In December and January, Inthefray.com published a special two-part series, "War in a time of ignorance," by Bob Keeler. In his essay, Keeler wrote about his years as an Army officer during the Vietnam War, and the personal journey that resulted from his experiences overseas--an odyssey that ultimately brought Keeler to the Catholic peace movement.

We at Inthefray.com decided to open our pages to a conversation about Keeler's essay and his controversial views on war and U.S. foreign policy. Now, more than ever, such a debate is relevant. U.S.-led forces are victorious in Afghanistan. President Bush hints that new theaters of war may soon open up on our eastern horizon--Iraq, Iran, North Korea. In defense of our freedoms, should citizens across the world be supporting the war effort? Or is this latest use of military power only another indication of a superpower run amok?

Below we have printed a range of responses to Keeler's essay--some in support, some in fierce opposition. We encourage our readers to continue the debate by posting a message to our Forum.

A final bit of disclosure: Keeler, a Pultizer Prize-winning journalist, is a member of Inthefray.com's Advisory Board. But that fact doesn't protect Keeler from a healthy thrashing, as you will see below.

Victor Tan Chen
Editor, Inthefray.com
Boston

It was with great interest that I read the article by Bob Keeler entitled "War in a time of ignorance" (December 2001/January 2002). I, too, was ignorant of the geographic position of Vietnam, and I, too, was an uninterested college student when I received a draft notice. Even more striking is the fact that I ended up in a branch of military intelligence.

However, the conclusions that I arrived at were markedly different from Mr. Keeler's. I did not become an officer. I spent a year in Vietnam. I was naturally cynical and suffered no delusions about the role of government. I was a number and if I did not go, someone else would be called. In pointing these things out, I am trying to discern the cause of what appears to be an overwhelming anger on the part of a person who led a relatively pampered military life as an officer--an individual who never experienced incoming rounds, got better pay, had better food, and enjoyed far better accommodations. He doesn't salute the flag and looks down when it passes. I feel very proud when I see the flag. Tears come to my eyes when I hear that soldiers will have to go off to fight because I know that some of them will not come back. I guess I just disagree with him. He mentioned his brother's death and it is possible that he suffers from a form of survivor's guilt.

The first part of his essay I could at least follow with some sympathy. It was the second part that befuddled me. The purpose of the conflict in Vietnam was threefold. First, Lyndon Johnson came to Washington in the era of Joseph McCarthy, who accused the Democrats of losing China and created a witch-hunt with his remarks about communists in the State Department. Lyndon Johnson was not going to be the one who lost Vietnam. So, the location of the conflict was not strategic, it was determined by internal politics. Second, in order to avoid a bigger ground war, no attempt was allowed to send troops into North Vietnam. So, there was no political will to win the conflict. It made targets of troop concentrations. Third, new military tactics and arms were being tested in a somewhat less-than-coordinated manner. The ground troops referred to Vietnam as Aberdeen Proving Ground East.

Overall, Vietnam has to be looked at as a battle in a foreign-policy process known as the Cold War. World War I was called the war to make the world safe for democracy. World War II was a war to end National Socialism. The Cold War was a process to allow the Communist empire to implode upon itself. I feel that the problems that have developed today are the result of a lack of foreign policy since the end of the Cold War. Mr. Keeler points to activities undertaken in the Third World and decries them. I would agree that many of them were ill-advised. However, foreign policy is not an exact science. The whole process of civilization is messy at best. There is a great axiom: Learn from mistakes.

I am of the opinion that we need to develop a foreign policy that more accurately reflects the ideals of the United States in the post-Cold War era. But please, do so without the holier-than-thou attitude. I could select events in history perpetrated by aristocracies and theocracies that would make the actions of the United States seem a model of restraint. The historical revisionism exercised by those with an ax to grind and my own natural cynicism make me fear the elitists like Mr. Keeler more than the actions of a country that historically has allowed an expanding percentage of its citizens access to opportunity. My advice to Mr. Keeler is that he read Candide and chill. Please have the good manners not to lecture me on the Sixth Commandment. I was aware of it when I made the decision to perform my duty to my country and go to Vietnam.

