I sometimes wonder why opposition to war in any form is the standard for qualifying as a conscientious objector.
If a war is going on, and a soldier can’t in good conscience fight in it, isn’t that what really matters? Why should a soldier have to be opposed to hypothetical wars in addition to the real one?
I suppose because that makes it a lot harder to become a CO.
Though I generally favor a broad definition of conscientious objection, I agree with the military’s standard in at least one respect.
The New York Times reports that some soldiers who don’t like the idea of serving with gay men and lesbians would like to be recognized as COs.
The concern is prompted by the possible repeal of the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.
The Times quotes J.E. McNeil, director of the Center on Conscience & War, as rejecting the idea that opposition to homosexuality is a valid basis for a CO claim.
McNeil believes a CO has to object to fighting, not to whom he or she fights with. That makes sense to me.
The real CO concern that needs attention is how hard it is for soldiers who have a change heart to get their moral awakening recognized.
Counselors with the German Mennonite Peace Committee’s Military Counseling Network recently helped obtain an honorable discharge for a young man who admitted he didn’t know what he was getting himself into.
Many other soldiers-turned-COs are not so fortunate.
“I honestly believe that many of the [soldiers] who go AWOL or commit suicide are people who are struggling with their consciences,” McNeil told the Times.
War claims many victims, including the soldiers themselves. Some find the enemy within. — Paul Schrag