Equal Right to do Wrong

by Will Wilkinson on February 3, 2010

IOZ says:

[T]he plainer truth of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is that it represents and clearly indicates that gays aren’t fighting for the right to “defend their country,” but are fighting for the right to go forth and kill foreigners in aggressive, hegemonic foreign wars, invasions, and occupations.

I am sympathetic, but I think we ought to be careful. I think most opponents of DADT are fighting for gays’ right to “defend their country.” It just turns out that much of the U.S. military’s actual activity is “to go forth and kill foreigners in aggressive, hegemonic foreign wars, invasions, and occupations.” Joining the Army to defend America is sort of like joining the World Bank to help the world’s poor. You’re probably making it worse. It is difficult, however, to decide how much blame we should lay upon those who willingly turn themselves over to the violent branches of state to do its largely immoral bidding. I don’t want to say that sincerely believing that one has enlisted to defend America absolves one of responsibility for the crimes one subsequently commits under orders. It’s not like trespassing, kidnapping, and murder aren’t trespassing, kidnapping and murder just as long as a nation-state is paying you to do it. But, at the same time, it really doesn’t seem fair to lay too much on 20 year-olds inhabiting a hyper-patriotic culture in which movie trailers make the Marines look awesome and the nobility of military service is rarely questioned. Contracting to do what the military tells you to do is a moral mistake we admire and enthusiastically encourage. To refuse this encouragement and admiration to the openly gay is to do wrong unjustly. Establishing equality of status within morally compromised institutions has the virtue of one mistake over two.

  • Dude!
    Hey Will, I'd love to see you try a foreign policy discussion where you espouse such views with someone like Robert Kagan on BHTV. I double-dog dare you! You would get morally and intellectually embarrassed and you know it.

    You have the power. Make it happen my friend!
  • jack
    thanks, ben. (it would be nice to know if will even read the damn thing...)
  • Ben A
    Probably not, unfortunately!

    Will is so great on so many topics, but there are places where he seems afflicted by a touch of the same dogmatism he roots out so tirelessly in others. Usually, when the conversation turns to topics that are more fundamentally problematic for a 'cosmotarian' view like "what rights it is reasonable for nation states to have," or "what role does a state monopoly of force play in securing rights" Will starts to sound a bit more, to use your term, 'otherworldly.'

    Last, I thought your referencing of the connected critique/unconnected critique distinction was exceedingly apt. It got me thinking more broadly about the ways in which libertarian and statist critiques of each other often tend to be almost *definitionally* unconnected...
  • jack
    as someone who joined the marine corps for idealistic reasons, whose politics have gradually shifted to a more anti-war, anti-imperialist sensibility in the meantime, and who is about to deploy to afghanistan, i have a question for you, will. i'm more than willing to agree with you that most of our adventures, in the scheme of things, have probably done more harm than good (re 20th century; wwi, vietnam, endless list of other cold war interventions, iraq ii, drug war, etc.), but like ww ii, i'm not quite sure about afghanistan. after all, if there's any time when the military serves its purpose, it's when it has been attacked on its own shores. and i have yet to find (in my head or the heads of others) a more preferred route than the one we took vis-a-vis al-qaeda and the taliban. if you can provide me with a more viable path, in retrospect and in the interim, i'd be glad to hear it. otherwise, i think you're letting the world of blogdom -- a world in which words like "just" and "unjust" are flung around like snake oil by peddlers -- chip away at the better of you. also, i wish i could bring you along for the ride, if only you could suffer some of the ambiguities with me, and then maybe write about them...
  • jack
    let me also say that you and your friend ioz surely have a vision of the united states military that fits in well with the tidy contours of your politics... but not so much with the reality of what soldiers, airmen/airwomen, sailors and marines are actually doing on a daily basis. most of them are spending the majority of their time propping up a wasteful, bloated, kafkaesque bureaucracy through various menial labor you can easily find being done in any civilian job. of those who are actually in a war zone (which is the minority), most are also taking part in said above tasks. of the very few who are in combat zones, they are not wantonly slashing the throats of innocents (or raping the native women, or any other cliches you might have scraping about that skull of yours). they are working with local villagers to ensure (a) basic services like water, electricity, etc. can be provided (b) more ambitious political goals like shuras and elections are being considered, (c) the insurgents aren't getting in the way of "a" or "b" through violence and (d) at the end of the day, enough stability is being restored to their area of operations so they, and eventually every other american and coalition service person, can get the hell out of there. i fully concede that all sorts of hegemonic factors are simultaneously playing out at the policy level -- which is why i would probably agree with you and ioz if we actually got to talking about the nitty-gritty of policy -- but i'm sorry, will, when it comes to the truth of the u.s. military, you guys are talking out of your arses. and given that the majority of the institution is comprised of disadvantaged kids straight out of high school, who truly don't deserve the scorn you're heaping on them, it's really pissing me off. in any case, michael walzer draws a good line between the "unconnected critic" and the "connected critic." the former is the chomsky model, the one who sermonize from some distant, sanctimonious alter, so far away from everyone he's completely lost touch with the nuances and ambiguities of what's actually going down on the ground, among the very congregants he scolds. then there's the connected critic, the one who dissents from within, the one who not only identifies with the people and institutions he seeks to change, but those very people and institutions identify with him. you and ioz are clearly falling in on the first camp. which is unfortunate, since for such an impeccably secular mind, you sure are sounding otherworldly on this one.
  • Ben A
    Just a great comment.
  • sewells831
    I should have been more clear. I don't think the question of whether it is immoral to join the armed forces necessarily hinges on the question of whether a particular war or wars was just or not. It seems to me that if a states asserts rights it cannot legitimately possess that it is clearly immoral to cooperate with such a state. Things like kidnapping people and whisking them off to black sites to be tortured, brandishing nuclear weapons, waging unjust war, etc. are all symptoms of a state run amok, drunk on its own power and with no grounding in morality. How could it be moral to cooperate with that?
  • srdv
    "How could it be moral to cooperate with that?"

