It is paramount that Iraq Veterans Against the War, as our generation's articulate voice of resistance to a government run amok, defend ourselves in every arena of public discourse. This defense includes what Adam Kokesh has done by skillfully manipulating the media to trap the Marine Corps in a public relations nightmare when they cracked down on his right to protest in uniform, and it includes defending what we do from the intellectual assaults against us by armchair protesters.

When I read a criticism of the Appeal for Redress in the Atlantic Monthly, I knew the time had come to defend our actions and firmly claim our position on the moral high ground. It is unacceptable to allow academia and the left-wing intelligentsia who subscribe to magazines like the Atlantic Monthly to write us off as a gang of attention-craving, unthinking, unprofessional punk activists. We are veterans and active military personnel, and they don't get to sit there and do little more than support a front running democrat while they deride us for actually mobilizing our military's conscience.

The article that attacks the Appeal for Redress can be read here. http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=109065

I submitted the following article to the Atlantic Monthly in response. A slightly edited version will be available in the September edition. Enjoy.

Silence Is Not An Option

What is more dangerous to humanity, soldiers engaging in political discourse, or a generation that stands by silently as the military is recklessly committed to unwinnable and illegal war? The Appeal for Redress, a movement of service members who have chosen to voice their opposition to the war in Iraq, is a manifestation of conscience within our ranks, not an unwarranted military influence on government policy. Recently, the Appeal for Redress received a cogent, consistent and thoughtful critique in this publication. As a co-founder of the GI campaign, I must firmly defend the motives, intentions and actions of service members of conscience who choose to engage in the determination of my generation's most defining issue; the war in Iraq.

Dr. Bacevich makes the point in “Warrior Politics” that it is “short sighted and dangerous” for our society to permit a group of soldiers to join the debate. It would be absurd to tailor national security policy to the whims of men and women in uniform, whether officer or enlisted. However, the context of campaigns such as The Appeal for Redress must be fully considered before judgment can be cast.

The proponents of this war, and sadly even the alleged “opposition” in the halls of power, are justifying the continued funding of the occupation of Iraq because to do otherwise would be, in their words, “abandoning our troops.” Whether it was House Minority Leader John Boehner’s emotionally charged and logically distorted speech on the topic, or Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s concession giving “stand against” the war, we hear the same hollow sentiments. The war must go on because “we must support our troops.”

As long as the men and women of the military are being used as political human shields in the discourse about war funding, then troops are a component of the national dialogue whether they want to be or not. The Appeal for Redress, which is entirely legal, becomes justified when politicians use the aura of the troops as a means to solidify their agendas. It is unconscionable that policy makers are using troops as their rhetorical monopoly money, flaunting an imaginary moral authority while they continue to put our young service members in a position where they must kill or die for a lie, oil, or to preserve the remaining shreds of presidential credibility.

Therefore, the Appeal for Redress is not the military seeking a more prominent role in politics; it is in fact troops renouncing the role being projected onto them.

“Warrior Politics” claims that “Although [the soldiers sailors and Marines driving the Appeal for Redress] are sworn to obey, they have undertaken to obstruct [their Commander in Chief.]”
What the article neglects to clarify is that we, as members of the armed forces, are sworn to do more than simply obey, we are sworn to support and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.

All people, especially soldiers, are bound to their consciences before their Commander in Chief. Accordingly, when I served in Iraq, I was a human being first and an American second. Further, troops are bound to serve their constitution before their orders. Accordingly, I was an American first and a Marine second. This philosophy is what protects humanity from militaries in the wrong hands.

Semper Fidelis,
Liam Madden
Co Founder Appeal for Redress
President, Boston Iraq Veterans Against the War