Navy dissenter Jonathan Hutto speaks on antiwar protest in military

by Sean Howard / March 2007 issue of Socialist Action Newspaper

Following is an interview with Petty Officer Jonathan Hutto Sr., a U.S. Navy seaman. Hutto was the main initiator of the Appeal to Redress, an antiwar petition of active-duty U.S. service members that calls for "prompt withdrawal" from Iraq. The petition, signed by over 1000 soldiers, was delivered to Congress on Martin Luther King Day, Jan. 16, 2007.

SOCIALIST ACTION: What were the major reasons that got you interested in organizing the Appeal for Redress?

JONATHAN HUTTO: Well the idea, the motivation for the Appeal for Redress comes out of the history of the GI movement, which, as you know, was a movement of active-duty soldiers, sailors, and Marines in the Vietnam War who were very active in the ranks voicing their opposition to the continued occupation and bombardment, and their distress over Cambodia and beyond.

The book that chronicles that entire movement, David Cortright’s "Soldiers in Revolt," [Haymarket Books, 2005]—which I had the chance to read in its entirety while I was along the coast of Iraq on an aircraft carrier—really gave me a lot of motivation. It also gave me a lot of ideas of what we can potentially do in today’s period and the current crisis we are in.

The Appeal itself is based on military law, Defense Department directives that most active-duty personnel are not aware of. One is called the Military Whistle Blower Protection Act (that’s DOD directive 7050.6), which basically says that any and all active duty members of the military without prior command approval and without any reprisals for having done so can communicate with members of Congress on any issue.

As for the motivation, one thing I read in "Soldiers in Revolt" was that in 1969, 1365 active-duty members of the military posted an open ad in The New York Times calling for an end to the Vietnam War and also calling for commanders not to punish soldiers, sailors, and Marines or have any reprisals against them for participating in civilian demonstrations at that time.

SA: When you read Cortright’s book about Vietnam, what jumped out at you as being the same or different from the situation in Iraq?

JH: In terms of the similarities between the government then and now, you’re pretty much dealing with the same ideology through the eyes of imperialism—the ideology of war and bloodshed and willingness to sacrifice the lives of workers, no matter whether it’s here in America or there in Iraq.

They have no regard at all to public opinion. No regard at all to what voters are saying. In the late 1960s, you had mass demonstrations of the kind that we haven’t seen as of yet in this Iraq war, and the response of the Nixon administration was greater escalation of the war (though shifting to more of an air war to avoid what was taking place within the Army—resentment and dissent toward the bombing of Cambodia, etc.).

Today we’re seeing the same type of response. We have people who went to the polls, who are trying to use the electoral process as a way of voicing their dissent to the war. And the response [from the government] … has been a "surge," if you will, and now what we see as an inevitable showdown with Iran. There are three aircraft carrier strikers off the coast of Iran right now.

I think one of the contrasts right now is probably in the mass movement. I think we’re just now starting to see some level of movement within the military itself. It’s still not the level that it was during the [Vietnam War] GI movement, but of course that movement was just a microcosm of what was going on in society overall at that time.

I think that’s one of the main contrasts. We haven’t yet gotten to that point where the mass movement has infiltrated every level of society, but we are starting to see more numbers come out. On Jan. 27 we were all emboldened by what we saw out there. March 17, I think, will be even better.

SA: Do you think these mass demonstrations affect opinions in the military and the confidence that people in the military have to start speaking their minds?

JH: I think so. The Army Times just did a poll a couple of months ago that said that 72 percent of active-duty military actually oppose what they term as the "handling" of the current war. I think that’s huge. I engage in conversations on my carrier with men and women who don’t have much faith in the war effort; they pretty much don’t understand why we are even there, and the only reason that they would go is primarily economic.

One of the contrasts of the military of 35-40 years ago to the military of the present is that now you are dealing with more men and women who are married, who have families, who have more of a commitment, if you will, to a loved one, to a husband or wife, to a child; so it’s more of a job. So when they are called to go they go as an economic duty for the most part.

But I think people were emboldened. They were definitely emboldened by our actions, the actions of the few of us that had a chance to go.

SA: Does the fact that so many more soldiers have families now, as opposed to during the Vietnam War, create openings for people organizing in the military that they didn’t have before?

JH: One of the openings that it’s created is a constituency of military families, which is something that you didn’t see as much of during the GI movement. Although in the GI movement you had more mass numbers of GIs involved, today we have more mass numbers of their families involved. At the Jan. 27 demonstration you saw Military Families Speak Out, Gold Star Friends, and of course, Cindy Sheehan—who’s becoming a symbol of that movement.

SA: A lot of people are seeing the film, "Sir, No Sir!" They are starting to learn that it does matter what soldiers think and that soldiers can organize. But one of the first responses I hear from people who are still skeptical is that back then people were drafted, and now it’s all volunteer—so the same things can’t happen. On the other hand, David Cortright came to the conclusion in his book that the volunteer soldiers were just as active, if not more active, than the draft soldiers. Do you think that’s true?