John Scram
Marquette, Michigan
rebozak@aol.com

I want to commend Inthefray for publishing Bob Keeler's "War in a time of ignorance"--which might also have been called"My war against ignorance."

Keeler is modest about his personal odyssey--repeatedly talking about how little he once knew--but the simple fact that he could educate himself on foreign policy and use what he learned to change his opinions is a difficult and enormous accomplishment.

In this era of resignation (which Keeler identifies through its "slogans ... mindless flag-waving ... [and] barroom rooting for swift victory"), it's easy to shrug off even major disasters. It is even encouraged. (Shall we someday analyze why so many people reacted to the destruction of the World Trade Center by saying, "It looked like a movie?") Just finding dissenting opinions in the sea of American flags can be hard enough.

You don't have to come to Keeler's conclusions or have his religious beliefs to admire his thirst for solid information--or to appreciate that Inthefray brought his story to a wider public.

Daniel Wolff
New York

The writer serves on the Advisory Board of Inthefray.com.

I agree that the United States isn't perfect in terms of its policies both domestic and abroad, but no government is. For example, even if a politician buys into Keeler's "love your enemies" idea, I would highly doubt his victory in his next election. I hate when people sit around and criticize government, policies, etc. and expect instant, massive reforms. Things are done piecemeal and sometimes there needs to be a martyr to wake up the American public (September 11, Enron, etc.). But in the meantime, because I wholeheartedly disagree with Keeler's views, I will simply ignore them. Because that's the beauty of America. People can make unpopular and critical arguments, but others are also allowed the opportunity to ignore them and walk away. And if you don't like the United States, maybe you should move away to another country where public dissent can land you in jail.

John Ho
Cherry Hill, New Jersey

In some ways, this war may be a blessing in disguise. Ours is a generation notoriously wrought with apathy; university professors across the nation have commented on the lack of activism and passion within the student body. We are a group that is content--placated by designer clothing, Playstations, and blockbuster movies. Just as the Gulf War raised Keeler's sensitivity to foreign policy, current anti-terrorism activities may nudge young Americans from isolated content towards international knowledgability. Beyond being illuminating, Keeler's piece was comforting: Understanding that ignorance is a state through which all individuals, regardless of age and status, pass is encouraging in that it suggests that now is not too late to learn and grow.

Even as individuals seek knowledge and become better-informed, more responsible members of the global community, the debate about war and its alternatives will continue. While few would dispute the idealistic merit of pacifism, many would question its efficacy--particularly in the face of competing national interests in an essentially zero-sum world. This argument does have merit and should not be dismissed as ignorant by pacifists. Nonetheless, the willingness and ability of individuals to arrive at the discussion table as good-faith seekers of solutions would result in global progress far beyond the current "patriotic" war rhetoric.

Caroline T. Nguyen
Princeton, New Jersey

May Mr. Keeler know that my flag-waving is as mindful, conscious, and deliberate as is the inclusion herein of the Pledge of Allegiance:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

St. Thomas Aquinas once wrote, "We must love them both, those whose opinions we share and those whose opinions we reject. For both have labored in the search for truth, and both have helped us in the finding of it."

At this moment in time I am having difficulty maneuvering around the pedantic and pontificating pulse of Mr. Keeler's "missive," to recognize the truth as he sees it.

In a recent article in the London Guardian, Christopher Hitchens (a columnist for The Nation and Vanity Fair) defended the Western bombing campaign in Afghanistan. He wrote: "Our culture demands respect, too." AMEN.

Signed: Wife, mother, and member of the League of Women Voters, the American Association of University Women, and the Democratic Party

Theresa Brodowski-Scram
Marquette, Michigan
rebozak@aol.com

I essentially agree with the assertion that ignorance is at the root of war, but Keeler's story seems to leave the impression that movements within the Catholic church offer some sort of real hope for humanity. The church has been equally corrupt when it comes to these matters, supporting some dictatorships and fighting others, depending on how it benefits as an institution from the share of power. I think in some ways religious loyalty could become another blindfold.

