COUNTERING MILITARY RECRUITMENT
Articles: Leaving Military: Conscientious Objector
Military resister to highlight Vermont anti-war rally
Shay Totten,Vermont Guardian
February 8, 2006
MONTPELIER — Hundreds of Vermonters are expected at a demonstration
Saturday in front of the Statehouse to demand that Vermont's elected
representatives call on Pres. Bush to immediately remove all troops
from Iraq.
The 2 p.m. rally will feature Pablo Paredes, a Navy Petty officer who,
in 2004, refused to board an Iraq-bound ship because he did not believe
the invasion of Iraq was justified. Eventually, his case went to court, a
judge ruled in Paredes' favor, and he was given an honorable discharge from
the Navy. He is now trying to register as a conscientious objector.
Paredes, who grew up in the Bronx, NY, and currently lives in
California, told the Guardian that is looking forward to being in Vermont, and has
been watching the progress of last year's Town Meeting Day resolutions.
Last year, 48 towns voted in favor of some form of the measure calling
on the state to examine the impact that the large call-up of Vermont
National Guard troops has on Vermont, its resources and its families.
Legislation was subsequently introduced in the House and made its way to the House
floor before a fractured vote channeled it back to committee, where it
remains.
"I, as many others who work for peace, have noticed the absence of true
democracy in our country best represented in the outcome of the recent
town meetings, here in Vermont," said Paredes in an e-mail interview. (The
full interview appears at the bottom of this article.)
"I followed this story and the overwhelming response of the apologetics
for war was, 'Well, it doesn't mean anything; these resolutions are
nonbinding to the state.' [T]here can be no excuse for the state of Vermont going
against a near unanimous call of these town meetings. But this is the
reality of representative democracy. It very rarely represents people
who don't have economic influence over it."
In early January, Vermont Says Not to War, a coalition of veterans,
soldiers' families, labor activists, civil libertarians, faith-based
organizations and anti-war activists, kicked off a campaign in favor of
strong legislation the states, "Vermont and its citizens call on the
president to bring all the troops home now and take care of them when
they get home."
Protest organizers are also calling on Vermonters to pledge to
undertake acts of nonviolent civil disobedience as a way to pressure lawmakers
into taking up the resolution.
VG: What general message do you have for Vermonters, and how can they
make a difference?
PP: I think I would be presuming a great deal to tell Vermonters about
how they can make a difference. The fact is, America could learn much from
Vermonters. The reality is that in states as big as New York and
California, which are the two that I can speak of with some personal
experience, the effect of the war is so diluted in the massive
populations that there's a great deal of apathy. In a more perfect system it would
be those who are most affected by war who had the greatest say in waging
it, but in our reality the "representatives" on Capitol Hill, none of whom
have what Gold Star Families and Military Families Speak Out call "Skin in
the Game," they make the big decisions or more frankly their sponsors make
the big decisions. Our brand of democracy is a farce, and so when I hear
our president, elected by the Supreme Court, talk about spreading democracy
I am less than enthused.
But to return to your question: I don't think I'm here to give advice.
I'm here to learn and to highlight the Vermont experience for the rest of
the country. If the masses see what war does to communities and families,
then the apathy will begin to wear off. Since my public refusal to board the
war vessel in 2004 ,I have made it my mission to bring the reality to
mainstream America. I aimed, maybe ambitiously, to show the country
there was dissent in the ranks in my protest, and I aim here to take part in
the Vermont process, which sheds light on the effects of this war on
everyday communities. I will also be trying to shock and awe everyday people
with some actions surrounding the third anniversary of the invasion, soon.
VG: The rally organizers are calling for an immediate withdrawal of
troops. Do you think this is logistically possible, and how would you propose
it happen? In other words, does "immediate" mean all at once or a phased
pullout over a period of months?
PP: Immediate is a very lucid word. There is no misinterpreting it. The
fact is corporate big bucks don't only own influential shares in our
government and in the companies who most profit from this war, but they
have mass media monopolized as well. So they've framed the argument and
we have to stick to the proposed framework and not question it.
