Swarthmore Goes to War
“We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.” –George Orwell
Spring is in the air, flowers are in bloom, and on the peaceful campus of Swarthmore nary a soul thinks they could see something shocking here. Beneath the surface, however, lie plenty to shock the unwary: the number of cellists at this school, the high level of stress in that spring air only surpassed by the pollen from ten thousand different plants, an illicit Coca-cola product littering the ground in the wake of an unauthorized student party.
In my nearly four years here, the most shocking sight was none of these things. No, the most shocking sight occurred when I was ambling along the collegiate pathways one spring day, and nearly leaped into the grass when a swiftly marching double-line of uniformed young men and women rounded the corner of Parrish and made straight for me. The cadets were gone as soon as they came, leaving me dazed and bewildered. Was this Swarthmore? What had happened to my college?
In 2005 the College Bulletin ran an excellent article by Paul Wachter ‘97 entitled “Pacifism and Bugle Calls: In time of war, Swarthmore has wrestled with its Quaker Heritage.” It provided a historical account of the College and its relationship to war, including the note that in 1944 only 75% of students here were civilians; the others were all in military training. We also hosted 49 Chinese Naval officers for a time. There is even a plaque south of Wharton (go down the steps) commemorating these Chinese. And as of 2006, we had at least one – and only one – ROTC cadet enrolled at this school.
These military elements of our heritage, though, are largely anomalies in an institution which clings to our “Quaker heritage” one hundred years after we dropped our affiliation: The year 2009 indeed marks the centennial anniversary of our secularization. Whether secular or not, however, the majority of the student body still maintains a Quaker reaction to war and the agents of war: vehement opposition.
In the past few weeks I, quite unintentionally, had the opportunity to talk to a number of Swarthmore students about war and the military. Many of them refused to believe in the legitimacy of any war at all, or preparation for such war. Others swore that they would never join the American military because they disagrees with aspects of its structure or function. Throughout the conversation was a unmistakable undertone of disdain for everything that had to do with war or the military.
Disliking war is understandable and natural. War always results in the death of innocent bystanders who happen to be unfortunate enough to live in the area of conflict. But the deaths of the young men and women in the conflict are just as tragic; none of them committed an offense worthy of their death. Furthermore, there are all the atrocities of torture, environmental destruction, and every other evil that springs from war. Economically minded people will further appreciate that war is extremely expensive; in the modern age, very few wars make economic sense. It would be better for the country to peacefully develop than to invest in military campaigns. War is hell, and though there may be a victory, no one wins.
War is hell; nevertheless, war is still necessary as a diplomatic tool of last resort. Only war was able to stop the imperialist aggression of Germany and Japan in the second World War. If America had not committed to a draft and a military fight on foreign continents, the number of additional innocent deaths as a result of Japanese and Germany policies would be incalculable. War was necessary, because no other diplomacy could work; pacifism was not viable. The understanding of that reality is what bent Swarthmore’s will to allow the exceptional accommodations for military men in the mid 1940s.
The necessity to prepare for the last resort of war requires that we maintain a military, or at the very least maintain the ability to quickly mobilize a war-capable reserve. Maintaining a military serves another valuable function of international diplomacy: deterrence. Even if unused, the presence of a powerful military can serve to prevent aggressive action on the part of others (e.g. if a man with a big gun tells you not to hit your neighbor and a man without a big gun tells you not to hit your neighbor, who are you more likely to obey?).
A military is therefore necessary. If we must have a military, shouldn’t we who are socially responsible undertake one of the most socially responsible tasks: defending the citizens of the country from attack? It is a deep flaw in our social responsibility to, by means of our democratic freedoms that are daily protected by our military, refuse to participate or respect those who participate in that protection.
Furthermore, if the military is indeed enacting inappropriate policies, such as unfair targeting of the poor and underprivileged in recruitment, the best way to reform that policy would be for educated elite college students to join the military and from the inside work to promote reform. Our military will benefit from the presence of those who are not naturally war-hungry. We who see clearly the evils of war are those who should be the ones who carry out war, so that we may do so with care and caution.
