Thanks for your service. Now what?

Newsweek recently reviewed a book about the Civil War, “This Republic of Suffering,” by Drew Gilpin Faust.*fn1*  The book discusses the impact of the war on society, especially perceptions of death and dying.*fn2*  During the war, “the unthinkable—the notion that a son or husband could die hundreds of miles distant—became the reality. Those with means traveled to battlefields in search of the slain, hoping not only to find them but to bring them home for burial. Those who could not afford such a trip were left to depend on the letters of other soldiers, who sought to reassure grieving families that the dead had made their peace with God and died honorably.

Yet thousands of families were still left in ignorance. Even on the Union side, which kept much better records than their Confederate counterparts, 40 percent of those who died were listed as ‘unknown.’”*fn3*

Faust goes on to explain that the war shifted the “responsibility for burial, for the notification of survivors and for pensions for veterans” to the government.*fn4*  No longer did families have to bear the expense – and horror – of searching through fields of dead bodies in hope of finding their loved ones and burying them.

Now, as we prepare to enter the sixth year of war in Iraq, this question is once again not only relevant but urgent:  What responsibility does the government have to the soldiers*fn5* that it has sent into battle?

One part of this question that has received a good deal of press recently is the issue of medical care.  In February of 2007, the Washington Post printed an expose of Walter Reed Medical Center, where many of those injured in Iraq are sent to recover.*fn6*  The article detailed run-down facilities, frustrating bureaucracies, and constant delays.  On the flip side, the numbers of soldiers surviving devastating injuries has led to great technological leaps in the treatment of disabilities, as in the case of a double-amputee soldier who is walking on prosthetic legs that “move in a coordinated fashion” through the use of Bluetooth technology

The real question of medical care, in my mind, comes up not just as the soldiers come back with injuries, but over the next fifty years, as they continue on with their lives.  If a soldier’s injury will affect him for the rest of his life, must the government provide medical care for that soldier, do everything to make their life as close to normal as possible, for the rest of that soldier’s life?  The obvious answer to me seems to be yes – the government placed that soldier in harm’s way for a purpose, to obtain a certain result (even if it wasn’t obtained), and the government should bear the costs of that decision.  And this question may seem pointless – I think the general assumption is that yes, we do care for injured soldiers for the rest of their lives, that’s why there are VA Hospitals, right?

However, if a soldier is discharged from the service for doing something wrong – for instance, harming a civilian – he is usually not given an honorable discharge, but perhaps a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge, and then loses his medical care benefits.  But these might be the very soldiers that need the medical care the most.  Many soldiers are returning from Iraq with brain injuries, PTSD, or both.*fn7*  A violent, unlawful, or otherwise antisocial action may be a sign that they need more medical care, and certainly is not a sign that they need less.

When individuals join a service, they are sent through basic training, a process designed to, among other things, teach them to kill, and to do it without making the calculations the human brain normally does before killing.  The government then sends them to Iraq, where they are faced with extreme stress and danger on a regular basis, as well as a physical environment that is less than forgiving.  It is no wonder that some have trouble functioning when they return, and are unable to keep from running afoul of the UCMJ.

To put it bluntly, the government is creating killing machines, and then putting them under stress (both physical and mental) until they break.  What responsibility does the government have, to both the soldiers and the society at large, to fix the soldiers when things go wrong?

Another area of concern is what responsibility the government has to minimize the effect that active military service – especially deployment – has on a soldier’s life and family.  There are already protections in place for reserve members who are called up and leave behind a civilian job,*fn8* and a bill is pending before Congress that would protect the jobs of family members who are caring for injured soldiers.*fn9*

In the area of family law, a recent change to the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act protects soldiers from losing custody of their children through default family law judgments.  Prior to this change, if a the other parent of a soldier’s child sought to change or establish custody while the soldier was deployed, the wishes of the other parent could be granted based on the soldier’s default, without allowing the soldier a chance to contest.

The impact of this situation becomes clearer when the rules surrounding custody changes are explored.*fn10*  Once a custody order is established, it remains in place until the child turns 18.  The court will not modify that order unless there is a “significant change in circumstances [that] indicates that a different arrangement would be in the child's best interest.”*fn11*  So a soldier could return from deployment to discover that he has been limited to sporadic contact with his child, and by the time a significant change in circumstances occurred, the relationship with the child may be so damaged that the best interest of the child is not served by giving additional custodial time to the soldier-parent.  The recent change to the Act, however, dictates that default judgments in custody cases cannot be granted against deployed soldiers.*fn12*

In thinking about all these questions, should it matter whether a soldier voluntary joined the service or was conscripted?  If someone signed up of their own volition, should we say, “too bad, you knew what you were getting into” when they press for increased benefits or a change in conditions?  Under the current system of military service in the United States, it would seem that there is effectively little difference between a volunteer and a conscript.  An enlistee must sign up for a minimum service time measured in years, and circumstances can change during those years.  A country which is enjoying peace may be suddenly and unexpectedly thrust into war, or a country already at war may change its policies or tactics.

