*Content Warning: Discussions of violence, combat, warfare, PTSD, and moral injury*

“To be trustworthy, a listener must be ready to experience some of the terror, grief, and rage that the victim did. This is one meaning, after all, of the word compassion.”

—Achilles in Vietnam: Combat Trauma and the Undoing of Character, by Jonathan Shay

Some of the major questions I have been wrestling with throughout this research are the questions: is supporting returning veterans supporting violence and combat? Can one support service members while simultaneously being against the institution of war? How can supporting former combatants ensure peace in the future?

As I previously mentioned, war itself is not something I am comfortable with. As a US civilian with no experience serving in the armed forces, there is much about warfare that I do not know and understand; I don’t know what it’s like to be in an active war zone where split-second choices that result in life or death need to be made; I don’t know what it’s like to be shot at or take life; I don’t know what it’s like to live in fear of what I might have to do, or worse, the fear that others won’t understand what I’ve been through. As a person of faith, I find a deep conflict between war and my religious values that call for a world at peace with liberty and justice for all of its people. That being said, learning more about moral injury and warfare in general has caused me to think very deeply about these questions.

One of the profound realizations I had, in reading these stories, was through exploring the motives behind why people choose to go to war and serve in our nation’s military. Soldiers become soldiers for a variety of different reasons. Some of the large motivators include: wanting to serve your country; wishing to make a positive difference in the world; looking for a life with honor, integrity, and structure; defending the freedoms of the nation and civilians at home. The motivator I wasn’t anticipating, which some regard above all others in pursuing military service, is one of finances. The military offers people jobs.

After reading a book talking about the various reasons people join the military, my eyes were opened to the fact that many times people with low socio-economic statuses join the military for this reason. For some, this is one way they can provide for their families. People of color, women, and low-income individuals are disproportionately more likely to enter military service. Ads are also targeted at teenage audiences, with images of incredible glory and valor in soldiership, to encourage more and more youth to sign up once they reach eighteen. This is important in understanding the effects of war because these are more and more the people coming home from it.

As warfare has progressed in technology, much has been done to ensure a minimization of damage to our side, yet simultaneously we see an increased systemic disregard for collateral damage of “the other” side (i.e., civilian casualties) in war zones. Yet, when looking at this through the lens of moral injury, one must ask if damage is really being minimized after all, considering that moral injury has been called the “signature wound” of service members returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.

As mentioned above, people also join the military to make a difference in the world. People want to defend the constitution and serve their country. People don’t enter our military to intentionally pursue military service that is morally questionable. This disconnect between what our nation’s public knows about war and the realities service members face is perhaps one reason we are seeing such a rise in moral injury as of recent conflicts. So many returning service members know the civilians in their day-to-day lives don’t understand what they’ve been through, or even fear judgment from them.

To begin to unpack some of these difficult questions, I don’t believe supporting those who have been tasked with fighting on my behalf is inherently supporting violence or combat. In fact, it is in allowing ourselves to experience, through the shoes of someone returning from combat, the moral ambiguities of these situations that we also give ourselves permission to sit with them and feel what they are feeling. As the quote suggests, if we want to be trustworthy listeners for veterans, we must first give ourselves permission to feel their pain. We must be open to these persons and allow them to share their fullest selves with us, should we hope to gain their trust and assist them on their journey to psychological and spiritual well-being. Through their eyes, and with their trust, we may begin to experience and understand these hidden realities of war.

Once we better understand what our nation’s soldiers go through, we might be more reluctant about sending them to war in the first place. This new awareness of veteran’s struggles may pave the way for more peace building. But it does require us to be accountable to those who fight on our behalf. We cannot hope for more peace while so many are not at peace, left to grapple with their experiences on their own. In my opinion, fostering understanding of our veterans’ full selves, including the parts of them that return from war, is inherently a peace building aspect. We allow ourselves to be transformed through listening and can no longer ignore their common humanity.

In short, I encourage you to be open. Take a step outside of your comfort zone and be willing to experience life from another’s perspective. Cultivate an understanding within yourself that’s big enough to make room for these complexities. We yet might be able to make room for ourselves to learn in being open to listening.

Even if you are afraid of what you’ll hear. Even if you are against violence. Even if you do not support the military. We must support those who serve for us. And we must make a place at the table for them to share their struggles.