by Reebee Garofalo

From the blandness of Tin Pan Alley pop to the rebelliousness of early rock ‘n’ roll, popular music sets a tone for what is important in a given era. As such, it provides us with something of a soundtrack of public opinion. In 1965–66, when the nation was sorely divided on the war in Vietnam, both the “Eve of Destruction” by Barry McGuire and “The Ballad of the Green Berets” by Barry Sadler hit number one within months of each other. As the war dragged on, public opinion began to turn against it. Popular music became more identified with the anti-war movement. In the eighties and nineties, a series of mega fundraising concerts and politicized rock and rap songs took on a range of social issues that included hunger and starvation in Africa, apartheid, the deteriorating environment, homelessness, child abuse, racism, AIDS, industrial plant closings, and US intervention in Central America.

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 changed the role of contemporary popular music dramatically. This new political context included decisive legislation and executive practices that privileged national security over civil liberties, and concentration and consolidation in the music industry that narrowed the diversity of voices in the musical marketplace. The dissent — and in particular the anti-war protest music — which helped provide the basis for a national debate on Vietnam was nowhere to be found on mainstream media during the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. If anything, country anthems that favored government policy seemed more likely to capture the popular imagination.

The music industry was among the first to mount an institutional response to the tragic events of 9/11. In addition to individual contributions — Dr. Dre, for example, personally donated one million dollars to the victim relief effort and countless others earmarked proceeds from tour dates — responses from the music community tended to take the form of the ensemble benefit concerts and all star recordings that had become tried and true fundraising strategies since Live Aid and “We Are The World.”

A comparison between America: A Tribute to Heroes (produced just ten days after the attack) and the Concert for New York City — produced one month later — reveals the trajectory of the new social role for popular music in the post-9/11 context. In the month that separated these two events, the United States invaded Afghanistan. The character of these two events thus marked the transition from the initial shock of horror immediately following 9/11, when the nation was plunged into grief, to the more calculated, and often vengeful, search for those responsible.

America: A Tribute to Heroes was an understated, reverential event, with a diversity of performers including Bruce Springsteen, Bon Jovi, Mariah Carey, Alicia Keys, Faith Hill, the Dixie Chicks, Sting, Paul Simon, Limp Bizkit, Sheryl Crowe, and Wyclef Jean, among others. Punk, rap, and metal, as performance styles, were excluded, despite their popularity among youth. The only overtly conservative commentary was offered by Clint Eastwood, who referred to 9/11 as “the twenty-first century's day of infamy.” If Tom Petty's toned down, but still somewhat aggressive, rendition of “I Won't Back Down” was a call to arms for the nationalist project that was about to get underway, it was offset by Neil Young's stirring performance of John Lennon's “Imagine,” which conjured up visions of a world with neither religions nor countries and “nothing to fight or die for.”

The Concert for New York City, in contrast, was a grand, commercialized, public extravaganza staged at Madison Square Garden that announced to the world, as host Billy Crystal said in his opening remarks, “that we're not afraid to go out.” He further set the political tone for the event in his introductory comment that "We're showing everybody that we don't hide in caves like cowards.”

Musically, with few exceptions the concert was a tribute to white, male, guitar-based rock in both its line-up and performance styles (Billy Joel, Bon Jovi, John Mellencamp, David Bowie, Eric Clapton, The Who, Mick Jagger and Keith Richard, Elton John, and Paul McCartney). The increased testosterone level of the music was a clear indicator of the change in mood, emotional tone, and political will that was taking place in the United States. Of all the speakers and performers who appeared at the concert, only actor Richard Gere attempted to deliver a message of moderation when he talked about “the possibility of taking … all this horrendous energy that we're feeling … and turn[ing] it into compassion and to love and to understanding.” He was roundly booed for his trouble.

Contrary to popular understanding, the right to a military discharge on the basis of conscientious objection is neither guaranteed in the Constitution nor in any other legal statute. At present, CO discharges are granted by military largess, and each branch operates with its own regulations. Furthermore, what the military gives, the military can take away. Since CO discharges are not supported by statute but only by military policy, they can be denied by that same policy. For example, during the Gulf War in 1991, the military issued an across the board "stop-loss" policy that basically prohibited any discharge during the conflict. For this reason, according to a New York Times article of the era, more than 2,500 GIs went to jail rather than fight in Kuwait.
In 1992, Rep. Ron Dellums (D-CA) introduced the Military Conscientious Objector Act (MCOA) as a direct result of the Gulf War Stop Loss. Under this bill, the legal definition of a CO would be redefined to state that someone who is conscientiously opposed to his or her participation in a “particular war” could also be classified as a CO. The military would no longer be able to arbitrarily take away the right of discharge, and the soldier would not be deployable or be forced to carry a weapon. This would broaden the rights of conscientious objectors. Unfortunately, MCOA sank without a trace.