    The short answer is that taking the most moral option available is regarded as moral. Even when the "most moral option" is better described as the "least immoral option".

    The long answer involves considering various circumstances, and the way such constrain the choices made by groups and individuals.
  • sewells831
    While I take your points, it is extremely difficult for me to imagine a circumstance where non-cooperation is not a viable option. Perhaps you constrain the available options in ways that do not actually pertain.
  • srdv
    Given that I didn't devise any circumstances when I wrote my first post, and really none were needed, I doubt it would be correct to say I'm using improper constraints. No circumstances were needed because the answer I gave is a well known rule for applied ethics, and is agreed upon by such diverse people as Rawls, JS Mill, and Aquinas.

    I agree that not joining the military is a viable option for most Americans. Still, I don't think treating "joining the military is immoral" as a general rule is proper. After all one should take an individuals specific (detailed) circumstances before deciding whether they behaved immorally. If the examiner also wants to avoid imperialist analysis it is also necessary to consider the individual's accepted moral code.

    Do you want to join me in a dialogue to determine what circumstances would make joining the military a moral choice? Do you think it would be worth the effort?
  • sewells831
    I seriously doubt that such a dialogue would be fruitful. For it to be fruitful, we would both have to examine our premises as I think morality is a contextually fixed, if difficult to determine, matter and you would appear to be more of a mindset that all morality is relative. Of course, I could be wrong. Let's just get your answer to this question: Was it moral for anyone to join the German army as a willing participant when the Nazi's were in power? Your answer to that question will probably determine whether I think such a dialogue would be fruitful.
  • srdv
    If the questions are compressed in that way the answer is clear. It was not moral for anyone to join the German army as a willing participant between Hitler becoming Fuhrer and the fall of the Third Reich.

    As for me being a moral relativist; my thinking regarding morality is complex. I am confidant that there is a universal moral code; I might even be able to create a properly universal proof that it exists. I am much less confidant that any universal proof of the contents of the aforementioned moral code exists.

    Under this there are two sections, the smaller of the two deals with proofs claiming to show part of the content of the universal moral code. As a rule these proofs rely on non-universal assumptions. The other section is further divided and regards the questions of how "I" should behave and whether others should be described as morally behaving.

    One of the requirements arising from the proofs I accept is a strict limitation in how I talk about the moral behavior of others. In the absence of a permitting relationship any such talk is required to be descriptive rather than normative.

