University of Wisconsin Stevens Point - Horizon / Iris Yearbook (Stevens Point, WI)

Page 12 text:

IRIS: Whore did your interest in the irrational originate? WRONE: My development of aware- ness of the question of peace and war gradually emerged out of scholarly pursuits on the source of the irrational in modern society. IRIS: What is your opinion of the current “peace movement ? Do you think it is effective? MISSEY: The peace movement, of course, is a mixed bag: some | arts of what many people think to be the peace movement are not anti-war but anti-imperialist. In any case. I do not support those elements of the anti-war movement which condone violence, for violence doesn't stop violence but only extends its area. Nor do I support the moderate wing of the movement, which believes in petitioning and writing letters of the government and in electing so-called peace candidates to office. People need to take a much more active control of their lives, including the making of peace. Hence, what I do support is vigorous, nonviolent direct action, like draft resistance, war-tax resistance, fasting, strike's, boycotts, and nonviolent obstruction of violence. As to whether I think the peace movement has been effective, it’s very difficult to say. On the one hand, the Indochina War has not been stopped, but on the other hand the War might've been greatly escalated on both sides if there had not been a strong peace movement in this country to check our government. (The movement's ability to restrain the war-making of our government has indirectly been a brake on the other side.) But the questions of effectiveness are ultimately not the right questions, even though some of the things I said in the preceding paragraph may imply that I think effectiveness is an important consideration. One can never know what the consequences of an act will be. so that whether to commit the act must be determined in terms of its intrinsic rightness or wrongness rather than in terms of what its effects will be. WRONE: I group the peace movement with the military and feel it is possessed of precisely similar principles that would require lengthy discussion for a full understanding of the point. To my mind, the peace movement with its historical antecedents largely accounts for the continued existence of war. In addition to a failure to be well read, peace advocates center in false questions such as the role of the individual in society, the crude emoting over men and incidenfs and the worship of their ideas like a revealed religion. Their (peace advocates) definition of peace is false and what they seek and call peace is not peace. But. if one’s heart and mind are suffused with the cause, all criticism must be mistaken, they aver. O'KEEFE: The question is very broad. The divergent views of the many people who are. in varying degrees, associated with the peace movement are often complex and frequently contradictory. We must be very circumspect about generalizations. My guess is. however, that for every member” who is sincere. informer! and motivated by the highest ideals, there is a corrupt counterpart whose motives are false, deceitful or even sinister. Are they effective? To the extent that their agitation makes us think, invites self-examination, makes us review our positions, there is a great deal of good done. But “they should do the same. I have no doubt that the movement, on occasion, has harmed the public interest of the United States and the so-called Free World. Constructive criticism should be their goal. IRIS: What is your opinion of U.S. involvement in Southeast Asia? WRONE: America is in Southeast Asia to impose an American empire and develop a bastion from which to continue a twenty-five year old attack upon Red China. Democracy and “freedom are hollow dogma to allow the intellectuals and liberals to apologize for the attack and a method of brainwashing the American public. Needless to state, we do not require an empire to maintain a decent American life; we need one to maintain a military machine to attack China. I also “feel the thrust of Jim Garrison's book. Heritage of Stone, is sound: Military-business groups murdered John Kennedy because he was stopping the American military and withdrawing us (America) from Southeast Asia. O’KEEFE: The answer to the question of whether we should have intervened in Viet Nam or not will be discussed. debated and argued for many years to come. I'm sure certain decisions made by Presidents Eisenhower. Kennedy and Johnson would have been different if it were possible to view the entire situation in retrospect. No matter what has taken place in the past. I do think now is the time for the United States to disengage. MISSEY: It’s wrong. IRIS: Do you favor the troop withdrawal as an effective means of ending the war? Why or why not? O'KEEFE: I believe President Nixon's timetable will end. or all but end. U.S. ground participation in Viet Nam. This plan is rational, feasible and desirable. Accordingly, by June. 1972. only a relatively small number of American troops will remain and the burden of self-defense will be properly borne by South Vietnamese troops. We have bought them time, and I feel history will bear this out. Hopefully, the North Vietnamese will be reluctant to deal with a strengthened South and will seek negotiation. WRONE: I view this question dif- ferently than the militant and social pacifists. I would neither fight nor pull out. I would change the present organizational structure in Viet Nam from one for war to one for genuine peace. I would pump $100 billion into Viet Nam and move in a million more men and make that distant area, when we finished, the finest place to live on the face of the earth. And. it would be Viet Nam for the Vietnamese. I would use unemployed engineers, technicians, craftsmen and scientists, sustained by the military supply systems to build good, true and extremely beautiful roads, homes, hospitals, libraries, parks and so forth. We, as a nation, have the capacity to do this. Certainly we have the idealism. This would help remove the guilt upon the nation's conscience caused by that bitter conflict. You note I did not mention the educational system of Viet Nam. I would leave that entirely to the Vietnamese as we have no one in America capable to advise them or to assist them in building a good system. MISSEY: I believe we should immediately and unconditionally withdraw from Indochina because it would be morally right to do so. As to whether or not our withdrawal would end the war. I cannot say with absolute certainty; though I'm pretty certain that it would. Ideally, the decision to withdraw should be made by the men in the 8

