Joe, thank you. Great thoughts. I really sympathize with your position, that by all means necessary the willingness of our culture to exact violence needs to be curbed. I think what drives my reflections, however, is the belief that there is truth in every position, in every experience. In the Gandhian framework for nonviolence, at least, this is what brings us to nonviolence in the first place. During the Vietnam War, the anti-war movement hated soldiers so much that it did great violence to them. It left a generation of veterans adrift in a society that was ashamed of them.

What I’m looking for here is a way to create a peace that’s big enough to include the massive human infrastructure that the military represents in our society. Peace with dignity for all, so to speak. A society that soldiers and weapon makers and all the others can want as much as peacenik bloggers.

Additionally, we have to recognize that many of the same traits that people exhibit as soldiers (self-sacrifice, teamwork, loyalty, commitment) are the very traits that will be required to create a society that is both nonviolent and truly just. We can draw on some of the values learned in war to sow peace. One need only recall William James’s seminal “Moral Equivalent of War.”

“Honor” may be the wrong word, because it has so many connotations that associate it with the most insipid forms of violence (e.g., honor killings, duels, etc.).

“There must be a way to honor such sacrifices as war brings out in people while abhorring the pointless insanity that occasioned it, abhorring it so completely that it can never possibly happen again.”

I’m not sure. I’ve been increasingly influenced by the work of John Howard Yoder and other Christian pacifists, and I feel no need to “honor” militarism. I am compelled to abhor violence; I don’t know if I can abhor the large-scale war while honoring those carrying out the war (at any level). It seems an inconsistent position: to commit to a life of peace, yet to “honor” those who participate in the violence of war. “Honor” comes too close to glorification (whether or not that is true in the realm of ideas, it is too often true in actual practice). I think it possible that continuing to honor the people who participate in war is a significant part of perpetuating a militaristic culture, and thus goes against the desire to abhor war “so completely that it can never possibly happen again.” Stopping the honor of militarism might be a significant step toward stopping war.

So not “honor.” But sadness, sympathy, empathy, and love. Perhaps another word entirely. For those who sacrifice much, for those who lose much without ever having the choice.

Just my thoughts. Peace.