JH: It is true, and a good point you bring up. Cortright broke down the people who are active in the GI movement into two camps. There were your dissidents, and there were those who just disobeyed.

The quintessential Vietnam dissident was someone who had some level of college experience; had either graduated, or maybe like Charlie Sheen’s character in "Platoon," had been to college for three years, just trying to figure out what he wanted to do.

The dissident probably didn’t outright buck military authority, but would do things like write an underground newspaper, distribute them in different places, and go to a meeting at a GI coffee house and things of that nature.

The other group was people who probably didn’t have college experience and probably didn’t come from the Northeast or the Midwest. These were people who just instinctively bucked authority, who would get into fights with stockade guards, a lot of fighting, and what have you.

But it is true that … a draftee was someone who came there for two years or a little more, they pretty much kept their head down, they pretty much figured, "Let me get through this and keep on going."

Whereas, the enlistee was someone who had some promise of a job, sometimes the crudity that you’re not going to be a Vietnam vet alone. These were people who weren’t just there for two years; they were there for four and five years. There’s a longer level of commitment, and so because of their politicization through that process, having felt that they got shammed, they were the backbone of the GI movement.

Can that happen today? I believe so. I believe we see it already happening in small ways. Of course, the Appeal for Redress has been the major way we’ve seen thus far, although it’s much crafted within the established procedures of what you can do.

Undeniably, most movements start out this way. It depends on how the government chooses to respond that dictates what level of activism people are willing to go to. I think we have yet to see where this movement is going to take us.

SA: What do you think will shape the direction the movement takes?

JH: My hope is that the Appeal for Redress serves as a vehicle to politicize active-duty military across the country. My hope is that these active-duty Appeal signers will then begin to form Appeal groups of their own and not only focus on war and imperialism but also listen to the issues that are basic grievances that GIs go through—racism, sexism, homophobia, and all forms of oppression and intolerance.

[They include] the issue of stop-loss orders: military personal being augmented from the Navy and Air Force to go to Iraq. They find all kind of creative ways to retain soldiers who are separating from the military.

They’ve got a program now called the Individual Warrior Program, and it sounds like a back-door reserve: "This is the way we are going to bring you back, have you retrain for two weeks during the summer, recall your weapon and everything." It’s a way of keeping people tied to the complex.

Those basic grievances [include] the economic issues. I mentioned earlier that more military personnel, particularly in the lower enlistment ranks, are married today than they were 35 years ago. The reason is that the economic incentive to get married wasn’t there 35-40 years ago.

Thirty-five years ago you got married and you still made the same amount of money. Today there is this thing called BAH, where if you get married, depending on where you are, you get an additional, maybe, $8000-$9000 on your check.

So all these basic grievances that the active duty go through, coupled with the higher issues of imperialism and war, hopefully will bring about a new and revitalized GI movement—but one that sustains itself and that can have a sense of permanency and an organized structure.

SA: One of the aspects of the Vietnam GI resistance that really got things going was the rise of Black nationalism in this country, and you see that very much in "Sir! No Sir!" People were bringing Malcolm X tapes in to the GI coffee houses. Today, there’s a surge in the immigrant rights movement. Do you see any similar effect among Latino active-duty soldiers, or Black soldiers, or other groups?

JH: I think you see a lot more of the identity consciousness today amongst the immigrant Latino sailors than you do the Black sailors. At least on paper, it looks as if Blacks are more integrated into the military structure than they were 35-40 years ago. You now see more African Americans in the higher ranks.

But to me that’s just symbolic; I think that proves more than anything that that kind of symbolic integration is not really a true fight against racism. A fight against racism is a systemic fight—it is one that seeks to change the overall structure of society.

A personal example: when I first came into the Navy, I went through some racism myself. Not what I would call discrimination; more like harassment from a couple of guys. It was because I was political; there’s this notion that for an African American to be political he has to hate white folks, which really isn’t the case.

One of these guys in a mocking way displayed a hangman’s noose in front of my face. Now, this was the actual culmination of a year and a half to two years of struggle within the shop on these issues with my chain of command.

The reason I bring this up is because the leadership of my chain of command was an African American E6 and African American E7, and a Jewish EA. These people of color stood right in front of the Executive Officer of the ship and took up for the racist perpetrator. What does that say?

We could apply that same situation to police brutality in a neighborhood somewhere. Just because you have a Black or Latino officer—we see these guys killing with impunity too. It’s the system, not just individual acts.

SA: How can antiwar civilians work with soldiers resisting the war and expressing their dissent?

JH: Soldiervoices.net has become a really good tool. It’s a medium where people can get educated and really get involved with active-duty members. These members of the military are looking to build [links] with civilian organizations and to get active together on issues.