The Buddhist perspective on this issue is not obvious or straightforward.  Many Buddhists would probably suggest that the government’s first responsibility to its soldiers is to not send them to war in the first place.  One of the elements of the Noble Eightfold Path is “right livelihood,” which encompasses the idea of not having a job that causes harm to other living beings.

That said, even if the United States disbanded its army tomorrow (not today, obviously, because it is Sunday and not a business day), there would still be former soldiers and the question of the government’s obligation to them would remain.  My analysis of the question suggests that a Buddhist approach would be to provide the resources needed for the soldiers to return to a normal life.  A central idea in Buddhism is “interbeing” – that is, everything influences everything else.*fn13*  I exist because you exist.  Therefore, if a soldier is suffering because of his service, this will affect all of society, so that soldier should be helped.  I am oversimplifying some for the sake of brevity, but the basic idea is that of compassion.

***
1.  Malcolm Jones, Death of a Nation, Newsweek, Jan 21, 2008.
2.  Id.
3.  Id.
4.  Id.
5.  When I use the word “soldier,” I am referring to members of all the services, including Army, Marines, Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard.
6.  Dana Priest and Anne Hull, Soldiers Face Neglect, Frustration At Army's Top Medical Facility, The Washington Post, Feb 18, 2007, A01.
7.  Hope Yen, Brain Screenings for Vets May Be Flawed, Associated Press, Jan 31, 2008.
8.  The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA 38 U.S.C. 4301-4333).
9.  H.R. 3993 and S. 1885
10.  For simplicity, I am limiting my discussion to California law.
11.  Burchard v. Garay, 42 Cal. 3d 531, 535 (1986).
12.  Protecting Deployed Troops from Custody Battles, CNN, Jan 31, 2008.
13.  Thich Nhat Hanh, The Heart of Understanding, (Berkeley, CA: Parallax Press, 1988).

Comments

[Jay]

Please cite your source for:

"they are sent through basic training, a process designed to, among other things, teach them to kill, and to do it without making the calculations the human brain normally does before killing."

[Bev]

Jay:

I don't have a specific source - I base this sentence mostly on my conversations with soldiers. Also, part of it is res ipsa loquitur - why would an army would want soldiers who did not know how to kill?

[Andrew]

Jay -

A soldier's job is to kill when ordered to, or act in a support role for those who have so ordered. This doesn't seem like a point to belabor overmuch - are there any sources you can cite who argue that this is not the case? I do not believe specifically cited sources are necessary in order to back up that point - if there is even a particularly authoritative voice on the subject that could do the job. Logical thought does the job quite well on its own.

It is also logical to hold that basic training, which has the function of taking untrained civilians - who in western societies at least have little experience with modern warfare or proficiency in the skills it demands - and transforming them into soldiers, must then teach trainees how and when to kill. It is necessary to do this because there are certain social mores ingrained in individuals from birth - one of them being that killing is NOT acceptable behavior. If this were not true, society would be utterly anarchic at all levels. It would not function. While one can argue that our society is sufficiently violent so as to undermine these social mores, still there is a level of revulsion towards killing - ethical or otherwise - that must be overcome in order to create an effective soldier. Basic training is the process by which the military accomplishes this. And further military training, in addition to teaching specific skills and tactics, is designed to reinforce this change.

If you insist, here's a document I find rather compelling in defense of this concept. Right out of the mouths of Army Captains (often company commanders).

http://www.ausa.org/pdfdocs/ARMYMag/CC_Sept05.pdf

[Andrew]

Bev -

In response to the Buddhist perspective on the topic of what we owe soldiers, not that I'm a Dharma master myself by any means, but I would think that the answer would be found in examining the purpose of having an army and having citizens be members of it in the first place.

If you accept (as is typical in international relations) that the international scene is essentially anarchic - meaning that each nation is like a man alone in a world lacking laws or at least no outside body that can enforce them - it follows that for a country to ensure its own survival it will find it necessary to raise and maintain a defense of some sort. Sadly, Humans being what they are, having an army in such a world is a necessary evil. However it is not at all necessary to use this army in an aggressive manner - which I believe makes having one potentially compatible with the tenets of Buddhism.

Unfortunately the members of this army will, in order to be effective at defending the country, have to be inculcated with the ethic of killing and harming fellow Human beings even though this is a complete anathema from a Buddhist perspective. I'm not sure there is any way around this, sadly. But I believe that Buddhism demands that their sacrifice be recognized and compensated for - and that they be given the best of care by the society and government that required them to become trained killers and potentially fight and take life.

I suppose what I'm getting at, in an admittedly roundabout way, is that it may not be wholly wrong for an individual to be a member of the military, that for some individuals military service could be seen as a calling, perhaps a 'right path' - though that is likely stretching the concept. But if it is necessary that there be armed forces in the world, and necessary that their members train to kill, then it follows that, as you argue, society owes them a tremendous obligation to see that they are cared for if they are harmed in any way.

So in short, I agree with your belief that soldiers are owed for their service by society. Regardless of whether or not a particular war is justifiable, or the soldiers who fight in it made a conscious choice to fight or not - on some level they're serving society. And I think Buddhism demands that they must be cared for.