Question to those who have served or are serving

[Clair]

This question is specific and limited to those of us who have served in the Military or are currently serving in the military.  Sorry to exclude those of you who may have opinions on this, but I'm only looking for thoughts from those of us who have served.  I would greatly appreciate it if you have not served that you not post.  It is not that I am not interested in your opinion, but if you haven't served then you don't have the same perspective as those of us who have served.  It is that perspective I am looking for.  So only post if you have served.

Also, I request that this thread stay on topic and NOT turn into a political thread or anything like that.  Okay?

Please state your military time and MOS, let's us know where you're coming from.

Here's the question:

conscientious objector   ...  Can you really be one if you've joined the military?  Can you become one over time?  What are your thoughts on this?

[Clair]

USAR, '81-'87  95B Military Police

Here's what prompted this ... I read the headline (forget where) where a soldier was discharged as a conscientious objector  based on his religion.  And it got me thinking about it so I wanted to ask your opinions.

I"m pretty damn liberal on most things.  Flaming Left for most of you.  But I did my time.  Granted it was Reserves. The only active duty time I saw was the 2 weeks a year and a weekend a month.  I never saw combat and am very grateful for that.  I never had to shoot or kill someone, and am grateful for that.  However, when I enlisted I understood fully that at any time I could be activated and that I may end up in harms way.  I hoped and prayed every day that it would not happen, and I was lucky enough that it did not occur.

However ... I joined the US Army. DId my basic training at Fort Dix, AIT at Fort McClellan in AL.  I learned how to fire a variety of weapons ... rifles, pistols, etc.  I fully understood that the purpose of this was to enable me to SHOOT AND KILL another human being if I was sent into Combat.  Not something I'm thrilled with, but that is what the military does ... you learn to KILL.  You have to, it's the job, it's waht war is about.  It's awful, wrong, all that, but it is what it is all about.  I knew there'd be violence.  I may have to wound, maim, or kill.  I was getting training in that. I accepted that .. this was the Army after all.

Each of us goes through this with our training, be it Army, Marines, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard. Some get it mroe than others it can be argued, but we do get trained for combat.  We get MOS's specific to military duty and every US Army Soldier understands that his / her primary MOS is infantry, regardless of what we get certified in.  Clerk Typist?  You're in the infantry.  Cook?  Infantry.  Medic?  infantry.  When the time comes we fight.

So ... this is a voluntary military.  We chose to join.  IF we didn't understand this before joining, our initial training teaches us what it's all about.  Thus ... how can one become a conscientious objector ???  You knew what it was all about going in!  You got the training to maim and kill others.  It was never a surprise.  Thus, I'm not sure one can really be a conscientious objector, at least not after you've done your AIT (or equivalent)  and are assigned duty.  If after AIT you suddenly have the epiphany and realize this isn't for you, then fine, be a conscientious objector   and get out, but after that ... no, I don't buy it that you now become a conscientious objector.  Suddenly it's wrong?  After weeks, months, years in the military?  Sorry, don't buy it.  You may want out, may not like it, may be afraid you'll see combat, I can understand that, but also tough sh$t.

So, for the most part (not every case but most of them imho), I think conscientious objector  is more of a way to get out of your commitment, rather than really being a conscientious objector.

[jerome_oneil]

No you can not.   You might become one, but from what I've seen, most people in the service that seek C.O. status do so right before they're deployed to a combat zone.

[atypical1]

USA - 87 - 91. 1stBn 69th Armor (19D)

US Marines - 96 -00 1/2 Marines and 2d Mar Regt HQ (LogO)

I guess that it is possible for someone to change their religion or their moral beliefs but don't think that is the norm. Also not sure that the soldier, Marine, airman, etc. should not have some repercussions attached to that status (i.e. dishonorable discharge).

james

[dm_gsxr]

Please state your military time and MOS, let's us know where you're coming from.

USMCR May 75-Jun 76
US Army Jun 76-Dec 82

MOS... Hmm, 0311 originally. I stayed that MOS even though I was with a HQ company in Baltimore MD and did surveying. In the Army I was a Military Policeman and then transitioned into being an Illustrator and Graphics Artist before not being allowed to re-up because I was 5 lbs overweight.

Here's the question:

conscientious objector   ...  

Can you really be one if you've joined the military?

