Media Rants: LZ Lambeau and The Good Soldier Consensus

The following piece appears in the July, 2010 edition of The SCENE.

LZ Lambeau and The Good Soldier Consensus

Media Rants

By Tony Palmeri

From May 21-23, thousands of Wisconsinites attended LZ (“Landing Zone”) Lambeau. Flyers printed in advance urged readers to “Be part of Wisconsin’s official Thank You event at Lambeau Field, honoring our Vietnam veterans for their service and sacrifice.”

Vietnam Army vet Will Williams originally supported the event. He told WLUK television that he turned against it when "The idea of welcoming home Vietnam veterans morphed into a promotion of militarism and support for the current wars and recruitment of young people."

Veterans for Peace echoed Williams. Spokesperson and Army vet Leslie “Buzz” Davis said that attendees would get an incomplete picture of the war: "They won't be presented with the lying politicians, they won't be presented with the power of the military industrial complex."

I believe LZ Lambeau organizers, including Wisconsin Public Television and the Wisconsin Historical Society, sincerely wished only to honor Vietnam vets. WPT’s documentary “Wisconsin Vietnam War Stories” is powerful and deserves a wide audience. Unfortunately and despite good intentions, LZ Lambeau reinforced what has become a disturbing mainstream consensus on the treatment of soldiers in our society. I’ll call it the “Good Soldier Consensus.”

According to the Good Soldier consensus, the military ought to be able to recruit workers just like any other employer. Especially in de-industrialized and economically depressed parts of the country, military service becomes a way of obtaining education and job training.

Upon signing the dotted line, the new soldier agrees to follow orders. In return, the Good Soldier Consensus holds that the soldier is owed: proper training, modern equipment, nondiscrimination in housing and employment, access to high quality medical facilities and full coverage of treatment, education benefits, and other resources to maximize the chances of survival in war while easing the transition from battlefield back to home.

Virtually all establishment politicians and press adhere to some version of the Good Soldier Consensus. Indeed, establishment propaganda and the promise of good benefits attract thousands of young people to military careers.

The problem with the Good Soldier Consensus, other than the fact that the politicians can’t even guarantee the benefits promised, is that it allows political hacks in the White House and Congress and their corporate press cheerleaders to portray themselves as “pro-soldier.” But can political hacks (many of whom did whatever they could to avoid military service) really be “pro-soldier” if they support the continuance of illegal, immoral, never ending wars? Can press hacks be “pro-soldier” if they continue to minimize or censor the heroic stories of soldiers who refuse to follow orders that their conscience tells them are illegal?

Those who believe it naïve or dangerous to expect soldiers to question their orders don’t understand the lessons of World War II. After the war, the Nazis put on trial at Nuremberg for war crimes repeatedly justified their horrific treatment of civilians on the grounds that they were “just following orders.” In response, the Nuremberg tribunal released a list of principles to guide future conflicts. Principles IV states "The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.”

What happens to a young American who tries to act in accordance to the Nuremberg Principles? The case of Army Lieutenant Ehren Watada is instructive. Watada invoked the Nuremberg Principles in refusing to deploy to Iraq on the grounds of the war’s illegality and immorality. Though the US government eventually dropped its case against him, Military Judge John Head held that the issue of the legality of war is a “nonjusticiable political question.” In other words, American soldiers who act on conscience will not be able to count on the judiciary to challenge abuses of power emanating from the executive and/or legislative branches.

What about the case of Pvt. Travis Bishop? Amnesty International labeled him a “prisoner of conscience” after he was jailed for refusing to fight in Afghanistan. After joining the military, Bishop reflected on his Baptist upbringing and came to the conclusion that Jesus’ message is one of pacifism. He could not fight in Afghanistan because “I had to get right with God in case I died or in case I had to kill someone.” His lawyer wants the courts to order the military to make it mandatory for soldiers to be briefed about conscientious objector status in the same way they are briefed about other benefits.

The website Courage To Resist (http://www.couragetoresist.org/) includes additional, detailed stories about modern soldiers who refuse to fight unjust wars. Another great resource is the award winning film “The Good Soldier” (www.thegoodsoldier.com/).

As for establishment media, we get more of the same: on the front page of the June 14th New York Times, the paper announced the “recent” discovery of a trillion dollars worth of minerals in Afghanistan; that nation could become the “Saudi Arabia of Lithium.” The subtext was that struggle over these materials will provide a pretext for the US to stay in that country for another generation.

Political and press hacks will not end the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, but soldiers of conscience and active citizens might. That’s what got us out of Vietnam.