    Two side notes, I have been rather busy these last few days and I'll be even busier through the end of this week. Also, if you wish to engage in a dialogue, we should maybe consider another venue. After all this discussion is rather a tangent from Will's main point.
  • sewells831
    I have been confronted with some of these questions for many, many years. For me, the problem started with nuclear weapons. As I see it, a state can have no legitimate powers that are not delegated to it by the citizens of that state. It would follow that citizens of a state cannot legitimately delegate to the state powers those citizens cannot legitimately possess.

    Since no individual possesses a right to self-defense that cannot be reasonably limited to an aggressor, it would seem to me that the state cannot possess such a right either. What I mean by this is just this; since nuclear weapons cannot reasonably be limited in their effects to an aggressor, it would seem that no state has a right to nuclear weapons for even ostensibly defensive purposes.

    I find all of this very confusing. I think the confusion comes up because most people think of groups or states as having some intrinsic rights or legitimate powers that are not delegated to them by those who comprise the group or nation. I've been thinking about it for decades, quite literally, and I just don't see how a non-sentient being could be considered to have rights or to have legitimate powers absent some delegation of such by sentient beings.
  • pithlord
    KING HENRY V (IN DISGUISE):
    I dare say you love him not so ill, to wish him here
    alone, howsoever you speak this to feel other men's
    minds: methinks I could not die any where so
    contented as in the king's company; his cause being
    just and his quarrel honourable.

    WILLIAMS: That's more than we know.

    BATES: Ay, or more than we should seek after; for we know
    enough, if we know we are the kings subjects: if
    his cause be wrong, our obedience to the king wipes
    the crime of it out of us.

    WILLIAMS: But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath
    a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and
    arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join
    together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at
    such a place;' some swearing, some crying for a
    surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind
    them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their
    children rawly left. I am afeard there are few die
    well that die in a battle; for how can they
    charitably dispose of any thing, when blood is their
    argument? Now, if these men do not die well, it
    will be a black matter for the king that led them to
    it; whom to disobey were against all proportion of
    subjection.

    It seems to me that in a democracy, the demos is in the place of the king, and has no right to transfer the responsibility for the justness of the cause to those who fight for it, volunteers or not.
  • MichaelDrew
    The Marines are awesome!
  • JPB
    The following question would probably have been better asked when you were having your patriotism debate a few months ago, but it is related so I put it forth now:

    You have stated before, I believe, that you think that the standing army and the patriotism that keeps its ranks full--or, at least, somewhat staffed--makes unjust wars more likely. I'm wondering, however, if that is really true?

    If political actors believe that war is in their best interest, then conscription--what many libertarians and others equate to slavery--is an alternative, if not a very popular one. But political actors can sell a war or other military engagement in any number of ways: deception (manufactured WMD evidence), humanitarianism (Somalia), false necessity (druglords in Colombia). Patriotism is a catch-all, but is just one tool used to sell wars and militarism generally. The government doesn't make it up--it just capitalizes on innate nativism and a heritage of dutifulness that comes down through families.

    But regardless, I have a hard time backing any idea that would make a draft more likely. The only thing less likely than draining the heartland of its patriotism is draining it of its sense of thankfulness and duty--both of which would feed acquiescence to a draft. So, what you would have is a state still undertaking violent murderous adventures, only now with a 'slave' army instead of a volunteer one.

    We've been waging two politically unpopular wars for years now, and while one may finally be drawing to a close, the other ramps up with no end in sight. Journalists have been increasing their coverage of N. Korea--and those stories paint a picture that is indeed troubling and could very easily be used as another excuse for war against a state that is, by some accounts, almost asking for it.

    We don't have the manpower to take them on--but if a case of necessity can be made by a compelling leader...I don't even want to think about it.

    Anyway, I just don't buy the lower chance of war without the standing army and the Toby Keith element. Patriotism and a volunteer force is, by my way of thinking, better than drafting the unwilling and criminalizing their refusal. I think you can make a moral case against war and argue against blind allegiance without dismantling our volunteer force.