No (Edit: I read this as "can you morally join the military knowing you were a CO" as the next question would ask and answer the spirit of this question ).

Can you become one over time?

Sure, as you mature you can better form opinions and beliefs which would let you become a CO.

What are your thoughts on this?

Hmm, tough call. You should serve out your time and leave the military. If you are in a combat position where it interferes with your objections, you should be transferred to a unit where you can continue to serve and then leave the military at your next opportunity. In either case, you should not benefit (no "GI Bill" or whatever it's called now, no medical, etc...) and you should get a General Discharge.

That's my immediate answer and thoughts without reading through the thread. Well reasoned arguments might change my mind or refine my thoughts as I follow the thread

Carl

[Yankee Dog]

US Army; 4 years 11B, 8 years 18A.

An ethical person cannot join the military if they are a CO.  A non-ethical person could not be a CO as ethics is what CO is all about.  

Of course a person could change while in the service.  But that person should take immediate action to leave the service and not wait for deployment before bringing the whole thing up.  There are channels for that sort of thing.  But if you wait for deployment, sorry then you get what you deserve.  

Yankee Dog

[gundog]

Army 20 years 11B and 19D

1.  No

2.  Yes but your motives will be questioned

3.  Being granted a CO status does not come easy. My last several years
were as a senior NCO, where I dealt with this subject a couple of times.
The investigations were long and thorough and
in all but one, the request was denied.
Personally, I believe in this day of an All-Volunteer force,
CO status should not even exist.

[Mac]

Navy 10 years 89-99 AT

I recall when I originally enlisted, I was asked point blank if I were a CO.

I feel that a CO should not be allowed to enlist or if allowed they should be designated a specialty that would incur no combat.(ie mess specialist)

If someone somehow becomes a Co while in service, give them the option of an other than honorable or dishonorable(dependant on Commanding Officer's recomendation) discharge or change of duty to non-combat des with loss of rank (1 or 2 grades) and perhaps more years added to their enlistment.

[lizard]

USMC 1984-1991 HAWK anti-aircraft missile system electronics tech

1) A person who is a real CO couldn't join our current all volunteer military. They would be a hypocrite by joining an organization dedicated to what they object to. As stated, the military exists for the sole purpose of being prepared for WAR! If you're not in one, you are training for the next one.

2) Yes, I think somebody could become a CO while serving, as they mature and grow as a person but it would be unlikely because the military isn't about maturing and growing as a person in the "touchy feely" kind of way that might produce a CO. Again, if they become a legitimate CO they should try to get out because any position in the military would be supporting what they are against. Any legitimate CO would not re-enlist or stay longer than their current obligation.

3) I think 99.999% of people declaring CO status are just trying to get over on the system. They never thought they'd actually have to do what they committed to when they joined the military. They joined for the educational benefits or job skills or such and just want/expected the free ride without having to fulfill their obligation. Now that they are staring that obligation in the face, they are looking for a way out! "Send Lawyers, Guns, and Money...Dad, Get me out of this!" --Warren Zevon

[Johnny Monsoon]

Soldiers/Airmen/Sailors/Marines are all Americans.  Americans enjoy the freedom to believe what they want, and to arbitrarily change their minds as their experiences stack up.  As such, I believe that you can join the military as a CO.  Yes, you are trained in combat, and our mission (as an absolute last resort) is to be proficient in the art of armed warfare.  Our PRIMARY mission is to be a peacekeeping force, and it should be clear to anyone with two brain cells to rub together that we are more of a humanitarian, peace-keeping force than a war machine for nearly all of our functions.  In that regard, I believe you can ethically join the military as a CO.

As our conflicts change, it would be very easy for a military member to be very supportive of a military action when they join, however to change their minds and become a CO in a different situation.

13 years USAF; 2A5X3C, Electronic Warfare.

[atypical1]

I think that disagreeing with a particular conflict and being a CO are two totally different things.

Also, being a CO by its very definition kinda means that you can't join the armed forces.

james

[Johnny Monsoon]

I think that disagreeing with a particular conflict and being a CO are two totally different things.

Also, being a CO by its very definition kinda means that you can't join the armed forces.

james

Untrue, in fact that was the first question asked at my BMT inprocessing.

