I once sought conscientious objector status in peacetime during a rewarding military enlistment. After some weeks of difficult, uncoerced reflection I concluded that I was not a conscientious objector as defined in military law. I served for several more years.
In case your readers didn’t know it, conscientious objectors must object to participating in all military action, not just particular wars they disagree with. This leaves few options for someone opposing only a particular action, such as the war in Iraq. I suspect that some ostensible objectors embrace a “lesser of two evils” ethic: dishonestly claiming to oppose all wars is better than remaining embroiled in the particular unjust war at hand. Of course, that the war at hand happens to be the one jeopardizing their lives has always haunted the credibility of wartime conscientious objectors. It doesn’t help when they claim some dawning realization, as when objector Stephen Funk said of the Marines last spring, “They don’t really advertise that they kill people.”
I freely admit that your story about Staff Sgt. Camilo Mejia has prejudiced me (“GI to test morality of war,” Page 1, March 15). Your interview exposed not so much his objection to war in principle, but his objections to the conduct of particular operations by his unit. I also get the impression of someone who was weary of being on the lam and surrendered to get a hot meal (so to speak), not someone who courageously left a life of comfortable anonymity to advocate for peace (though that’s great as post-hoc spin). I could be wrong. But those opposing the action in Iraq might want to be sure Sgt. Mejia is the Real Thing before they make him their poster child. Even then, someone who opposes all wars isn’t much help when the argument is whether just this particular war is wrong.