    The problems with war are the politicians who start them and a public that tolerates them, not the pawns that fight them. The politicians will get their pawns one way or the other--and I'd prefer they get them by the least coercive way possible.
  • Will,

    In your mind, at what point did it become immoral to serve in the US Armed Forces and legitimate defense to the nation became service to imperialism? The Mexican War? The Spanish-American War? Korea? Vietnam? Iraq? If a country engages in an unjust war is service for that country after that particular war is over?
  • I think even the war of independence was highly questionable. The war of 1812 is generally regarded these days as a mistake pushed by hawkish congresscritters. Then there are plenty of Indian wars like the Blackhawk war which preceded the Mexican war.
  • BBQ
    And than you have libertarians like Ron Paul and a few others who think the Civil War was an unjust war since they think we could have resolved it peacefully like Brazil. Although it kind of glosses over the conflict between agrarian southerners and northern manufacturers.

    WWI is regarded viewed as an immoral war since it was mainly about rampant nationalism.

    And paleocons like Pat Buchanan has suggested WWII wasn't moral either, using some of the same arguments Will makes.
    "Britain declared war on Sept. 3, 1939, to preserve Poland. For six years, Poland was occupied by Nazi and Soviet armies and SS and NKVD killers. At war's end, the Polish dead were estimated at 6 million. A third of Poland had been torn away by Stalin, and Nazis had used the country for the infamous camps of Treblinka and Auschwitz."
  • MesolithicMan
    I am reading this blog, having read it described in The Times "as the thoughts and brief essays of a very smart man." Might I add, an extraordinarily patient one at that. I shall keep reading.
  • What I'm curious about is if there is a statute of limitations on joining a military that previously fought an unjust war, or whether there is some kind of action the military can take that would make it okay to join again. And what about the other government agencies involved?
  • Are those two mistakes created equal? Does the respect given to soldiers outweigh the murder they participate in?

    Personally, I side with Steve Walt on the issue even though I see even less value in U.S primacy. I want the most competent possible (leaving aside comparative advantage) military even when it engages in pointless destruction. If the hapless foreigners we attack for no reason can be reduced to abject surrender before we waste more time in their countries, all the better. But to take a pluralist-over-rationalist perspective, I'd recommend it be implemented through delegation. Gays apparently are disproportionately found in some sectors of the military (medical, translators). The commanders of those units probably don't like losing personnel, so they could elect to allow the practice, others complaining about how no pointy-headed liberal is going to be trying out social experiments in the goddamn military can continue with DADT, and the President would duck some political backlash. Everybody wins, except for moralists who hate compromise.
  • Right, it doesn't matter to gays whether or not they are accorded equal status by the laws they live under. I suppose it doesn't really matter to blacks or women either. That's just something that bothers moralists who hate compromise.
  • Hey, elsewhere I was going to link to my comment about abject surrender above. I notice it's flagged for review. I suppose it might be offensive (to moralists), but I can't see how it's more offensive than my reply an hour later. Meanwhile, you're leaving up replies to it absent their context. That just seems poor netiquette. It's your blog and your prerogative to wipe out comments with extreme prejudice (assuming it was you and not some wordpress/Disqus authority), so I'll host it here.

    Also, I should thank Robin Hanson for inspiration. Tetlock deserves a nod as well.
  • Women are currently not treated equally by the military. They are not eligible for the draft, and I believe are not placed in combat positions (except as aircraft pilots). The last person I recall complaining about that was Mel Feit, who is not a woman though he sometimes wears a dress. Blacks don't have equal status under other laws: there are certain set-asides only they qualify for. I don't think many are too upset by that, so divergence from equality per se doesn't do it.

    Another opportunity for de facto integration amidst du jure discrimination: I recall hearing that the majority of people kicked out under DADT were actually women. Assuming that's true, then if the rule was specified to only apply to men, conservatives could retain their officially fairie-free man's zone while avoiding most of the actual effects of the rule. My guess is also that there's more animus to gay men than women broadly speaking and that women are more interested in marriage, so we could also allow gay marriage for women only.
  • Craig
    Yeah, sure is unjust to remove two brutal dictatorships in the space of a decade.
    Shame on the U.S.

