Mudita Journal

A soldier’s perspective on why they’re in Iraq

May 25, 2008 · Filed under: Current Events, Intellectual, Politics
Share

This is a guest post by a friend of mine named “Ron,” presently stationed in Baghdad, Iraq.

I’ve enjoyed reading this thread (“On appreciating military service, even in Iraq”) as it has developed and before I comment I want to say that I consider Joe Duarte and Josh Zader both to be friends.

I have a great deal of respect for the intellect and devotion to Liberty of both men. I also want to thank Josh for providing a forum where rational people can have discussions like these and share ideas.

I am currently in the 55th Week of my second tour here in Iraq. I first came as a ground Soldier with the 4th Infantry Division in April of 2003 and am currently here flying scout/attack helicopters with the Surge force that came over in early May of 2007. Having seen Iraq from both the ground and the air over the course of 5 years, I believe I have a pretty broad perspective of the conflict as a whole.

I interact with Soldiers of all ranks and all branches on a regular basis, and I’d like to say a few things in response to the different arguments that Joe and Josh have made, accepting Joe’s offer: “On motivation, it might help to talk to people you know who served in the Army or Marines recently, especially people like us (Objectivists, secularists, smart people).” Meeting 2 of those 3 qualities was enough to push me into this conversation.

Clearly, being so intimately connected with the war, my thoughts about it are undeniably impacted by the act of participation. As human beings, I think Joe’s point of rationalization on the part of some Soldiers is simply a psychological statement of fact.

Not all Soldiers are well-educated. Not all Soldiers could even engage in an erudite discussion over why we invaded Iraq and the changing justification over the past 5 years. Hell, some were only 13 when I first crossed the border.

When a family member of a fallen Soldier says “He died defending our freedom,” is part of that a rationalization to ease the pain of the loss? Perhaps. People rationalize all the time about difficult events in their lives … maybe suggesting when a loved one dies that “they’re in a better place” or that “things happen for a reason.” I ‘get’ Joe’s assertion that Soldiers and their families make these kinds of rationalizations and it likely holds some merit.

At the same time, however, I think that Joe dismisses a much larger portion of the military than he realizes as being unintelligent, irrational, and blindly devoted to some intangible idea that we’re defending freedom simply by being in the military. Quote: “I’m tired of hearing the same craziness over and over by military people, their families, and politicians. The line: He or she or they are ‘defending our freedom’ by A) Simply being in the military B) Serving in Iraq.”

Iraq aside for a moment, part of what separates the U.S. military from others around the world is that it is professional, focused, and meticulous in how it prepares for war. You don’t just wake up one day and say “Hey look…now we have a just war on our hands, it’s time to go fight and defend freedom” and all of a sudden become a well-trained, disciplined, and professional fighting force that can expect to emerge victorious. It takes constant dedication to being prepared for that day when it comes.

There was no looming threat on the horizon when I first donned a uniform in 1995, or even when I went to Ranger School in 1999. Even during times of peace, to not prepare for war would be irresponsible if one were truly dedicated to defending freedom. The fact that we have a military that nobody wants to have to face in combat is in itself a deterrent.

So yes, people are defending freedom simply by being in the military, by being an active part of that deterrent. I tip my hat to anybody who has served in any capacity, during a time or war or not. We have a saying in the military: “The more you sweat in peace, the less you bleed in war.” It is a crude and simple way of expressing the fact that it is constant training and dedication to your craft that will enable you to be victorious if and when the time to fight comes.

Many people prior to 2003 had served years in the military without ever having the opportunity to actually use the skills they had worked so hard to master. This doesn’t mean they cared any less nor done any less to “defend freedom.”

Moving on to Iraq, there are clearly many arguments that can rationally be made both in support of the war and against it considering the changing justifications, the mismanagement of the war in many areas, and the general handling of the war in every way from logistics, to manpower, to counterinsurgency strategy. Books can be written on all of the rationalizing for the continuation and justification for the war and it makes little sense to rehash them here.

Some reasons obviously have more validity than others, whether we’re talking about removing dictators, establishing a buffer between Iran and Israel, creating relatively moderate governments on either side of Iran, establishing the basic fundamentals of self-rule and representative government for the first time here, etc.

There are great arguments for and against these ancillary reasons and others, both for the near term and long term security of the United States. To ignore the long term effects of this war on our own future security is to be severely short sighted.

As I understand the discussion at hand however, between Joe and Josh, we’re specifically talking about the initial reason and justification for invading Iraq and more specifically, how the Soldiers perceive their role in this conflict. I don’t want to add fuel to this fire by trying to convince you that the war was an intervention to prevent the marriage of capability and intent. Rather, I want to touch on a few of Joe’s points.

