Military Students and Civilian-Based Defense The Colonel introduced me, and I stepped in front of these hundred or so Air Force ROTC (Reserve Officers' Training Corps) cadets and explained, "When I was in college, I used to protest the ROTC." Now I appear as an invited component of their military education program, introducing them to concepts of alternative security and nonviolent civilian-based defense. The visit is part of the Center for Common Security's new seminar program for military students, entitled "National Security in the 90's: Changing Threats, New Proposals." The Program's Advisory Committee includes Major General Edward Atkeson (ret.), Col. John Barr (ret, President, Veterans for Peace), Ambassador Jonathan Dean (former chief of the U.S. delegation to the conventional arms negotiations), Col. Roben Helvey and Dr. Gene Sharp. I've learned that these young men and women training to become tomorrow's military leaders are as dedicated to a more peaceful world as I am, and that we have a lot to learn from each other. In fact, Dr. Sharp's kind influence on my undergraduate years demanded my recognition of these facts. Further, if we're going to train our next generation of American leaders to forge effective solutions to changing national security threats, we desperately need this sort of dialogue in our universities. We need to cut across traditional ideological positions to foster good thinking and creativity. Early in the seminar I explain that we need to design defense postures that send two very clear messages to potential adversaries. First, if you attack us, you have absolutely nothing to gain. Second, if you do not attack us, you have absolutely nothing to fear. The military has been effective in sending the first message; luckily, emerging strategies and technologies are making it possible to send both at once. That's where CBD (civilian-based defense) fits in. Importantly, I place CBD within a context of national defense that is readily understood by the audience. Although Dr. Sharp and others would disagree, I find it extremely useful to present transarmament as a continuum from present policies, to non-offensive conventional postures, to CBD. CBD is more interesting to military students when presented as a component of a broader alternative defense agenda (focused, for example, on the defense of cities, as suggested by Wilhelm Nolte). I invite the reader to explore non-offensive defense, and consider how it might complement CBD in practice, and/or how it might promote CBD in the near future. (A good place to begin is the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists special September 1988 issue, available free from the Center for Common Security [CCS]). Cadets across the country have been remarkably capable of figuring out what it will take to make these policies more effective. One bright young Captain even had us "war-gaming," with one side being an invading WTO force and the other NATO's new civilian-based defense force. Shrewd, strategic, and innovative thinking was the result. When I finished speaking, the Colonel told the cadets not to be afraid of new ideas. He said that their military records wouldn't be contaminated by paying attention to someone who challenges their thinking. In fact, he challenged them to become better officers by considering the widest range of defense options. Some early (unscientific) findings of the program: * most ROTC students are in the military for economic, rather than militaristic reasons. * military students strongly believe in national defense and in the United Slates, and deeply distrust the peace movement. * many officers were deeply scarred by peace movement condemnation campaigns when they returned from the horrors of Vietnam. * with rare exception, these students really don't want to go to war, although they will clearly perform if called upon. * they openly encourage civilians to do everything they can to prevent war. * their perceptions of the most serious threats to U.S. security correlate quite closely with "Americans Talk Security" national polls, and do not correlate at all with actual U.S. spending priorities. * this is most acutely the case with respect to the Soviet conventional threat in Europe (where we spend over $160 billion) * CBD has been easier to convey since the nonviolent upheavals in Europe. Some early results of the program: * Most of the military students attending a workshop were convinced of their duty to wear two distinct hats with equal pride and responsibility: one as a soldier who takes orders from the Commander-in-Chief; the other as a U.S. citizen who elected the President and pays his salary. They were even convinced that they bore a special responsibility to participate actively in the security debate as their training affords them information that is important to other citizens. * Most of these students were convinced that current nuclear and conventional postures could not be indefinitely maintained at the expense of environmental, educational, and other social programs that they believe in. They were open to and interested in CCS alternative security proposals. * CCS notions of alternative defense were strengthened (both in terms of strategic effectiveness and popular appeal) by the strong tests given us by military students and officers. * Perhaps most importantly, other very conservative (civilian) students are extremely impressed with our work with military students. It is now very clear that CCS work with conservative and mainstream students throughout the country will benefit greatly (in substance and credibility) by our work with military students. My hope for this Program is best described in Lt. Santistevan's post-seminar comment, "You made us all realize that common security would be easier if military and civilians worked together to achieve it." I invite anyone interested in expanding the audience of civilian-based defense, or in getting more information on our Seminar Program, to call or write me at CCS. David Yaskulka Executive Director, Center for Common Security, PO Box 275, Williamstown, MA 01267. Ed note: This article was liberated from Civilian-Based Defense: News & Opinion May/July 1990. Civilian-Based Defense: News & Opinion A ten page newsletter containing theoretical articles, book reviews and world news - all relating to developments in the consideration of nonviolent, civilian-based defense in various parts of the world. Six issues per year: $12, postage paid. Write to: Civilian-Based Defense Association, PO Box 31616, Omaha NE 68131, USA.