    Is this what's considered morally serious analysis among libertarians these days?
  • Mark
    Yes, now that you mention it, I do remember when our president said "The time has come to rid the world of brutal dictatorships, stand behind us as we liberate people around the world." Then, I remember when we started toppling all those nasty dictators, not merely one or two that happened to occupy strategically important regions. The best part was when all the liberated nations quickly reverted to what is, of course, the natural condition of all countries: safe, secure, Jeffersonian democracies, free of political corruption.

    Yay for America!
  • LJM
    Craig, the American public was told that the reason we invaded Iraq wasn't to remove a "brutal dictatorship" (never mind that we supported it for years), but rather because we were in imminent danger (despite the reports which disputed this). So, is it just to wage a war under false pretenses? Would you consider it "just" if your family members were killed because the government told you it was necessary to get rid of bad people?
  • DLM
    As I recall, the general justification was to plant a liberal democracy in the heart ot the Middle East to eventually transform the region into something less warlike and less likely to develop nuclear weapons and bases for terrorist activities. It was a very long range strategy. Given that Iraq had fairly recently (withing the past few decades) invaded Iran and Kuwait, that we had already been enforcing a no-fly zone there for quite a while, and that Hussein was a dictator with access to billions of dollars of oil money and had already demonstrated no compunction to develop *chemical* weapons and using them (against Iranians, Kurds, etc.), so that it wasn't a leap to figure he might want nuclear weapons, Iraq was the best candidate. Remember the mentality was a fear that someone somehow would eventually be able to set off a nuclear bomb in a large populated area (though I tend to think biological weapons are much more likely). Not immediately, but at some point in the future. This invasion of Iraq was an attempt to head off that situation. The whole project was a bit ridiculous and naive (IMO), but that doesn't change the initial justification. At the time, I could find only one instance of the word 'imminent' being used by anyone from the administration (Rumsfeld), and this was later after the war had started. I had expected much more given the hyperbole from the Left.
  • DLM
    Somehow I must have deleted the sentence that everything that came after this was fluff, since this original justication was a bit hard to explain/sell to the public.
  • Craig, Look at the Iraq casualty counter I have in the sidebar. At a minimum our invasion and occupation has caused the deaths of 94,000 people. Those people and their families did not invite us to "liberate" them. They are not grateful. And few Iraqis believe that their country is a better place now than it was then. I have no reason to believe you have any interest whatsoever in moral seriousness. If you did, you would not toss out such a glib, self-satisfied justification for the wanton destruction of life and property. Yes, shame on the U.S. Shame on you.
  • Craig
    The vast majority of the people killed in Iraq died at the hands of fellow Muslims - either Sunni on Shia, or vice versa (with many of the former being foreign born). By contrast, the U.S. has taken great pains to avoid civilian casualties - including, but not limited to, very restricted rules of engagement (rules which McChrystal is making even stricter in Afghanistan).

    Moreover, what is the basis of your smug assertion that no Iraqis asked us to liberate them? Or that life is worse now than under Saddam? I'm all ears.

    None of this is to say that the war was justified. But to claim, as you do, that it was patently unjust is not morally serious.
  • 'Caused' is doing a lot of work there. Most of the people killed were Iraqis blown up other Iraqis because they hated the idea of any universal suffrage democracy. Now, one can argue that key American occupational policies were culpably stupid (I certainly would: though, oddly enough, they were in part because of the US not thinking like an imperial power) but, again, the moral calculus is more complicated than you are suggesting.
  • Fred
    Isn't your response a little glib as well? There were Iraqis that did invite "liberation," there were others that didn't. The vast majority had no say, as they were living under a repressive tyranny that did not allow any form of political expression. That the U.S. failed to anticipate the chaos and widespread murder of the post-war insurgency is by now a well-worn cliche, but that fact in of itself is not enough to prove that its role in Iraq is best summed up as "the wanton destruction of life and property." The debate over the morality of the war in Iraq is obviously not going to be finished here, but surely the issue is at least morally complex. I would like to restate Sigivald's question. What were the clearly unjust wars you had in mind? Is it simply Iraq?
  • LJM
    I think one's perception of the "moral status of the United States" is directly related to one's compassion and empathy for people who have been victims of the United States' actions. If one views the men, women, and children who are being burned alive and blown to bits by the U.S. (overseas, of course, as the strategies which result in such ghastly mayhem would never be executed in the U.S.) as broken eggs in the omelet of U.S. foreign policy, then it follows that one would consider the U.S. to be a force for overall good.