Joe says, “1) Your rendition of the more interesting arguments for the war strike me as arguments only accessible to people who inhabit a particular part of the blogosphere. No one knows who Stephen Den Beste is — certainly the majority of soldiers don’t. The elaborate, strategic argument for the war is not something I would expect most enlistees to be aware of, or motivated by.”

This is probably true. Most enlistees likely don’t understand the strategic argument for the war.

To say this however, as though it is a reason to dismiss their character or to discount their belief in what they are doing is tantamount to rejecting that people can fit a certain profile: That they inherently understand the nature of what they’re doing and believe in it though they may not be intellectually deep enough to articulate it or explain why they believe it is important. People like Eddie Willers.

And because they may not be able to write a multi-paragraph, philosophical rationale for why they’re doing what they do, it gets over-simplified to “defending freedom.” This is not dissimilar to the manner in which the American system of government gets over-simplified and mislabeled as Democracy by most Americans when we know that it is not technically a “Democracy”.

The inability to present a philosophical argument for why they fight does not necessarily negate the passion and core beliefs that drive what they do.

Joe’s #2… “2) Most soldiers don’t actually choose to serve in Iraq, which cuts away the issue of their motivation for doing so. That is, they don’t doubly choose to serve in the military and specifically to serve in Iraq. Some who have enlisted in the last couple of years might have had some designs on it, but those involved in the initial invasion wouldn’t have. People who enlist in the military mostly do so for all sorts of mundane reasons that have nothing to do with elaborate strategic arguments for installing democracy in the Middle East. Officers might be different, but we are talking about the regular soldier, I think.”

I have pretty thick skin, but I don’t like the use of the word “mundane” in describing the reasons why people enlist in the military. Certainly, some people have mundane reasons for joining, but to say that we “mostly” do it for mundane reasons is both inaccurate and demeaning.

If anything, I think people mostly enlist for idealistic, romantic, or pragmatic reasons. Personally, maybe I watched Red Dawn too many times as a kid or fought too many invisible communists and fascists in my backyard. I certainly didn’t join for mundane reasons and I don’t think that most people do.

Regardless, having been one of those involved in the initial invasion, I can tell you that I absolutely believed in what I was doing and I was happy to come, as were an overwhelming majority of the guys that I served with. I wouldn’t dare speak for all Soldiers, but I can say that most of the ones I knew and interacted with felt and thought the same way I did.

Joe’s #3… “3) Many of our justifications for doing something are biased and formulated after the fact. Sometimes people will rationalize whatever it is that they happen to be doing. For example, if you approached a soldier who is currently serving in Iraq and gave him the Den Beste rationale for the war, he might very readily embrace it from then on and characterize it as his motivation for being there in the first place. No one wants to be part of a pointless or destructive enterprise, and people often embrace better rationales for their involvement.”

I think I’ve already hit on rationalization enough and I think you make a valid point here about personal psychological justification in general. Again, however, I think that you mischaracterize this as the majority of Soldiers when my experience with them has been that this is in fact a much smaller minority.

Joe’s #4… “A small minority of soldiers might have been motivated by the kind of argument for the war you have in mind, and consciously chose to serve in Iraq for that reason. In that case, I would respect their choice, but I would still see the underlying argument as incredibly weak and arrogant. I’m now sensitive to the fundamental strangeness of the idea of invading and occupying far away countries for reasons unrelated to immediate defense. A few years ago, I would have felt differently.”

I appreciate the acknowledgement that some of us did actually make a rational decision to do what we do, that we consciously weigh all of the factors and act in the way that we see most appropriate for us in accordance with our fundamental values. I would still argue though, that the small minority referenced is not as small as you may presume.

I know that the kind of people who would read this exchange or otherwise engage in discussions like these in places like this are, at their core, coming from the same place. I know that Joe and Josh are both dedicated to Liberty, Freedom, Individualism, Capitalism, etc. I know that you both love America.

I know that we hold the same general belief that the use of Force should be the last option and that the purpose of the Military is to defend the freedoms and way of life that we cherish here — not to invade countries with a design to dominate the world and its resources, or to otherwise initiate force for any other purpose than defense.

Determining when something is actually a “threat,” how imminent it is and how viable it is — this is where reasonable people can disagree, and where we clearly do here.

This discussion over whether or not Iraq was a threat that warranted military action is a legitimate debate to have. I think that it was the correct action to take given the information we had at the time and I would enjoy a discussion on this the next time I see you Joe.

I’m sure that we will be using the same fundamental values to debate different positions based on an analysis that led to different conclusions on the “threat.”

