The pro-military rhetoric at SU has gone too far

In the past several years, Syracuse University has made great strides toward becoming, in Chancellor Kent Syverud’s words, “the best place for veterans.” Through transforming aspects of admission, housing and credit transfer processes — and through the creation of the National Veterans Resource Center and several new degree programs — SU has successfully tailored its offerings to this unique group of prospective students. It brought veteran and military-connected enrollment up to 5% of the total enrollment in 2019. 

Syverud claims that this shift extends a much-needed hand to a group often neglected by educational institutions. He has written that military-connected individuals have much to offer a college community and that their presence will enrich the university culture as a whole. Perhaps some of the impetus of this policy lies in the federal funds made available with the creation of the 2008 Post-9/11 GI bill. Regardless, SU’s revival of its status as a haven for military-connected students brings political consequences which must be considered in full.

SU acknowledges that creating an environment that welcomes military-connected students requires a multifaceted transformation of aspects of the student experience. While it is easy to believe that this shift consists simply of the creation of an accepting atmosphere for the often-older and often-stigmatized veteran and military students, it is naive to ignore, and dangerous to accept, the marked increase in nationalistic, pro-military rhetoric coming from the university as it relates to these initiatives. 

Any such rhetoric which defends or celebrates the U.S. military is consequently a voicing of support for U.S. imperialism, neocolonialism and mass murder. Rather than participating in the recreation of U.S. ideological hegemony, SU students must condemn this rhetoric wherever it appears.

Let us examine some examples. The university released an article on Aug. 30 and another on Sept. 9 analyzing the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. 

The August article cites SU professor Kristen Patel, who worked for 25 years as an intelligence contractor, including a stint with the CIA. Patel writes, “Ultimately, we will not know who is to blame without knowing what was briefed to policymakers and U.S. military leaders prior to the withdrawal”.

Notably missing from either of these analyses is the fact that the United States armed and funded the Taliban (then-mujahedeen fighters) in a successful effort to destabilize the country and coup the socialist-leaning government in the early 1990s. Perhaps this, and the subsequent 20-years long occupation of the country, had some role to play in creating the current situation.

Even the student-run news organization The Daily Orange is guilty of espousing interventionist sentiments. In a Sept. 9 column, one author writes of the U.S. war in Afghanistan, “The American government spent years destroying al-Qaida forces and aiding in the transition to a democratic government.” They claim that the Taliban takeover of the country has robbed Afghan women of the rights that the U.S. occupation of the country granted them. Any U.S. war or military occupation has the exact opposite effect of what this author believes to be true. In the U.S. carpet bombing campaigns of the Korean War, in which 5 million Koreans died, did the U.S. pilots take any steps to avoid civilian targets? How could women’s rights be protected by a U.S. military force that kills civilians indiscriminately? Undoubtedly, such military action has no interest in creating “democracy” or acting in any way to protect or support the citizens of the country it occupies. 

Even though all of these articles make some concessions in admitting the failures of the war in Afghanistan, rhetoric like this paints U.S. foreign policy as a series of poor decisions made in good faith and ignores the reality of global U.S. imperialism, a reality in which the accumulation of capital is the supreme rule and free markets must be secured and defended even at the cost of the genocidal destruction of the earth and its people.

U.S. nationalist rhetoric on campus reached a fever pitch as SU and the country recognized the 20th anniversary of the attacks of 9/11. At the Saturday football game, pregame ceremonies and an excellent halftime show by the marching band commemorated the event with patriotic music,  American flags and military uniforms abound. In a university-wide email that day, the chancellor wrote “As a community and a nation, we come together today to remember the pain of those who suffered. We come together to support Syracuse alumni and all who serve in the defense of our nation.” 

In his call to “remember the pain of those who suffered,” is Chancellor Syverud including the people of Afghanistan and Iraq, hundreds of thousands of whom died as a result of the “defense of our nation” which followed the 9/11 attacks?

Notably, an SU professor came under fire on twitter for challenging the popular view of the attacks. 

On Sept. 13, Syverud and David Van Slyke, the dean of the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, wrote in a university-wide email that the professor has the right to free speech. SU will not condemn or dismiss the professor for the tweet, Van Slyke and Syverud said in the email. 

In light of this self-righteous defense of free speech, we must recognize that the university has time and time again taken stances fundamentally in support of the U.S. military and U.S. global hegemony. Any cursory survey of U.S. foreign policy clearly shows that the U.S. military is the enemy, rather than the agent of peace in the world. 

Interventionist wars, which seek only to prevent oppressed people from seeking self-determination independent of U.S. business interests, have killed tens of millions of people since the beginning of the Cold War. The United States shows no signs of stopping this trend as the military pivot towards China intensifies. 

Syracuse students must support the liberation of oppressed people across the world from the grip of U.S. imperialism and oppose at every turn the interventionist rhetoric of our university administration.

Liam Hines 20’

M.M. Music Education 22’