Committee Opposed to Militarism and the Draft (COMD)

Articles Archive
Hits: 4511

From Draft NOtices, October-December 2018

— Rocío Cordova 


The motto for the U.S. Army Reserve’s Psychological Operations Command is “Persuade. Change. Influence,” which is exactly what Captain Brittany DeBarros aims to do — only, instead, her messaging is in complete opposition to the U.S. military industrial complex.

DeBarros, who is a member of About Face: Veterans Against the War, gained viral recognition when she took to her Twitter account in early July to expose the numerous ways in which the U.S. military spends its resources to inflict violence and murder upon innocent civilians, particularly in the Middle East. Prior to that, she delivered an emotionally-charged speech at the Poor People’s Campaign rally in Washington, D.C., where she proudly identified herself as a multi-racial queer woman. It is these intersecting identities and lived experiences as a combat veteran that have awakened her to the realization that “there can be no true economic, racial, gender liberation without addressing the militarism that is strangling the morality and empathy out of our society.”

Comrades at About Face have begun a fundraiser to cover legal support after it was revealed that the military had opened an investigation targeting DeBarros. To learn more updates about the case and contribute to the fund, visit https://www.gofundme.com/fund-war-resister-cpt-debarros.

This article is from Draft NOtices, the newsletter of the Committee Opposed to Militarism and the Draft (http://www.comdsd.org/).

Articles Archive
Hits: 4812

From Draft NOtices, October-December 2017

How a cult of American militarism continues to mobilize our society toward warmongering and imperialism.

— Pete Doktor
    

Graphic: "One-armed Bandit" by Mr. Fish

As a so-called Generation X veteran, I have come to understand the iconic and reactionary slogan “Remember Pearl Harbor!” not as simply a generic, nostalgic saying, as much as an American jingle that preaches a general predisposition for self-victimhood, universal distrust, vengefulness and the ceaseless posture of a war hawk in need of routine feeding. December 7, the date that Imperial Japan targeted threatening U.S. military bases in the colony of Hawaiʻi in 1941, has been immortalized by many Americans as a singular reason to perpetrate ceaseless militarism.

To be clear, “militarism” does not refer to a reasonable right to self-defense of one’s borders against actual hostile invasions. Rather, militarism is the exploitation of war for purposes other than self-defense. The U.S. has a rich history of warring for economic, political and cultural agendas — and has often justified warmongering with political proverbs like the one we’re encouraged to recite each anniversary of the “Day of Infamy.” This slogan, and others like it, will be used to reinforce historical amnesia and modern myths on the occasion of the anniversary of the attack this year.

As the November 30, 1941, Hilo Herald Tribune headline “Japan May Strike Over Weekend” reminds us, the so-called “surprise” attack of what is now commonly known as “Pearl Harbor” near Honolulu was not without some warning or provocation. This is not to say that the murderous, strategic attack by the Imperial Japanese fleet could ever be considered justified. But declassified documents confirm what has been understood for some time: the intention of Imperial Japan to retaliate against overseas U.S. expansion of military forces in the Pacific was known to the FDR administration before the attack occurred. While the exact date, time and location may not have been known, decrypted communications exposed internal Japanese reactions in response to an economic war and oil embargo pushed by the Roosevelt administration against the competing Asian industrial power.

Lest we forget that fascist Japan may have previously been an ally of the U.S. — sharing in the spoils of WWI — but when the formidable Japanese Empire began to compete with Western empires scrambling for resources and overseas markets, which included the overthrow of aboriginal peoples and sovereign nations, as was the case with the Hawaiian Kingdom, the “Allies of Imperialism” suddenly condemned Imperial Japan’s participation in the very same carving-up of the Asia-Pacific hemisphere that Western powers had already been engaged in themselves for more than a century.

Articles Archive
Hits: 4411

From Draft NOtices, October-December 2017

— Isidro Ortiz
    

Editor’s Note: For this article, Isidro Ortiz interviewed Juan Perez, a Marine veteran majoring in sociology at San Diego State University. Juan will be graduating in May 2018 and plans to pursue a career in social justice activism.

Anti-militarism is often associated with the Baby Boomer generation. Thus, as the generation begins to pass, it might appear that anti-militarism does not have a future. Missed in such an observation is the emergence of a new crop of activists in generations X and Y. Juan Perez is one of those new activists.

Juan describes himself as “woke.” According to the Oxford English Dictionary, “woke” is defined as being “alert to injustice in society, especially racism.” When Juan describes himself as “woke” he is light years away from where he was at the time he enlisted in the Marine Corps during his senior year in high school. Juan grew up as an undocumented immigrant in one of the poorest communities, City Heights, in San Diego. In this community he attended some of the city’s lowest-performing schools. By his own admission Juan was not socially or politically conscious at that time. Indeed, he gave little thought to societal conditions and was “gung-ho” about joining the Marines.

How did Juan become woke? The roots of Juan’s woke lie in an incident during his tour of duty in Helmut Province in Afghanistan. While on patrol Juan’s unit spotted what appeared to be an Improvised Explosive Device (IED). In keeping with protocol, the unit communicated to headquarters, which in turn informed the specialized team charged with IED disposal. Within a short time, Juan’s unit was instructed to verify that the suspicious item was indeed an IED. Verification would require a physical inspection of the item.

Juan and a fellow Marine volunteered to fulfill the verification task. While this at first seemed to be the appropriate action for a couple of gung-ho Marines, it turned out to be more momentous than Juan had expected.

Draft NOtices

Quarterly print newsletter

Subscribe now Learn more

 

Ninth CIRCUIT COURT RULING: CONFRONTING MILITARISM BY USING EQUAL ACCESS TO HIGH SCHOOLS

When the military comes to your local high school, you have a legal right to give students an opposing view. This has been the position taken by federal district courts in Florida, Pennsylvania and Illinois and two federal appellate courts. The most broadly-worded decision came from a case that COMD took to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the 1980s. Here is the background:

Find Out More | Download PDF