Page 11 text:

MILITARISTIC AND PACIFISTIC - - - IRRATIONAL? BY LAURA THILL CATHIE MORTENSON NANCY CORDY War is a game people have been playing since time began. At first, war was recognized as a survival game. One individual possessed a necessity which another individual wanted. The result was a fight to acquire a desired object — at any and all expense. Next, war became a game of you have it and I want it.” War then progressed to a game of corporate interest and business ethics. The contemporary position which war maintains may appear precarious but the inevitability of war still exists and will continue to exist until human beings adopt a more satisfactory method of solving their disputes. The guidelines for the war game are not structured by the gun and bomb or knife and blood format. War involves any dispute, psychological or physical, between two human beings. In an attempt to present several divergent views on war and peace, or militarism verus pacifism on this campus, interviews were conducted with Lt. Col. Neil O'Keefe of the Military Science Department: James Missey of the English Department: and David Wrone of the History Department. The inverviews were conducted separately to avoid rhetorical debate. The general format of the questions presenter! to the three men were essentially the same. Changes occurred only where a question was’not applicable to the particular interviewee. IRIS: What made you choose the military as a career? O’KEEFE: Having entered the service as an ROTC graduate. I found that the responsibilities given to me as a commissioned officer were challenging and the positions held, interesting and rewarding. Military life appealed to me in most all respects. Therefore, based upon actual experience. I chose to make the service my career. Although pay and other benefits are not as great as found in many other professional fields, they are adequate. One particularly attractive aspect, of course, is the opportunity to travel and meet other people from different lands and cultures. There is also a sense of pride and satisfaction that one feels in serving our country, which is much the same as that realized bv teachers, doctors, politicians and other similar vocations. The past 19 years on active service have been most gratifying and satisfying, and. because of these and many other favorable qualities. I would certainly select the same profession again, given the opportunity to do so. IRIS: What incident or incidents caused you to follow-pacifism? MISSEY: I suppose I was first turned on to pacifism when, as a freshman in college. I was rather active in the Methodist Church. I met a number of people in that context. both students and ministers, who favorably impressed me by the qualities of their lives: and so I was in a sense forced to examine their beliefs and to revaluate my own spekticism concerning pacifism. I should add that, though I was first introduced to pacifism within Christianity. I do not believe the doctrine of nonviolence (which I tend to use interchangeably with pacifism) is confined to that religion: indeed. I no longer call mself a Christian. NEIL L. O'KEEFE r LIEUTENANT COLONEL. Corps oP Engine |u •PROFESSOR OF MILITARY SCIEMCE 7

Page 13 text:

field, who should, rather than waiting for orders on high, lay down their arms and embrace the Indochinese as friends rather than fight them as enemies. IRIS: What are your opinions of the proposed volunteer armed forces? Do you think it will professionalize and or improve our armed forces? O’KEEFE: The Army has been directed to move full speed towards a modern volunteer Army. This will not happen overnight. In order to achieve this goal, the Army will have to make drastic increases in regular enlistments, re-enlistments and the number of volunteers in the Army reserves and National Guard. A three-fold program has been intiated recently, that of improving professionalism, service attractiveness and public esteem. It is evident that effective efforts which will help us achieve a volunteer Army will have to include good pay. good benefits, good housing, good morale and public respect. There are many things we will need if we are to reach our goal, but none of these needs is more important than the support of the American people. Regardless of changes made within the Army, our goals will not be met unless we receive support from the Administration, the Congress, news media. civic, business, education and religious leaders, and the general public. To those who say the Army is dreaming the impossible dream when talking about an all-volunteer Army. I say. this is our quest, and we invite your help as we move towards this goal. As long as the President and Congress expressly desire an all-volunteer Army, then I feel maximum effort should be made to achieve this objective. MISSEY: I’m opposed to an armed forces, volunteer or otherwise. If violence is wrong, it doesn't become right simply because someone has volunteered to commit it or take part in it. I don't believe that the state, however, which rests on violence, (armed forces, police, jails, and so forth.) can make the decision to do away with armed forces: I believe that decision must be made by individuals by their refusal to co- operate with militarism in any form. As to whether a volunteer system would professionalize the armed forces. I can’t say. I don't think it would improve the armed forces, however. For how can you improve that which is basically wrong? If something is wrong, you should try to eliminate it (through non-cooperation, not through violence), not improve it so as to make the wrong thing more palatable. WRONE: Never have I thought about it. IRIS: How do you feel about stu- dents wearing issued clothing, such as field jackets, jump boots, etc., even though they have no military affiliation and might, in fact, be opposed to the military? MISSEY: Let people wear what they want to. What counts is not what they wear but how they act. WRONE: This is looking at force again. If the clothes fit. are clean and the students find them useful for watching tellv. drinking, playing pool and study, they ought wear them. Actually, the military ought to provide free to all college students properly fitting shoes study clothes, and dental, medical and laundry facilities Military men are experts in this field of supply and could do a handsome job of mainlining young men and women who are often from impoverished families or inadequate financial background. O'KEEFE: Although in certain instances it tends to degrade a uniform we are all proud to wear, it is obviously nothing but today's fad. All societies go through change and each generation does its thing. I am not overly concerned personally, but 1 would rather not see a situation where a definite attempt is made to debase the uniform or parts thereof. (Three questions concerning the New Army were directed to O'Keefe which were not presented to Misscy or Wrone. We feel that these questions are important to O'Keefe’s position and should be included here.) IRIS: What, if any, long range advantages. other than in the military, do you think an ROTC graduate has over a non-ROTC graduate? O'KEEFE: I feel the RTOC officer's total military experience is definitely applicable to a civilian career. During his tour on active duty he has developed a working knowledge of leadership, personal management, accountability and general business practice. The ROTC graduate has assignments, while in the military, of increased responsibilities, a chance to exercise judgment and make sound decisions. All these assets will benefit the individual upon his return to a civilian profession, no matter what it may be. The experience acquired in just two years of active military service is a significant factor to any future employer requiring an individual possessing managerial and supervisory attributes. IRIS: How do you feel about the relaxed standards of military life. i.c.. beer in the barracks, longer hair, and elimination of reveille, etc.? O’KEEFE: We live in a changing world: our society is constantly changing. The armed forces should reflect this change. A great deal of study and thought have gone into this area, and most military personnel will agree with the changes made in terms of style, elimination of unproductive work and barracks conditions. I will never agree to relax necessary discipline, and I do not believe we have done so. Don't forget, the Army is committed to establishing an all-volunteer Army at the President's directions. At this point in time, given the enormous changes in society, culture, style, etc., it certainly seems appropriate to review current policies. IRIS: In connection with this, do you feel that the military is doing this because of pressure from civilian and student protest or do you think that the decision came completely from the Defense Department? O'KEEFE: As I stated, the armed forces should reflect the society they represent. How much pressure civilian and student protest has had would be hard to determine. As I mentioned above, in going to an all-volunteer Army, a review must be made of all policies affecting personnel, and those that no longer serve any rational purpose should be changed. This is what the Department of Defense has done. and. consequently. personnel policies have been changed and I'm sure others now under study will be changed in the future. (The purpose of this article was not meant to slant student opinion for or against any of these men or their views presented by the questions addressed to them. We feel that all of their opinions are important and relevant and should all have equal consideration in solving current problems. We also wish to emphasize the views presented are only three alternatives of the extremes of thought of the war and | eace issue on this campus.) 9