    I think that in order to be a good patriot, you're obligated to point out every instance of injustice committed by your government. And, when faced with tragic injustices committed by the government, if you say, "Yes, but..." you've stopped being a patriot and have become a nationalist.
  • Will, at some point when I have time, I'd really like to engage you on your conception of patriotism and the moral status of the United States (which seems to me not "liberaltarian," but almost Chomskyite).

    My question at the moment, however, is to ask you how far gone is this country? If it is immoral to join the armed forces, how close are you to endorsing resistance, nonviolent or otherwise, to the federal government? Do you think we are living in a dictatorship?
  • I guess it says something about our culture that my view of things somehow seems extreme. The U.S. military has a recent record of getting into pretty clearly unjust wars. And I think it is wrong to volunteer to take part in injustice. So I think that, other things equal, it's wrong to join the armed forces. This shouldn't seem crazy. It is a measure of how warped Americans are by patriotism that it is apparently impossible to say that it is morally wrong to volunteer to participate in wrongdoing without some people wondering whether you think we live in a dictatorship.
  • Sigivald
    Clearly unjust wars?

    Well, ones that aren't pure active self-defense, sure.

    But I can't think of a "clearly unjust war" the United States was involved in, after the Spanish-American war.

    (Note that I explicitly don't consider wars that don't meet "immediate self-defense against invasion" or the like requirements to be therefore clearly unjust.)

    Fighting in Bosnia to prevent genocide, eg? Not "clearly unjust", but completely unjustified by at least half of the libertarian constructions of proper war, I'll grant.

    (I am in this - and almost only in this - inclined to side with Rand that a totalitarian (to say nothing of mass-murderous) State is inherently unjustified in-itself and unjustifiable, and fighting against one is to fight to liberate others from its oppression.

    Attempts to overthrow dictators and slave-states are thus not only not grossly unjust, but actively just, provided that those doing the fighting are volunteers and the overall scheme is promoted, debated, approved, and held accountable via the consent of those paying for it via government.)

    I admit being unable to grasp which "clearly unjust" wars you mean; I can think of lots of things you might mean, but I don't wish to make a strawman by assuming I've divined correctly.

    [eg. While it's not what I'd even bother to call a "war", and its injustice if there was any was so minimal as to be not worth talking about, the invasion of Panama is a possible example. But, again, such a weird one, esp. given your idea that that's the typical sort of war fought, that I wouldn't ascribe it as the archetypal example without your say-so.

    Likewise Grenada.]
  • Mark
    Somewhere between 3 and 5 million people died during the course of the vietnam war, depending which countries you include in the body count. I can't envision any possible moral calculus in which a war of choice with those sorts of casualty figures could ever be considered moral. Even if you bought into some Ann Coulteresque fantasy version of the history of that war (say, for example, that China was going to somehow enslave the entire South Pacific via its proxy state, North Vietnam), it still seems patently absurd that this would justify 3 million or more violent deaths, let alone the defoliation of a large percentage of an entire country, or the utter demolishing of a country's agricultural capacity.

    I wouldn't even bother getting into this debate, but I'm curious to see if I've encountered that peculiar and increasingly rare animal, a person willing to openly defend the vietnam war.
  • Who bears what responsibility here though? A bunch of Leninists decide they are going to take over three countries violently, including re-uniting one of them. The US decides this is a bad idea. The war turns out to be much harder than expected and ends badly. One might well decide;
    (1) intervention was a bad idea; and/or
    (2) the intervention was done in bad ways.
    But the moral calculus is a bit more complicated than 3-5 million people died, it's the US's fault.
    One of the feature of the US's wars one can point to: its opponents are almost always worse. Not a justification on its own, but a factor.
  • I suppose it's true that the injustice of these wars is not clear, especially since practically the whole damn country does its damnedest to make sure any injustice for which it may bear the tiniest responsibility remains forever unclear as possible.
blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: