Last week marked the fifth anniversary of the Iraq war and just this weekend another milestone was reached, the death of the 4,000th American soldier in Iraq. In light of these events I felt the need to address a topic that’s bothered me for nearly my entire stay in Ithaca and at Cornell. As a veteran of three deployments to Iraq, each culminating with a brief return to my studies here at Cornell, I have often been distressed at the degree to which the majority of students here are out of touch with the war in general and especially the lives of service members in Iraq. Recent protests by the Cornell anti-war movement and discussions regarding the status of the ROTC program on campus make this even more abundantly clear.

Anti-war protests are certainly not anything unusual, nor do I find them offensive. In fact I know several soldiers - most of them actually - who embrace the general message. I don’t mean a message aimed at discrediting the current efforts in Iraq, but a message aimed at promoting discussion on ways to reduce conflict and violence. The problem here obviously is that I don’t believe any of the protestors at that rally have any idea how best to accomplish that outside of blaming the incompetence of American soldiers, nor do they understand that the ultimate aim of the military in Iraq is to do just that: reduce conflict and violence. The impression instead is that of a military force oppressively occupying a country aggressively targeting members of that society whom are engaged in (justifiable?) resistance.

In his March 6 column “Colonels and Campus Don’t Mix: Are ROTC and Academia Compatible?” Munier Salem states that “war is an endeavor of cold calculated strategy and brute force,” a statement I venture to guess is held by the majority of students I’ve talked to on campus. I would argue that there is nothing “cold” about the strategy employed by the average soldier or officer in Iraq or anywhere in the world, nor is ‘brute force’ even the primary or ultimate aim of most current missions. The fact is I find these sorts of statements offensive and ignorant. In my three years in Iraq I participated in or led over 500 missions, combat patrols and raids and less than 10 percent of these missions warranted an intentional use of violence or force, most of those missions coming in the first two months of the conflict. Any study of current military policy would turn up doctrine upon doctrine instructing that non-lethal engagements such as information operations and civil improvement efforts instead are most vital to the military mission.

It’s understandable that protests and discussions tend to focus on numbers that link American conduct to statistics of violence, numbers of soldiers killed, and numbers of Iraqi’s killed. Of course any rational discussion regarding the topic of Iraq needs to employ facts and these numbers are facts, however the discussion at these protests and in conversations I’ve had with professors and fellow students often fail to derive any true causal connection between military actions and these events outside of coincidence. They fail to take into account any discussion about true motivations for violence in that region. Even the New York Times issues reports crediting the majority of violence to “criminal elements” rather than terrorists and describes the deep-seated sectarian conflicts that existed for centuries and intensified for decades under Saddam’s rule. None of these motivations involves the presence of American service members. Discussions with violent criminals in Iraq of which I’ve often been privy often show that American presence in Iraq is used as a pretext for the use of violence in the form of kidnapping, assassination or extortion. This is very much similar to a rapist’s attribution of a victims dress or demeanor in the committal of his crime. Such disingenuous motivations are disgusting on either account; however in regards to the former it seems to have become an acceptable mantra for the anti-war activist without analysis or discussion. And I don’t believe that the protester ever understands the amount of insensitivity such attribution displays towards the military veterans that make up a proportion of the Cornell community implying that people over there just don’t like me or that I’m abusing them in some way.

Discussions about the Cornell ROTC program have the same effect. In the same article Munier Salem makes a statement that the military is a community “where rank determines who is right and wrong - not the merit of someone’s ideas,” using this as an argument about why ROTC is beholden to implementing discriminatory policies. First off, this is in fact completely contrary to established military policy. Soldiers are continuously instructed that they are always permitted to question and, if need be, disregard any order that is unethical or unlawful. Soldiers defend rule of law, order, and the constitution, not a commander’s predilection, not even the President’s. The military field manual outlining the Counterinsurgency tactics being used in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, FM 3-24 (Google it and read it), explicitly states that leadership is based on talent more than rank. And rank is never used as a determining factor in assessing “rightness” to a specific order even though it is assumed that higher-ranking commanders should be capable of delivering ethical orders. Now what does this have to do with DADT? I think it’s insensitive to call the policy discriminatory.