Since the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, an increasing number of GIs have realized that they cannot participate in war, thus making the need for the MCOA once again obvious. As the number of CO applications has increased, the percentage of refusals has increased. For example, in the Army more than 70% of CO applications are denied as reported by the Public Affairs Office of the Army.

The MCOA seeks to establish a regulatory system that is statutory, fair, and even handed from branch to branch. The Center on Conscience & War has been working with members of the House Armed Services Committee on both sides of the aisle to find the right members to introduce this bill. In the meantime, all members of the House and Senate need to be educated about conscientious objection as a fundamental right recognized by the United Nations, courts and the US military.

Although details and applications vary from branch to branch, generally people apply for a CO discharge by answering more than 20 questions, seven of which relate to beliefs about war and violence. Say you are an objector. In the application you must address your beliefs about war, which include your ability to participate in war as a non-combatant or not at all. You must object to war in any form and cannot believe that you would participate in some wars but not others. You must explain where the belief came from although it can be a religious or moral or ethical belief. It cannot be a political, expedient or practical belief. You must—and this is crucial—explain when this belief crystallized or became firmed and fixed, and it must be after you voluntarily joined the military.
After submitting this essay to your commanding officer, he or she appoints an Investigating Officer (IO) who is under their command, but not over you in the chain of command. The IO first sends you to both a military psychiatrist-who determines whether mental or emotional issues caused you to apply for the CO discharge-and a military chaplain who is charged with determining whether you are sincere. The IO meets with you and others who shed light on the issue, and then writes a report with a recommendation. But you are not done. You can file a rebuttal to the report with this same commanding officer who then makes the decision about whether you should be discharged. The commanding officer's decision, however, is sent up the chain of command all the way to the Pentagon, where an ever-changing CO review board reassesses the decision of the commanding officer. If they agree, they send it back down the chain of command again.

The whole process is supposed to take three months. In fact, it rarely takes less than one year and more frequently 18 months to two years. And during this entire time you remain a member of the military and must follow all commands, including orders to deploy, and sometimes even to pick up a weapon.

Unfortunately, not everyone can wait for the lengthy CO process to conclude. That was the case for David, a young African American from Brooklyn who joined the Marines to advance his proposed career as a firefighter. He was immediately trained and assigned duty in the infantry. He won marksmanship awards and was generally a very conscientious Marine.
David was deployed to Iraq. After several months, his duties became more real to him. After one night on patrol during which he fired at people, David found himself praying “Please God, don't let me kill anyone.”

The more he thought about it, the more troubled he became. He approached the chaplain who told him to go to church more. On the ship returning to the states for leave he attended church but was disturbed by the images in the ship chapel of soldiers rather than apostles. Stateside, David did go to church and he became convinced that what he was doing in the military was wrong and he could not do it anymore. He approached the command and asked for a CO discharge.

His command told him he could not obtain a CO discharge because he had signed a statement when he joined that he was not a CO (true) and that if he said he was one now he would be disciplined for fraudulent enlistment (false). He found the regulations and CWW on his own. He filed a CO application with CCW's help. His command “lost” the application. He filed it again. His command said that they could order him deployed (true) and to fight (false) and that if he withdrew the application they would give him a promotion (illegal).

He refused to withdraw the application. The command “lost” the application again and gave him orders to deploy. He filed it again. They rushed the process, denied it and told him he had to deploy (true) and fight (false) as the command had denied it. But it had not gone up to the Commandant of the Marine Corp and therefore under Marine regulations he theoretically could not be forced to fight.
David went AWOL rather than fight. When he turned himself in later, he received 6 months jail time.

Protecting the right to be a conscientious objector is essential to providing the men and women who have joined the military the most basic right of all: to live within the moral bounds of their own consciences. All other rights flow from this one. Anything else is slavery.

---

J. E. McNeil is the Executive Director of Center on Conscience & War, 1830 Connecticut Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20009; (202) 483-2220; www.CenteronConscience.org.