[lbo-talk] Desertion: an Honorable Choice

Yoshie Furuhashi furuhashi.1 at osu.edu
Sun Dec 4 09:23:18 PST 2005


boddi satva lbo.boddi at gmail.com Sun Dec 4 08:50:44 PST 2005:
> Yeah, except the idea that of a military as a force independent of
> government essentially always ends up putting the military on top.
> Mercenaries are dangerous exactly because they exist independently
> of the government that employs them. The logic of their
> organization is choosing their fights on what they think will
> benefit themselves, not in legal service to the government.

The question that matters to leftists is whether rank-and-file soldiers are independent of the class most of them come from. When the government and the working class are sharply at odds, there comes a time when soldiers must choose which side they serve: the government or the people? Hugo Chavez cites the experience of caracazo as a turning point:

<blockquote>Chávez speaks feelingly of the caracazo, the wave of protests (1989) against IMF-imposed austerity, which pitted the army against the Venezuelan poor and left thousands dead. This event, which marked a turning point for Chávez and others in the military and which he calls a "curse upon the army," sowed the seeds that were to germinate in Chávez' own coup against the government in 1992.

<http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/bujes251105.html></blockquote>

Note that Carlos Andres Perez (AD), President of Venezuela at that time, was elected.

Many times in the history of the United States, too, National Guards have been ordered to break up strikes and the like.


> Your original formulation was that soldiers should not listen to
> legal orders.

What Washington pretends to be legal -- like a war of aggression, torture, etc. -- violates international laws to which it has signed on.


> It's not up to soldiers to decide whether the causus belli is
> adequate.

Why not? It's certainly an integral part of any thinking human being's consideration of war, and soldiers are human beings first and soldiers second (soldiery is, after all, just an occupation).


> That is not where the decision is made. They have already made
> their commitment. I'm sure it never seems adequate to justify doing
> the awful things they have to do. I hope so. But if they, as
> individuals, want to be conscientious objectors there is a legal
> process for that. If they fail to get CO status and they feel they
> still can't fight, there's the brig.

I honor and thank soldiers who decide to apply for CO status, go to the brig rather than continue to serve, who decide not to reenlist, etc. during an illegal and unjust war; I also honor and thank soldiers who decide to desert from an illegal and unjust war, like some -- like Jeremy Hinzman, Brandon Hughey, and David Sanders -- who already have during this war. Desertion from an illegal and unjust war is a perfectly honorable choice, much more honorable than serving in it while knowing that the casus belli doesn't justify "the awful things they have to do."

Yoshie Furuhashi <http://montages.blogspot.com> <http://monthlyreview.org> <http://mrzine.org>



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list