Well, I refuse. I say the framework is racist. The argument most
commonly made is the famous "power vacuum" theory. "No, lord no, we can't pull
out now in one shot because we will leave a massive power vacuum and
fundamentalist would be sucked into power." Nonsense. To say that the
oldest civilization in existence with the largest oil reserves in
existence cannot settle their own differences without our imposing martial law is
simply and unavoidably racist. The history of Catholics and Protestants
is by far bloodier than Sunnis and Shiites, and yet it is our nation
telling this country that they are incapable of settling their differences
without our mitigating capabilities a la F-18.
The reality is, we refuse to walk away from having the largest possible
influence on the petroleum-richest territory on the planet, and that is
the reason we invaded; it is the reason, no matter how faulty our rationale
was for invading, we are still there; the reason, no matter how bloody it
gets, the corporate-owned government of the USA will never leave Iraq.
With no reservations I advocate for immediate withdrawal, meaning
troops out yesterday. If a humble U.N. peacekeeping force is necessary in the
direct aftermath to quell the chaos that our presence has caused,
that's one thing, but our presence has never and will never be a peacekeeping
or attenuating force.
VG: What has been the impact of your decision to not board the ship —
have others followed suit in other ports? Have you heard from other
servicemen and women who support your move?
PP: I have received considerable support. To give a sense of the
atmosphere: The friend who drove me to base the day of my protest and
completely supported it was a Navy Seal. My letters of recommendation
for conscientious objector boasted an Annapolis selectee and a
communications officer, even the chief testifying against me at the court martial said
it was a brave act.
The judge, incidentally, said that the prosecution had proven in cross
examination of an international law expert that soldiers had reasonable
cause to believe the wars in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq were
illegal to fight in. He then gave me the lightest sentence he was capable of
handing me. It was short of judicial activism. Of course, our obedient
media did not feel such comments from a military judge worth reporting.
But, in short, I'd say that the spectrum of opinion is wide as it is in
civil society, and so I had much support up and down the ranks but
there was also much opposition.
As far as other actions, there have not been massive numbers of public
protest but the number of desertions got so big the Pentagon now
refuses to keep records, much like they banned hospitals in Iraq of keeping count
of the civilian casualties. These types of statistics are unfavorable and
so they are suppressed.
VG: Why did you enlist in the service originally? What sold you on the
service, and what advice do you have for teens/parents who are weighing
such an option today?
PP: Since leaving the service I've researched the methods, monies and
strategies employed by recruiters. Knowing the budgets, the tactics and
the ruthlessness, I'm surprised the military is struggling to meet quotas.
The fact is, the budgets are unreal; the tactics are abusive, and the
objects of such attacks are impressionable teenagers.
It starts with militarizing the school environment. The recruitment
handbooks say things like: Become the coach of a school team; this way
the kids look up to you.
Classrooms are occupied, cafeterias are the trenches, and now there are
humvees and tanks in the yards. Twelve years of such a steady dose of
indoctrination, coupled with war spending that cripples a national
budget's ability to provide affordable education, and topped off with sign-on
bonuses that begin to muddy the line between soldier and mercenary, and
you have me signing on the dotted line.
Of course, even with all that you still don't sign over your soul to
fight in wars of aggression. You pledge to support and defend the
Constitution, and wherever challenged. I welcome the opportunity to argue that
refusing to fight against the sovereign state of Iraq is exactly that.
My advice is: always, in all things, to consider the source of your
information. Too many of us take the recruiters at their word. These
are people who put a premium on getting you to sign on the dotted line. If
they miss their quotas it's back to the trenches for them. So seek better
sources of info or balance it out.
There are anti-war groups and Veterans for Peace that make information
available that your recruiter would keep from you. Seek these groups
out and take up the issues they raise with the recruiter; see what sorts of
arguments the recruiter has. My guess is they wont be very convincing.
The most common complaint at boot camp is, "My recruiter told me ... ."
This archive consists of a topically organized selection of
articles culled by members of the Counter-Recruitment List Serve from printed
publications and web sites. The archive is not complete. We have chosen
material relevant to the work of