I just ask here that you give us (Soldiers) a little more credit. Many of us, not a small minority, actually do talk about these things, even while here in Iraq. We discuss the pros and cons of action and inaction, of mistakes and triumphs, of missteps along the way, of how all of this is represented and misrepresented in the media, and the intelligence failures that led to the determination that an invasion was necessary.

Many of us are aware of the basic psychological need for justification and rationalization and I think that you made a valid point for those less capable of understanding why they are here.

At the same time, simply because many 18–21 year old Soldiers are not as well-educated or well-spoken, it doesn’t necessarily mean that their intuitive belief that what they are doing is right is somehow misguided because they oversimplify it by saying they’re “defending freedom.”

Because families are grief stricken and don’t have the words to justify why their son or daughter went to war doesn’t mean they should be mocked or dismissed when they over-simplify it by saying that he or she died “defending freedom.”

I’m not so blind as to say that I can ever fully remove the personal attachment that I have to this mission. Having seen first hand all that has been given and all that has been achieved over the course of the past 5 years, I admit that it is hard to be completely objective when talking about the war.

Just know that there are many of us here who do believe that we are doing something good and that it absolutely is tied to the long-term security of the United States. Joe — email me soon, it’s been too long buddy. Josh — thanks for the opportunity to post this here.

Posted by Joshua Zader · Trackback URL · Link
  • Jake

    Hi! Great to hear from you and get your perspective. Joe mentioned your interesting post and I thought as a former enlisted soldier and Iraq country analyst I’d throw in my two cents here.

    During my four years in the Army, I interacted with hundreds of enlisted soldiers serving in infantry, intelligence, and support roles. This was in the late 90s when he had some Bosnia deployments going on – nothing too major. From what I could tell, during that time, far less than 5% of enlisted soldiers would claim that they joined/re-enlisted primarily because they wanted to defend their country. For most enlisted soldiers, the military was perceived to be the best option available to pay for college, make some money, settle down, get out of trouble, debt, small town etc. It’s possible that this changed after 9-11. I don’t know. However, I suspect that 9-11 may have pushed the numbers up to perhaps 10-15% at most.

    Now what precisely was the motivation for those perhaps 10-15%? Well, according to a 2006 poll, 85% of soldiers that responded to the survey said that the U.S. mission in Iraq was to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9-11 attacks – a purported connection that was advanced on national television by Bush and Cheney on multiple occasions. This claim was, in my opinion, based on cherry-picked intelligence, and never held up to any serious scrutiny. Most Americans had no way of knowing the spurious nature of their claims. So perhaps some or many people did join with the intention of defending our country, but in my mind, their patriotism was taken advantage of by those who used deceit and manipulation to achieve their objectives – regardless of whether or not those individuals thought they were serving the interests of our nation. Maybe it would be better to say that some Americans fight because they believe in freedom and let history be the judge of whether or not freedom was furthered by their efforts?

    Ron, I hope for all our sakes that your mission leads to a safer America and to a better world. But when I see Hamas come to power in democratic elections, or when I see Sharia law being enacted in the streets of Iraq, I am not optimistic that a positive realistic goal even exists, much less that it’s attainable in the foreseeable future. Arguments regarding justification and motivation aside, I’m curious what you see as an obtainable goal for us in Iraq and whether or not that goal, once achieved, will have made America safer.

    All my best,
    Jake

  • http://john-j-enright.livejournal.com John Enright

    Ron, thanks for contributing with such deep personal and professional knowledge. Tomorrow is Memorial Day and I will be thinking of this piece tomorrow when I put our flag up. John

  • D.T.

    “Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.”

    Well written essay…

  • Morphh

    As former military myself, I’ve had similar experiences. Great post – thanks for sharing Ron.

  • Jewel Cyr

    Thank you, Ron, for your insight. This was very interesting. I just happened upon this site and I am thankful. As a mom of 2 and wife of 16 years, it has been hard to understand some of the reasoning…But as my father has told me (Served in the Korean Conflict) “These people want to serve, it is what they have worked hard to do.” Thank you for your service to me and my family!

  • http://google nicole

    hey thanks for this page it helped me with a paper that i had to do for a class.

  • carrie

    Thank you for a well written response to a variety of issues. War is not black and white. War is complicated. My daughter, my son-in-law, my niece, my cousin, and other family members and friends joined the military to defend our country and our freedom. My daughter and son in law and niece have repeatedly requested consideration to go to Iraq and other active military zones. None of them has ever mentioned joining to get a better education, etc. those are side benefits, just like you or I get a benefits package with our employment. By the way the pay that our military men and women receive is embarrassing. They might as well be flipping burgers if they are in it for thei ncome. Much safer but definitely not as rewarding. We stand for freedom and proudly fly our american flag while we pray for our military that is fighting for our freedom and the freedom of all of the world against terror.

blog comments powered by Disqus