V.M. Ramos
New York

I found Bob Keeler's story fascinating! In Bob's story I see some parallels with my own life. In 1996, my first opportunity to vote in a presidential election, I didn't want to go through the hassle of learning about the candidates so I didn't vote. Today, I keep myself informed and though I wouldn't say I'm an activist, I know enough to question our country's policies. I appreciate the recommended reading, as I sometimes find it hard to know where to start given the vast amount of writing on the subject.

There are two points in Bob's conclusions that I question. First, he says that according to some organizations, $60 billion per year would be enough to eliminate world hunger. Daniel Quinn contends that this is impossible, that population would simply grow until it again strained the available food supply (click here for a rough outline of his argument). I don't think it's as easy as $60 billion per year.

Second, I would argue that Canada, Italy, and Norway don't need to be interventionist because the United States is. For example, the United States receives the blame for the Gulf War, even though these countries also participated in it, and also benefited from the resulting cheap oil. Whether they were coerced or participated voluntarily, they certainly share the moral responsibility. Not that this vindicates the United States. As a leading power, I believe we have the opportunity to set an example on many international issues, including, among others, lifting poor nations from poverty, supporting human rights, and ensuring the well-being of the environment.

I'd like to thank Bob Keeler again for his excellent story. Between work, personal, and social life, it's easy to forget that there are important things going on in the country and the world.

Simon Peffers
Shrewsbury, Massachusetts
simon@peffers.com

If I were to think about a similarly eye-opening experience, I would go back a few years to a sunset in the Honduran rainforest. The place was dark and silent all day. Then, for an hour in the evening, it all came to life--birds shouting, flowers opening up to breathe in the moist air. There were tiers and tiers of life, on the ground, high in the air--such richness that nothing else in the world could match. It touched me profoundly at the very core of my being, the vitality, the force I could not name but felt.

Then I took a bus through sites of burning and slashing--the rainforest touched by human hands. The earth was dead. Stumps of burnt trees sticking out like crosses on a graveyard. Skinny cows grazing away the pastiches of dry grass. I was so angry.

I had never wanted to go to the rainforest, but once I went my priorities concerning world issues were never the same. That ravaged patch of forest is a perfect example of humanity's ignorance--the ignorance down there, where the burning and slashing occurs, but the ignorance in developed countries as well. It is an example of our inverted logic, which makes us attach importance to the harm that we humans bring upon ourselves (i.e. other humans) and yet ignore the wounds we inflict upon helpless victims.

We can't just rely on what one tradition (in this article, the Christian tradition) tells us, because it still ignores many evils--like raising animals in misery, just for the purpose of eating them up. I am not comfortable with saying, "Let's be nonviolent," just because Jesus says it (I am Catholic myself). Everyone has to search the ethical code for him or herself. Perhaps sometimes you have got to fight--to throw a brick at those who kill. If there is a universal message, then we must find it in ourselves.

Where does the idea of nonviolence come from, anyway? In India, J.C. Heesterman argues, it emerged during the Axial Age, from a society that had made sacrifice into a sport. In these hallowed ceremonies, men would fight for the goods of life, and the loser got death. The ever recurring, bloody contest made this an unstable system. And yet it expressed a central tenet of the ancient mind: We have to fight death. In the brutal competition of life, only one person can win.

To resolve that existential dilemma, the new creed of nonviolence offered the figure of the renouncer, a person who internalizes the eternal conflict and fights the battle within himself. Nonviolence does not mean not fighting; it means not wasting the energy on your perceived opponent, but using its full potential to battle off the enemy inside your own self. Nonviolence is not about just combating an evil government; it is about life and death.

Bob's story inspired me to think more deeply. However, I found the notion of nonviolence described in his article a little too simple, too political, and not challenging enough. For the idea to be substantial, it has to explore the various meanings of the word on much deeper levels. There is a battle to fight, but all of us must fight it inside of ourselves. All of us need to search for ourselves, without accepting anyone else's answers--whether they come from Lyndon Johnson, or Jesus.

Note: I am mainly reacting to this part of the article (paragraphs 3 to 5).

Honza Vihan
Cambridge, England
honzavihan@lycos.com

'Mr. Keeler, read Candide and chill'

Story Index