Conscientious objection is as old as the first human being who faced another human being who was intent upon doing h/er harm and refused to respond with violence.  It is as old as the first human being who looked upon a battlefield littered with the dead and dying and concluded: “this is madness” and refused to participate in organized slaughter.  Conscientious objection is as old as the human awareness of right and wrong.  Selective conscientious objection is as old as the first warrior who refused an order on the battlefield, who refused to shoot the enemy, or who walked away from a war s/he deemed unjust.

On March 21, a Truth Commission on Conscience in War heard testimony from combat veterans, scholars, religious leaders, writers and a Gold Star Mother on the issue of conscientious objection and of selective conscientious objection.    The following day commissioners met to discuss the meaning of the testimony and steps we could take to bring the issue to wider public attention.  We talked about proposals for changes that the armed services could implement to accommodate service members who object to a particular war but not to all wars, for those who refuse violence in a particular conflict but who want to remain in the military.

Many religious traditions have both pacifist and just war aspects of their belief systems.  The right of men and women to refuse to fight because their religious beliefs prohibit it has long been recognized.  However, the right of selective conscientious objection is a less clear-cut case to make. It is a consequence of just war thinking.  If a service member holds that some wars are just, then s/he may fight the just war.  However, when that service member deems a war unjust, then s/he may not fight the war, thus selective conscientious objection.

Usually we do not give the power to decide whether or not a war is just to the man and woman who will fight the battle.  In the United States, politicians make a judgment about war and then argue the case for its justice to the public.  However, at the end of the day, it is the warrior who puts h/er body in harm’s way for the sake of a policy decision.  Warriors are taught the just war criteria.  Religious traditions teach it.  Yet, the service member has no ability to object to a specific war without declaring an objection to all war.

Just peace theory is a middle way between pacifism and just war theory.  It holds that pacifism is right to decry the idea that a war can be just.  There is no such thing as a just war because the very character of war negates so many of the just war criteria, especially the immunity of noncombatants and innocents from the violence of war.  While an army may not intentionally target civilians, civilians always always bear the brunt of the violent conflict.  They suffer immeasurable harm.  At the same time, just peace theory recognizes that there are times when armed forces ought to deploy to protect a vulnerable population.  The deployment ought to be targeted, limited, and deployed by consent of an international authority.

Moreover, just peace theory holds that peacemaking is an everyday effort, and it seeks to provide strategies that will prevent the moment of crisis where we have to consider whether or not to use military force.  However, once violent conflict begins, there is still space for just peace efforts.  It is within this space that selective conscientious objectors can continue to serve, even in wars where they do not want to carry a weapon.

There are three basic pillars in my iteration of just peace theory:  truth, respect and security.  Truth is usually the first casualty of war.  It is the denial, obfuscation and misrepresentation of the facts that lead to war in the first instance.  Military intelligence is an oxymoron.  Nevertheless, there is important work to do in gathering and documenting the facts of any conflict, especially violent conflicts.  This work is often done by journalists and scholars, but the military gathers its own data.

Respect for all in a conflict situation requires justice.  Justice and respect means that we ought not to dehumanize the enemy.  The work of reconciliation goes on before during and after violent conflict.  This means an ongoing interface with the civilian population in order to understand what their needs are and how best to provide those needs.  This is an aspect of counterinsurgency strategy that coheres with a just peace approach.  Respect also calls for the establishment and strengthening of civil society that can maintain stability once the conflict ends.

Security is necessary for the first two.  When we think of security we think of warriors and weapons.  Sometimes this is necessary.  At the same time, there are other aspects of security – economic security for the civilian population, food, clean water, housing, health, education, adjudication of disputes, and protection of human rights.  Also identifying influential people at the grass-roots who can help calm violent tempers or reason against the will to vengeance, who can help military and civilian personnel who are strangers understand the local culture is a source of security.

According to Chaplain Col. Herman Keizer, Jr. (retired), a testifier, today’s volunteer army in the United States has only one position available for noncombatants.  The chaplaincy.  And in some cases even chaplains are required to carry a weapon.  Thus, for selective conscientious objectors, (SCOs) the only choices available to them are discharge from the military or incarceration for refusing orders.  However, many service members who are SCOs want to continue to serve in some capacity.  Just peace theory says: let these service members do just peacemaking, even in the theater of battle.

Let them serve as mechanics, drivers, clerks, and liaisons with the civilian population.  Let them work on building roads, schools, and medical facilities. Let them serve as medics.  Some people think that the blurring of the role of war fighter and peace maker is too confusing for everyone involved.  It is problematic for people wearing a military uniform to claim noncombatant status or to tell civilians that they are present in their country, neighborhood, or home to offer nonviolent assistance. This is a valid concern.  The danger however, is an increased risk to the service member who wants to continue to serve but to serve unarmed.

The mistake that far too many people make regarding conscientious objectors is that they lack the courage to fight.  The truth is that it takes courage to put the weapon down, walk among the people and try to help them meet their basic needs.  Such military personnel are exposed and vulnerable to an insurgent enemy in ways that the armed warrior is not.

Human beings are not one dimensional.  We are all this, that and the other.  Wisdom teaches us that there is a time for every purpose under heaven.  On the surface, selective conscientious objection seems untenable.   A warrior’s duty is to salute and go fight where s/he is commanded to fight.  At the same time, as the military begins to incorporate peacemaking principles into its counterinsurgency and stability operations thinking, there is space for the warrior to become a peacemaker, for the SCO to lay h/er weapon down even in the midst of violent conflict.  Just peace theory creates this space.