siksay bill includes a formula which takes into account the cost of delivering services per person and the family, and then takes into account if the taxpayer is a net contributor or net recipient then I may be prepared to consider the argument.
In addition, I fail to see why a religious belief should in any way be considered as grounds to advance the argument. Render unto Caesar….
As for your apparent belief that all military expenditures are objectionable how do you square that with the UN duty to protect,and the ability of us to engage in peace making.
Finally, in past conflicts objectors often served in the field as medics or medical orderlies. Or as Benjamin Britten did in WW2 flee to another country, in his case the neutral USA,with several side trips to warring Canada and then in the spring of 1942 following the US declaration of war he returned to the UK on board a Swedish ship.
Britten was obviously quite flexible in his beliefs and how he practiced them , I think we should do likewise.
For starters, Goldsmith’s story is pointless. You can reject war, and hence reject the need for soldiers, but it’s rather odd to criticize military training methods that dehumanize the enemy … it seems to me that as long as you have soldiers you may as well train them right, because otherwise you truly are wasting money.
I’ll also add that your observations and statistics surrounding civilian casualties are incorrect or misleading. Read some military history, going back millennia, and you’ll realize that the main victims of wars have always been civilians. And often enough in the past civilians have been the main targets as a matter of deliberate military strategy. I’ll also point out that it’s misleading to talk about military-civilian death ratios without considering absolute numbers, as well as the circumstances of the war.
In any case it’s absurd to have an option for some people to divert a portion of their income taxes into “peace” accounts. All this will do is make them feel better in some weird kind of way. In the meantime the government will still spend exactly as much on the military as it chooses/needs to spend. This is a truly pointless gesture.
Hi Bruce, I was wondering if you could cite your sources for the statement that Canada has “sophisticated killing machines to deal death and destruction on a massive scale,” or did you not mean Canada but another country. If so, what country? Also I am unaware that “pilotless drones can drop bombs nonstop for 24 hours.” Very few aircraft can stay aloft for 24 hours, let alone carry such a payload. Details, please. regards,
Thanks for your comments AstroBoy. I wrote: “Industrial nations like the US and Canada use sophisticated killing machines to deal death and destruction on a massive scale.” First, I meant to suggest that the US and Canada work together. Canadian forces are backed up by American air power — the most lethal and sophisticated mass bombing machines that have ever existed.
Canada itself has an array of sophisticated weaponry:
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/canada…
Canada also has “Canadian Forces Joint Task Force Afghanistan Air Wing” to ferry troops and munitions quickly to hot spots.
http://www.casr.ca/ft-cf-air-wing-afghanis…
As I say, Canadian forces are backed up by American military aircraft. The reference to the 24-hour bombing capability of the Predator drones comes from an interview with Peter Singer on “Democracy Now,” Feb. 6/09:
“P.W. SINGER: Well, you’re talking about systems that can be flown remotely. So, the planes, these Predator drones, are taking off from places in, for example, Afghanistan, but the pilots are physically sitting in bases in Nevada. And there, you have incredible capabilities. They can see from a great distance. They can stay in the air for twenty-four hours. And so, they’re very valuable in going after these insurgent and terrorist hide sites, which is in, you know, mountainous terrain, and it would be difficult to get US troops in.”
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/2/6/wired…
As for Joeblow’s claim that civilians have always been the main victims of war, I would refer to the Red Cross report issued this week which the BBC summarized as:
“Civilians bear the brunt of modern conflict, a report by the International Committee of the Red Cross suggests.”
Please see: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/811406…
Hi AstroBoy: I’ve been thinking about your questioning of my claim that industrial countries such as Canada and the US use “sophisticated killing machines to deal death and destruction on a massive scale,” as well as your query about the Predator drones.
While I think it’s pretty clear that the US did “deal death and destruction on a massive scale” during the Shock and Awe phase of its invasion of Iraq, I now realize my claim doesn’t really apply to the situation in Afghanistan where Canada is currently fighting. It is true that sophisticated Western military technologies can kill with great speed and force, but I shouldn’t have suggested that it always happens on a “massive” scale. In Afghanistan for example, many of the civilian deaths that result from fighting occur because of roadside bombs and US air strikes. See for example, this CNN report on UN statistics:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/02/1…
In Afghanistan, more civilian deaths result indirectly. In his book, “Descent Into Chaos,” for example, Ahmed Rashid writes that US bombing in the first months of the war in 2001, “caused massive dislocation as thousands fled their homes, the distribution of food aid to drought-stricken areas was halted, and there were widespread revenge killings. Up to twenty thousand Afghans may have died indirectly as a result of drought, hunger and displacement.”
Rashid also notes that the US dropped 1,228 cluster bombs “which released a quarter of a million bomblets that continued to kill or maim civilians years later.” (Rashid, pp. 97-98.)
So, while sophisticated military technologies do kill unprotected civilians, many also die because of the upheavals caused by modern warfare. And that’s reflected in the Red Cross survey released this week:
http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/h…
I think I was guilty of careless wording re the Predator drones when I said they can bomb “nonstop” for 24 hours. I didn’t mean that bombs are raining down from the drones continuously for 24 hours, only that the planes can remain airborne for that long, and when they do strike, they do so with lethal force.
http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/worl…
Thanks again AstroBoy for raising these questions. Having thought things through, I feel a bit chastened.