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

Page 14 text:

REFLECTIONS ON THE STUDENT AND PEACE BY DAVID R. WRONE EDITOR'S NOTE: David R. Wrone, a professor of History at WSU-Stevens Point, reflects in this essay on the issue of the student and the semantics of war and peace. For the student to understand all that war and peace involves, he must devote time and maintain a realistic approach to the issues, then take a stand, according to Wrone. A unique aspect of the modem era has been the emergence of highly organized corporate bodies. As these corporate bodies have grown, modem thought has moved in a different manner. The philosophical and other thought systems have drawn away from the objective realities and developed abstract concepts. A cleavage between the world in which we live and the mind is characteristic of the modem era. We today have a corporate body with the possibilities for a decent life for all, but possess a weak mind. One of the corporate bodies by the new order of things has been the military. To maintain a society of privilege based on class, caste, power and prestige, the political systems controlling the industrial bodies utilized an ancient idea of war and force and perfected it highly. The elaborate military system which resulted includes all types of objects — armament, music, medals, rank, traditions, military theory and armies — constructed in a relational system directed toward the end of killing and maintenance by force of restricted access to the property system. The principal of force regulates every relation holding within the 10

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

Page 15 text:

vast system and gives purpose to its aim or end. Citizens moved into this established system of military relations, became an integral part, sustained its principles and values, and then departed. Long after an individual has left, the corporate body remains intact, vital, and continues to act, having an existence quite apart from any person. The overwhelming mass of men who participated in and who are presently participants are good men and possess a high degree of integrity. They are, however, sustained by and have their vital existence in the military system; they incorporate and embody its principles even to death. They and all their public duties are military in nature. From time to time in the brief history of America, the good qualities of these men have issued in noble acts and the military institution has served during peace time as an instrument of genuine reform — for example. J. Pershing in the Moros Islands in 1906 and S. Butler in Haiti in 1916. But the elements mix, in corporate bodies as well as in men, and each instance of military reform of society draws out of and fuses with other vital cultural principles — as with Pershing’s use of medicine, agriculture, and town planning. Today, as so often in the past, the decent qualities within military men are submerged and suborned by the system of relations in which they must stand as military men and in which they have their being. The principles of privilege impede their participation in the Good and tend to thwart the issuance of a genuine cultural act. Military men are not, however, fully responsible for the moralless, or amoral, situation in which they knowingly or unknowingly find themselves. The abstract thought systems of the intellectual sustain the core postulates of the military system. While we could mention the aspects of several theories and positions in most fields of scholarly endeavor that do this, we shall mention only an example from history. A great dogma exists in the cultural sphere that war has been a creative force in modern American history. The dogma holds that force and military systems have been a necessary quality in the emergence and greatness of American life. Despite the acceptance of this belief by the dominant schools of thought, there is not a fact to support the apologia. In no manner, shape, or form did any American war create a positive factor, serve a human end, or contribute to our genuine vitality as a free and thriving nation. This statement includes the 180 invasions of small countries, 3,000 Indian fights, and the British, Mexican, Russian. Spanish, Japanese, Cuban, German, Korean, and Vietnam wars. It would also include the 5,000 instances of force against American labor. The Civil War, for example, did not free the slaves and World War II had little to do with the suppression of the Nazi doctrine. Obviously, in a sever-ly truncated argument of the nature of this reflection, we can only suggest the general line of approach that is elaborated more fully elsewhere. Our great national vitality comes despite the wars and the use of force, not because of it, and the abstract scholarly dogma merely provides solace and dignity and apologia for the military system. The appeal of the military system to history for its validity is an appeal to myth. In addition to the dogma of history, the cleavage between modem thought and corporeity of modern life is seen in pacifist thought. An examination of the vast literature on pacifism reveals the abstract and contradictory nature of their thought, leading pacifists to ends other than the ones they ardently aspire to. Most pacifists seldom define what is meant by peace, and those few who do frequently add little. Precisely what is this peace they seek in concrete terms of the world? Peradventure, it is a more rofound concept than pacifists ave thought it to be. Modem advocates of disputes largely connect with a negative definition of peace, at least this thought dominates the literature. Characteristic elements of the definition seem to lie in the feeling that peace centers mainly in persons, that it is a state of mind and that it requires exemplars and magic to obtain. Pacifists attempt to achieve peace by converting the mental states of men from military to peace. They must somehow find a way to get into the minds of men in order to cause or activate the peaceful qualities there. This is achieved first of all through magic — the use of paper with writing (a petition) presented to people to change their minds; the use of symbolism, such as a sign waved in front of people’s eyes to get into their mental states; walking around objects several times (picket). They also use special potions, formulae, and activity to get into minds — such as fasting, where their hungry belly becomes the means of access to another person’s mind. Of course, the fallacy is the presupposition of the existence of the mind as subjective. Fail- ing in the use of magic, their activities largely center on removing or eliminating persons within the military system as the only certain way to get jjeace. But the corporate system sustains its active life apart from the people comprising it. Further, the persons they wish to remove, on close examination, turn out to be rather decent people caught by a system. Also, if they do knock out the bad guy or devil, like LBJ, they get another one in his place, like Nixon, and the war(s) go on. The pacifists appear to be accomplishing little, for the wars go on and the decay within the nation appears to be increasing. Many have an adamantine position that one must act, give personal testament as to the true nature of his or her mental state. But this overlooks a basic fact. People in the final analysis do not act; only institutions act. They show little awareness of the nature of a cultural act. Of course, they raise a lot of dust; and it is certainly not the point of these desultory comments that pacifists cannot raise a lot of dust, but they cannot stop war or achieve peace. The military system and the dominant group of pacifists, it seems to me, have basic things in common. They both use a form of force to achieve their ends. The military use is obvious. The pacifists use force in the negation of the person in the military position. The denial of the human quality is precisely similar to the military’s use of force to reduce people to inert atoms by refusing them relational access to the Good. On this end, and on many other issues, the pacifists seem to hold to force as a principle to use to deny the validity of force in modern society. What strikes the observer of the current peace scene is the great stirring within the student bodies toward a, as yet undefined, peaceful world. There are great tasks to be accomplished but they all require arduous, genuine scholarship and hard study to achieve. Only a tiny handful of men and women presently are at work. Students have a splendid opportunity (denied to a system of force) to develop intellectual inquiry into the great problems of a peaceful world. All our old myths and dogmas have to be re-examined to provide a realistic base for the future; all the terms such as peace, war and action have to be clearly defined and their meanings made concrete in the lives of men. The true pacifist is a scholar. 11