Prior to this, Danny had been increasingly critical of American foreign policy and many aspects of the military’s command and control structures, one example being the “all volunteer” nature* of the armed services, something that radically changed the politics around how and whether wars will be pursued. While still in service, he began writing and submitting articles to numerous publications and even published an autobiographical account of his Iraq war experiences, much of it edged with his growing critique of the campaigns in Iraq and Afganistan. Oddly, his growing dissention and critiques went mostly under the radar of his superiors, and he eventually advanced to the rank of major.
 |
| Vietnam War Demonstration 1968 |
For Danny, books and teaching were both salve and salvation in his struggle to cope with his growing isolation and estrangement from an organization whose tenets he wholeheartedly had embraced since he was a teen. In Patriotic Dissent, Danny examines several forms of “patriotism”, the first he calls “pageantry patriotism”, the most facile and inauthentic kind, because it's a patriotism which, as its name suggests, is concerned mainly with “self-conscious public displays of gratitude and ceremonies” (27) and lacks any critical thinking or engagement with current events or political affairs. It's mostly preformative and thus non-threatening to the status quo. Standing for the national anthem before a sporting event (why?) or obsessively “thanking” the troops for their service (i.e. fighting in foreign wars no one cares about or understands) are two examples. On the other end of the spectrum is what he calls “Participatory Principled Patriotism”, one that is “grounded in the more idealistic aspects of…defending the laws, rights, and institutions” (30) of the nation, which might come into conflict with the policies and practices adopted by its leaders. He cites various historical examples, such as Mark Twain’s public stand against America’s occupation of the Philippines** at the turn of the Twentieth Century, and labour organizer Eugene V. Debs' vociferous criticisms against America entering WWI, that landed him in a federal penitentiary charged with sedition. In addition, Danny cites Martin Luther King’s principled patriotic stand against America’s growing militarism and his seminal “Beyond Vietnam” speech; whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg’s publication of the Pentagon Papers , a critically important act of patriotic dissent exposing malfeasance and hidden agendas surrounding the Vietnam War. More recently, the anti-war platform articulated by former congresswoman and presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard, garnered her considerable public opprobrium and smears from political apparatchiks determined to silence her criticisms of American foreign policy.
Dissenting in the face of such opposition is not easy, Sjurgsen tells us, but it is necessary if any change is to be made in government policies.
 |
| MLK "Beyond Vietnam" Speech 1967 |
Next, he discusses how dissent can come in various “strands” or types. For example, it could be religious in nature: dissenting against American imperialism with the above-mentioned occupation of the Philippines, as the great orator and Presidential contender William Jennings Bryan railed was “against the values of Christ himself.” (37) Danny calls this the “Prophetic” strand of dissent.
The “Republican” anti-war strand is based upon the legality of militarism, imperialism and warfare; was it an action that fell within the scope and confines of the Constitution, for example.
A third strand, dubbed “Nationalistic”, is one that can be problematic, we are warned, with Danny citing the example of politicians who (rightly) dissented against America’s imperialistic invasion of Mexico in 1846-48. But these politicians dissented for the wrong reason, namely they didn’t want Mexico's “Indian” population mixing with white America. Another version of Nationalistic dissent occurred prior to WWI. Dubbed, pejoratively, American “isolationism”, there were those opposed to America’s entrance into the European conflict (in 1917)+ because it simply wasn’t in America’s national interest, particularly since the American homeland wasn't threatened (as it was in WWII.)
The fourth dissenting tradition Danny calls “cosmopolitan”, and it’s the one he subscribes to. Cosmopolitan Dissent has elements drawn mostly from the Prophetic and Republican dissent traditions and sees “the need for internationally acceptable values and conduct.” (48) He goes on to say that cosmopolitan dissenters:
“[J]udge the advisability, legality, and morality of American wars and general foreign policy on the basis of international law and norms, universal conceptions of human rights and dignity; republican, constitutional principles; diversity (social justice); and perceptions of national interests.” (48)
Anti-war dissenters can be found inside the armed services, of course. Danny is one such example. By using his skills as a historian and writer to craft in words his vision of a just and peaceful society, he is able to push back against the growing tide of militarism and imperial overreach. He cites the famous example of Major-General Smedley Butler who, after long years of service, wrote in 1935 a scathing critique of America's foreign military adventurism called War is a Racket. In it, he wrote that wars in numerous countries (many he participated in),fought and supported by American forces, were prosecuted primarily to line the pockets of bankers and industrialists. (Much like today, it seems.) Danny makes the cogent point that today, in the top ranks of the American military, there is no figure comparable to Butler. There are no high-ranking armed forces' dissenters currently serving, nor are there any who speak out after they've retired. This suggests there is a 'levelling effect' and a kind of self-selecting of candidates who are chosen for future command commissions.
Group think, in other words. Something that is not good for 'out-of-the-box' strategizing, nor is it conducive for critical thinking and, of course, dissenting viewpoints. Danny states it is in the ranks of Major and lower that dissent and dissatisfaction with foreign wars and militarism is most expressed by service personnel. As an aside, it is interesting and disturbing to note that one form of dissent among frontline troops was expressed in the practice of "fragging". Over the course of America's involvement in Vietnam, there were over 1,000 incidents of troops attacking their superior officers. One common method was to toss a fragmentation grenade into their tents (hence the term). Hundreds of officers were injured and over 80 were killed. Troops dissatisfied with their role in a grinding, senseless war on foreign soil used the only method of protest they knew that could bring about some change in their situation.
By using historical and contemporary examples of patriotism and dissent, as well as
detailing his own growth and understanding of each, Danny acknowledges critical thinkers who
have come before, and suggests for those who will come after that there remains the possibility for
real changes to occur. But, such changes are never easy, he says, and they come with a
cost. Changes can occur, but only through raised voices, protest and political action. Put another way, patriotic dissent is both a burden all of us must (and should) carry and a prize all of us can share. Including here in Canada.
Cheers, Jake.
______________________________________________________
* Eliminating the draft was a policy instituted during the presidency of Richard Nixon in the early 1970s as a cynical ploy to co-opt and silence the fierce anti-war movement then roiling against America's involvement in the war in Vietnam. But as Danny points out, eliminating the draft created a system disproportionately targeting recruits from poor states and from southern parts of the country (indeed, most recruits come from just a handful of states) who saw the armed forces as a venue to improve their and their families’ lives.
But without “skin in the game”, so to speak, without the possibility of being drafted, the general population gradually grew apathetic with respect to what its military and politicians were doing in their various foreign wars.
** America occupied the Philippines (and other Spanish territories) following its victory in the short-lived Spanish-American War of 1898 whereby the island nation remained a de facto colony of the United States until 1946. Twain and others objected strenuously to America’s new role as imperial overlord, with its aggressive and bloody militarist policies against indigenous Philippine independence movements.
+ And the standard counterfactuals spin freely around what would have happened if America had remained out of the war? What would have been the consequences? Would Germany have won? Would (more likely) there have been a stalemate? A truce? Would the war have ended sooner without American supplies and armamants to the Allies, and the looming possibilty of American involvement in the conflict? (There had been peace initiatives made as early as 1915.) Would wrangling over territories, negotiations, political posturing, etc., have been the order of the day, with all sides grumbling and complaining, but nevertheless going back to their respective corners to lick their wounds? Then perhaps, just perhaps, our world could have avoided WWII and all the horrors it wrought, and, well…
[Check out https://www.antiwar.com/blog/ for articles by Danny and much more. Ed.]
Sjursen, Daniel A. Patriotic Dissent: America in the Age of Endless War. Heyday Books, Berkeley, California, 2020.
No comments:
Post a Comment