As for disagreeing:  I see policy changing over time.  The changing scope of US policy concerning particular conflicts changes our outlook on how we act as a military; to that end, I think it is absolutely reasonable for a dedicated military member to become a CO over time when the direction of our policy treads into the realm of unacceptable actions to the individual in question.

[atypical1]

I don't see how a CO could join the military to begin with. It is not logical to me at all.

I also have a hard time with someone becoming a CO because they disagree with our foreign policy. In other words I would question if they were truly a CO and disagree with all conflicts or just the present one.

[rockwells]

AF, 21yrs, K11470 (Instr Loadmaster, C-130 & C-5)

 One should know what one's getting into before signing on the dotted line.  IMHO, used to be a lotta folks signing up just for the training and benifits.  Lotz of them got busted during the first Gulf War. Probhably not so many nowadays.  Yes, one can change one's opinion as one ages/becomes more educated/religous/etc.  In that case, as others have stated, that person needs to seperate from the service ASAP, or apply to crosstrain into an MOS/AFSC more compatable with their new beliefs, i.e: coreman, chaplin's assistant, etc.  One that just wants out, period, should get a general or dishonorable discharge, and no benifits.  My .02

[baldheadeddork]

Building on this question: What if you believe the war is based on an illegal order?

[Johnny Monsoon]

I don't see how a CO could join the military to begin with. It is not logical to me at all.

I also have a hard time with someone becoming a CO because they disagree with our foreign policy. In other words I would question if they were truly a CO and disagree with all conflicts or just the present one.

The military is more often like the peace corps than an armed force in over 90% of its 'missions'.  From things like Habitat for Humanity to Toys For Tots, and a host of other more specific US functions.  They also provide a huge humanitarian service abroad and during times of national disaster.  The military is very well funded and has a lot of liberty with how it uses those funds.  In that regard, a person interested in acting as a humanitarian with the option to join in a low-deploy job would probably see more immediate and well-thought out (or well funded) humanitarian missions/functions than those who joined more traditional avenues.  The military doesn't need you to be willing to kill someone to process payroll, but you sure as hell need someone to process payroll to get anyone to be willing to fight.

My job took me very close to font lines in one facet, and kept me very well guarded in another (though the latter was also a much more jucy target).  An avionics electronics tech probably doesn't expect to see, and will only in the most extreme of situations experience combat.  Even MASH units, near front lines don't expect to see any real combat (my father supported these in the Army) despite being decidedly more exposed.

Now, let's get back to policy changing.  Let's say our next Prez slipped a little further into a fascist state.  Let's say we start having our houses bugged and decide that the UN has betrayed us for the last time.  We start moving toward a 'V For Vendetta' state and take world matters into our own hands.  For as fictitious as this may sound, we've skirted this threshold many times in our history, and often during the course of a normal military career.  It is reasonable, I think, that policy could change to such an extent that you could no longer execute your duties on a military level.

However, all that aside, military members are still Americans, and as such, have every right to become COs.  I defended the FREEDOM of Americans to do things that I disagreed with (like burning flags, supporting the very dastardly KKK/black panthers, neo-nazis, or even being COs).  Can't have freedom without allowing people to be free.  Military members do not need to think  just one way, or to have just one perspective to be protectors of freedom.  Remember, while the military *protects and guards* freedom, it is the American population who keep it alive.  Arguably, military members have less freedom than any other American citizen.

[toodles]

Ya! I was in the Navy from 1959 to 1965 and liked most all of it. I was on a ship for some of the time and spent some time in Nam. That was not alot of fun! I do believe there should still be a draft. I'm sure that statment will get a few comments. However I think this mess we in now sucks! We have no business being there at all. Bush is a war  maker and I'm afraid he is not done yet. GT

[jerome_oneil]

Building on this question: What if you believe the war is based on an illegal order?

You follow your orders.  Believing the war is illegal isn't really an argument that will hold water.

[protondecay123]

I'll bite on this one. USN 86-92 ET rate (Dc'd ET2)

My time in the Navy made me very anti-military. I was in the first gulf war in the Red Sea helping blockade Aqaba, Jordan and supporting the Eisenhower.  I sucked it up, but I can see how someone can change their mind about it.

Life is change. The one sure thing you can bet on is that you will die.

[jerome_oneil]

 I do believe there should still be a draft. I'm sure that statment will get a few comments.

You might be surprised.  There are valid arguments for it, and the number of people that believe in compulsory service is probably broader than you think.