Beyond joining the military ourselves, we can educate ourselves by exposure and interaction with men and women in the military. Those West Point cadets who so surprised me were not on campus for a weekend jaunt; they had been invited by the Peaslee Debate Society to participate in a debate. From that experience and the opportunity to chat afterward, both the Peaslee members and the West Point cadets profited. We can all benefit from more of such opportunities: they challenge thinking, break down prejudices and stereotypes, and further our quest for diversity.
A saying commonly attributed to Edmund Burke goes, “All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing.” If that evil is from other countries, we must stop it. If that evil comes from our own military, we must stop it also. We at Swarthmore do not have the right to remain complacent in our safe enclaves and sweepingly disparage both war and the military.
Print
Email
#1: 4/12/2009 at 11:51 p.m.
This comment has been deemed inappropriate or irrelevant by the community.
The Gazette does not condone its content. [show anyway]
— edward bear | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#2: 4/13/2009 at 7:01 a.m.
I disagree with a number of your points. You imply that wars are directly responsible for, "defending thee citizens of the country from attack;" however I fail to see how this has been the case for the USA in any major modern war (WWI and WWII included.) While most (myself included) would argue that there are other excellent reasons to go to war (for example: moral obligation or as a response to military action) I think we should, at the very least, be honest about our motives.
To further emphasize the point I have trouble seeing how, with Mexico and Canada as the only countries sharing a boarder with us, the USA is even remotely threatened by a force against which a conventional military would be of use.
Finally, I think the notion that, in order to change military policy, one should go into the military as a low ranking officer is incredibly naive. In order to dictate the large scale conduct of military operation one needs to be either a very high ranking officer or a politician.
To summarize, without touching on any policy specifics, I think that you demonstrably (though I don't claim to have taken the time do so here) don't give an inadequate case for the place of wars (as they have been conducted by America, for the past hundred years.) Notwithstanding the previous point I think you also fail to give any good arguments to join a military, which I believe even you would acknowledge is very inappropriately involved at present. Therefore, I can only conclude that you are posting this just to post something controversial.
— hmm | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#3: 4/13/2009 at 8:21 a.m.
Edward Bear - Because of a genetic condition which results in a abnormally weak heart, I am ineligible for military service. I am currently in the middle of the application process to join the Foreign Service.
Hmm - In WWII we did not enter the war until Americans began to die, when Germans attacked ships which had American passengers and when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. Even the war in Iraq has been couched as part of the war on terror, and thus subtly and wrongly) linked to the 9/11 attacks on American civilians. Conflicts during the cold war, while not directly against America, were perceived as the beginning steps of a communist expansion which would eventually reach America's shores; keep in mind that the Cold War followed directly after WWII, in which both Germany and Japan were expanionistic and eventually attacked Americans. While communism is fundamentally different from Nazism and imperialism, it is understandable that in the wake of WWII Americans saw Communism as another Germany or Japan, and thus military conflicts during that period, while not only helping the indigenous people, also served to defend America from a much later, more bloody WW III.
You are right that in the modern world we should begin to redesign our military. As a result of the poorly executed first several years in Iraq, the army has begun the (slow) process of redesigning itself to fight non-conventional wars. That process should continue.
To the best of my knowledge, high ranking officers all were once low ranking officers. There are some who object that the rank-and-file are all drawn from the lower classes; while I agree that one's ability to influence policy as a private is negligible, if you believe the army composition of educated and privileged officers with less educated and underprivileged privates is wrong, joining as a private is a fair course of action.]
I didn't address it in the article, but I also believe that we (America) has some responsibility beyond our own country. We should not be only self-interested. Thus some wars, while perhaps not in our defense, are also appropriate. I would point to WWII, the Korean War, and the Persian Gulf War as the best examples of this in the 20th century. Some wars, of course, were wrong and we should not have done them: the Vietnam War is the best example of that. Other wars are more ambiguous; WWI was a much less clearly right-and-wrong war, but I think our involvement was right in the end (even if it just meant we tipped the balance to end the war). I agree that the war in Iraq is something I would not have chosen in 2003, but given what information (both true and false) we had at the time, I am much more sympathetic to those who made the decision to attack. And once there, I firmly believe that we had an obligation to remain until we had stabilized the country. Our current presence in Afghanistan seems to me to be a bit more reasonable.
My thesis was that a military being necessary, we need good people in the military. Swarthmore students having a particular type of perspective on what military action is appropriate which we believe to be important, we should join the military to enact positive change. Otherwise the common American will rightly be suspicious of the ivory tower criticisms of the institution which defends our freedom, and the freedoms of others in the world.
