Skip to main content

After the Yellow Ribbon Conference

This weekend I attended the After the Yellow Ribbon conference at the Duke Divinity School. 

Put together by OIF-vet, conscientious objector, and Duke Divinity student Logan Mehl-Laituri and fellow Divinity student Alaina Kleinbeck, it was an interdisciplinary event that included ecclesial, medical (mental health) and military perspectives in conversation devoted to helping veterans make sense of the moral reality of war.

I learned something from everyone there. The speakers who inspired me the most were Dr Warren Kinghorn (from the Veterans Admin and Duke) and Dr David Miller, a fair-minded and well-spoken pacifist.  I was privileged to give the keynote address and later have the opportunity to give my presentaton on "the moral justification for killing in war" to the majority-pacifist audience.

The goal of the event was to come together, talk honestly and listen openly, and find common ground so we all can help heal those vets who experienced moral injury in war. IMHO, it succeeded beautifully.  This conference showed me that just warists and war pacifists can come together productively.

Comments

Andrew Bell said…
I agree-- it was an amazing conference (and sadly the all-too-rare one) that brought together just war theorists, pacifists, servicemembers, medical experts and concerned others in a spirit of civility and mutual care.

My burning question now is: How do we (the military/academic/theological/medical/those-who-care-about war communities) duplicate this type of event into a common, or to be hopeful, standard practice of discussion within American society?

It's a hollow victory to declare "peace with honor" among the participants and have all those concerned about war's impact then return to their respective insulated communities. That leaves no lasting effect for the military or the country.

The one thing I took away from the conference is that all these respective communities wish to serve those who suffer war's effects (both in and outside of the military) in love.

For this conference to have any real meaning, we need to answer this question: how do we spread this message to the military academies, training centers, bases, theological schools, hospitals, churches and communities of America? How does this type of discussion become a common practice around the country? I want to see a hundred “After the Yellow Ribbon” Conferences, journals incorporating all these voices, regular monthly meetings for the leaders of these different groups… how do we make that a reality?
princezhthr said…
Hello Pete, I am not sure if you even check your blog anymore. But I am an undergrad about to do my Honors Thesis. I am studying Psychology and have an interest in moral reasoning. I also am a United States Army veteran, served in Operation Enduring Freedom I, and Operation Iraqi Freedom II. I would love to do my thesis on moral reasoning and veterans of wars and examine cognitive factors. I am looking for some helpful research articles that may assist me in doing this. If you know of any that my be helpful could you let me know~~!

Thanks Heather
Anonymous said…
Hi Pete,

I'm a journalist interested in hearing more about your experiences at the conference. Could we talk about it? My email address is eyewitness@earthlink.net

Thanks,


Josh
dental advices said…
killing in wars is sometimes difficult to defend in terms of morality. how can killing be moral? maybe through preventing some more lives to be wasted.
Pete said…
Dental: read this blogpost for a basic explanation of the conditions when it's morally permissible (and sometimes even required) to kill someone.

http://soldier-ethicist.blogspot.com/2010/01/moral-justication-for-killing-in-war.html

Popular posts from this blog

Moral justification for killing in war

This is my latest version of laying out the argument. Feedback is welcomed!


A moral justification for killing in war
By Pete Kilner, 2009


Introduction:
The Army performs many of the same functions as civilian organizations, yet there is one absolutely unique and defining characteristic of our profession—we are organized, equipped and trained to kill people. As company-level leaders, we recruit patriotic young Americans to kill; equip them to kill; train them to kill; develop and issue orders for them to kill; issue fire commands for them to kill; and commend them for killing enemies of our country. We perform our duties well, and the American people sleep safely at night. However, we as a profession generally do not provide our soldiers with an explanation for why it is morally right for them to kill in combat. Consequently, many of the soldiers entrusted to our care suffer needless guilt after killing in war.
The purpose of this article is to offer you a tool—an explanation for the morali…

War can be an Experience of both Heaven and Hell

Many combat veterans have a love/hate relationship with their wartime experiences. They love the profound sense of purpose that their lives had; they hate the senseless evil that necessitated the war. They love the unity they experienced with their fellow soldiers; they hate the destruction they witnessed and sometimes unleashed.
Wars are visible, political conflicts that spawn invisible, moral conflicts within those who fight them.What combat veteran doesn’t feel pride and exhilaration, disgust and anger?That’s a volatile brew of emotions—a cauldron that veterans must recognize and reconcile in order to integrate their wartime experiences into their personal life narratives.
I am a career Army officer who embedded with combat units and interviewed hundreds of soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan over multiple deployments. I am also a Christian. In the course of my own struggle to integrate my identity as a soldier with my larger identity as a Christian, I gained an insight—one informed by …

Killing enemy combatants--a justification

Introduction
The profession of arms talks about ‘morality and war’ using legal terms and concepts. For example, we justify our decision to deploy and fight when the President orders us because we signed a contract to obey the officers appointed over us. Similarly, we consider ourselves blameless when we kill enemy combatants as long as we do not violate the laws of war or the rules of engagement in doing so. These legal rules are so important to our professional identity that all soldiers receive instruction on the laws of war in basic combat training and then annually thereafter, and soldiers at war review the rules of engagement much more often, sometimes daily.

Not everyone in our society, however, accepts these legal answers to moral questions. War pacifists are people who believe that war is morally unjustifiable. They claim that soldiers are morally wrong to participate in war and to kill other human beings, regardless of what’s legally permissible at the time.

Currently, we milita…