The Consequences of Belief: A Soldier’s Dilemma and its Lasting Impact

Throughout history, individuals have stood up for their beliefs and causes even at great personal cost, including imprisonment. The question of what one would be willing to sacrifice for a cause pitted against other personal or societal obligations often raises profound ethical and moral dilemmas. In my own experience, I’ve found that the causes I did not stand for, particularly in the context of military service, are more haunting than those I did.

In 1967, I was drafted into the U.S. Army and, as a compliant participant, ended up in Vietnam. Even though I served primarily behind a desk and never fired a weapon, my contribution to the war effort, however passive, remains a heavy burden on my conscience more than 50 years later. The notion that everyone involved in the machinery of warfare shares a responsibility for its actions is a perspective that underscores the profound impact of collective participation in violence.

One specific example is the bravado of Desmond Doss in his role as a conscientious objector and medic in the 1967 film “Hacksaw Ridge.” Doss took great pride in his role as a non-weapon-bearing medic and believed he was saving lives. However, I argue that his role was ultimately more about maintaining the machinery of war rather than providing humanitarian aid. The fact that his patients, once ‘repaired,’ would likely return to the battlefield and continue the cycle of violence further compels me to reevaluate his and his religious community’s assumptions about war and peace.

While World War II is often seen as the most just war in history, Desmond Doss’s approach to his role raises interesting questions. If he truly felt that his pacifism was the right path, why not use his religious beliefs to refuse military service altogether? This decision, however, would have led to a different path, potentially involving non-combatant roles within the organization. Instead, his choice to serve in a way that maintained his pacifist stance ultimately led him into a situation where he was complicit in the broader framework of the war.

The Vietnam War and the Adventist Church’s response to it offer a stark illustration of the ethical complexities of war and pacifism. As a born Adventist and a compliant church member, I found myself in a situation where adhering to my religious beliefs required me to serve and contribute to the war machinery. Had I chosen to emulate Doss and his (erroneous in my opinion) religious views, I would have likely ended up in combat, potentially injured or killed, rather than behind a desk with a desk job.

The dilemma faced by individuals in such situations is multifaceted. While the Jehovah’s Witnesses opted out of all military service, the Adventist Church chose a more moderate route. This choice to participate in the war, albeit in a non-combatant capacity, underscores the ethical complexities of peace and violence. A truly pacifist stance would have mandated refusal of any form of military participation. The reality, however, is that even non-combatant roles can have significant moral implications in a conflict.

Conclusion

The causes we choose to fight for and stand by often shape our personal and professional lives. In my case, the war in Vietnam and my subsequent service underscore the profound impact of participating in conflict, even indirectly. The lingering burden of responsibility for partaking in a war that, while just, still required complicity, has been a lifelong journey of introspection. It highlights the need for ongoing reflection on the nature of sacrifice, responsibility, and the complex ethical landscape of war and peace.