— Chris Green | Registered, Swarthmore
#4: 4/13/2009 at 11:04 a.m.
I think that there has been some misunderstanding then. I would first like to clear up my position on war. I definitely agree with you that war is necessary given the current state of the world (and its continuing state by the look of things.) That is what I meant when I said, "While most (myself included) would argue that there are other excellent reasons to go to war."
Now the way I understood a substantial portion of your argument to go was as:
war is necessary, war protects citizens from attack -> military service is a social responsibility -> swatties should join the military.
Now, I disagreed with your premise that at this point in time the purpose of war is to protect citizens from attack. Yes, it is true that in WWII Japan attacked Perl Harbor (few casualties, mostly military) and German U-boats sunk American ships (after America had entered into trade agreements with England and France); however, it is also my understanding that the overwhelming majority of American citizens residing in the United States were never affected by the war. Furthermore, it is my understanding that the war was never waged to protect these citizens. I am not saying that this makes the war unnecessary, only that it was not waged to protect the lives of US citizens.
I also agree that low ranking officers most likely (I am not very familiar with the military either) may eventually become high ranking officers. However, at this point you're no longer talking about a few years of service to the country, but a lifetime of service.
— Mmm | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#5: 4/13/2009 at 11:18 a.m.
I might if I could, but unfortunately I'm gay and not interested in being re-closeted anytime soon.
— Krystyn McIlraith | Unregistered, Non-Swarthmore
#6: 4/13/2009 at 7:09 p.m.
@ #4 — While it is rather unlikely Hitler ever would have gotten this far, he did see the USA as his final enemy, and invasion would have been likely had he actually managed to take out all of Europe/western Asia.
— Miles Skorpen | Staff
#7: 4/13/2009 at 10:31 p.m.
Americorps and other such forms of national service are good, if not better options. Working within the country to fight poverty, illiteracy, and environmental problems is a pretty definite way to make a positive impact on the country. We could due with a bit of mandatory service in this country. Quickening the public's sense of civic duty and all that, wot wot.
Incidentally, I don't think soldiers get to choose wither military action is taken in a given situation or not.
If we're going to avoid war, the thing to do is strengthen our sense of International Brotherhood, and the way to do that is for everyone to take up Esperanto or possibly Elvish.
— Argos | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#8: 4/14/2009 at 7:42 p.m.
Oh yes, I quite agree that there is a shocking number of cellists at this school. The more the merrier, I think! :)
I'm a pacifist, and I agree that war should only be used as a last resort. What, then, are the first few resorts? And shouldn't it be a priority to send intelligent Swarthmore alums to those departments instead of the military? I also agree with Mmm in that if any Swattie wanted to reform the military s/he would have to be in it for the long haul.
— Andrew | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#9: 4/18/2009 at 11:35 p.m.
Not a problem, Christopher. I encourage to sign up and tell us how important war is from the front lines. Sure is easy to be perched as a hawk, high above the cliffs and the chaos beneath.
Care to give other examples of when the US military used force in a morally-righteous way other than the classic WWII example? Maybe Vietnam? Or Grenada? Or Iraq (pick a war)? Afghanistan? Pakistan? Somalia (not including the time we left when we saw it would be difficult)? Or maybe Rwanda, Cambodia, Chile, The Sudan, and Israel--oh wait, we never made it to those zones. Must have been busy building nuclear submarines...
— Teen Wolfowitz | Unregistered, Non-Swarthmore
#10: 4/19/2009 at 9:47 p.m.
Teen Wolfowitz -- I am by no means a hawk, and fully appreciate how horrible war is. Many of my close not-from-Swarthmore friends are currently serving in Iraq and American bases around the world in the Army and Air Force.
I suspect you are simply trolling now, or didn't bother to read my article full. I provided three examples of good war in the past century: WWII, The Korean War, and the Persian Gulf War. I also stated that Vietnam and Iraq were bad wars. Afghanistan and WWI are more gray, but I'd probably be willing to support them if I were forced to chose yes or no.
I agree there were (and are) many areas in which the US should have stepped in, and didn't. May God have mercy on us.
— Chris Green | Registered, Swarthmore