American Social Reform Movements – Finals/ 9/13/2006 14:39 Page 225

18

Yolanda Huet-VaughnExcerpt from ‘‘Statement Refusing to Serve in the 1991 Gulf War’’

Issued as a press release on January 9, 1991.

Reprinted from Voices of a People’s History of the United States, 2004.

‘‘Do we as Americans want the responsibility of going ahead

with offensive maneuvers that could easily be the start of World War

III? And I ask you, what is worth all of this death and destruction?

What do we have after Vietnam except the tears and the pain and the

loss?’’

A person whose personal beliefs keep him or her from participating in

military service or military action is called a conscientious objector.

Historically, conscientious objectors have cited religious, political, or per-

sonal reasons for refusing military action. Some religious groups, such as

the Society of Friends (Quakers) or Jehovah’s Witnesses, are pacifists, or

against violence of any kind. Political convictions among conscientious

objectors are often directed at military conscription, periods of time when

eligible citizens are required by the government to serve in the military.

Many conscientious objectors in the United States took this stance

during World War I (1914–18) and the Vietnam War (1954–75).

Some conscientious objectors refused to participate in the Vietnam

War, the Gulf War (1991), and the war in Iraq that began in 2003 because

they believed those wars were illegal. For example, under the U.S.

Constitution, the president can initiate military action, but it is the role of

the U.S. Congress to declare war. In those wars, Congress voted to authorize

the president to use military force, but did not officially declare war.

The Selective Service Act, passed by Congress in 1948 and amended

in 1951, required that conscientious objection be based on religious

225

American Social Reform Movements – Finals/ 9/13/2006 14:39 Page 226

belief. In 1970 the U.S. Supreme Court removed the religious require-

ment and allowed objection based on a deeply held and describable set of

moral values or ethics. A 1971 Supreme Court ruling added that one’s

personal ethics must apply to war in general, and not simply to a specific

war or military action.

The lead up to the Gulf War was a tense period. Dr. Yolanda Huet-

Vaughn became a conscientious objector for professional and political

reasons. After having served in the military from 1977 to 1982,

Huet-Vaughn enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserves as a medical reserve

officer in 1989. Those serving in the reserves train in military opera-

tions, but live as civilians, or people outside the military. When neces-

sary, reserves can be called for service to help supplement the regular

U.S. armed forces.

After Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, Saudi Arabia, which borders both

Iraq and the much smaller independent nation of Kuwait, agreed to allow

U.S. soldiers stand near a destroyed SCUD missile, fired by the Iraqi military, during the Gulf War in 1991. More than 650,000

U.S. troops participated in the war, and nearly 150 died in battle. CONSOLIDATED NEWS PICTURES/GETTY IMAGES.

Yolanda Huet-Vaughn

226 American Social Reform Movements: Primary Sources

American Social Reform Movements – Finals/ 9/13/2006 14:40 Page 227

a base for troops, equipment, and medical support for nations that

were working together to expel Iraq from Kuwait. The military activity

was called Operation Desert Shield, and Huet-Vaughn was called to

report to Saudi Arabia in December 1990. She officially announced her

refusal to serve on January 9, 1991. Three weeks later, the Gulf War

began.

Things to remember while reading‘‘Statement Refusing to Serve in the 1991Gulf War’’:� Huet-Vaughn objects to Operation Desert Shield as ‘‘an immoral,

inhumane, and unconstitutional act.’’ She gives several reasons:

1) She believes the military action violates the Constitution; 2) she

maintains that the medical oath she took when becoming a

physician is to preserve life and prevent disease; and 3) she believes

that as a human she needs to protect the planet. By participating in

Operation Desert Shield, she would be violating both of those

beliefs. She cites potential dangers to civilians and the environ-

ment to back her position.

� During the Gulf War, there was great concern around the world

that Iraq possessed and would use chemical, biological, or nuclear

weapons. Huet-Vaughn emphasizes that this would result in a

medical disaster.

� Those who supported Huet-Vaughn’s refusal to serve in the Gulf

War argued that the Nuremberg Charter (1950) applied to her

case. The Nuremberg Charter is an international agreement that

defines the principles under which an individual can be tried for

war crimes, or crimes against humanity. The charter stemmed from

the Nuremberg Trials following World War II (1939–45) in which

Nazis accused of committing atrocities such as genocide—the

intentional harming and killing of a particular group of people—

were put on trial. Under Principle IV of the Nuremberg Charter, a

military person has an obligation to not obey illegal orders.

Similarly, American military manuals state that U.S. soldiers are

under no obligation to involve themselves in criminal activities. As

Huet-Vaughn notes, war plans against Iraq were likely to include

the bombing of Iraqi cities. The bombing raids would likely result

in civilian deaths (she notes that 57 percent of people in Iraq and

Yolanda Huet-Vaughn

American Social Reform Movements: Primary Sources 227

American Social Reform Movements – Finals/ 9/13/2006 14:40 Page 228

Kuwait live in cities). Planned bombing raids that kill civilians are a

crime under the Nuremberg Charter. Therefore, argued Huet-

Vaughn’s supporters, her refusal to serve was covered by Principle

IV, which reads: ‘‘The fact that a person acted pursuant to order

[under orders] of his Government or of a superior does not relieve

him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral

choice was in fact possible to him.’’

‘‘Statement Refusing to Serve in the 1991 GulfWar’’

I, Yolanda Huet-Vaughn, M.D., am a board-certified family physician, a wife,

a mother of three children ages two, five, and eight. I am also a member since

1980 of Physicians for Social Responsibility, the U.S. affiliate of the

International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War. In 1982 I

cofounded the Greater Kansas City Chapter of Physicians for Social

Responsibility. I am from Kansas City, Kansas. I am a captain in the U.S.

Army Reserve Medical Corps. In connection with the Gulf crisis I was called to

active duty service in December 1990.

Questioning the War in Iraq

Tim Predmore was on active duty with the 101st

Airborne Division near Mosul, Iraq, during the war

in Iraq that began in March 2003. In May of that

year, President George W. Bush announced that

major combat operations had ended. The speech

was delivered beneath a sign that read ‘‘Mission

Accomplished.’’

In August of 2003, American troops continued to

face hostile fire. Predmore felt compelled to write a

letter to his hometown newspaper, the Peoria

Journal Star, to question the ongoing war and why

it was started. On August 24, 2003, the newspaper

printed Predmore’s piece under the title ‘‘Death

Here without Reason or Justification.’’ The essay

was reprinted in the Los Angeles Times on

September 17, 2003, and on many Web sites.

The letter inspired many activists’ antiwar

sentiments and protests. Predmore soon received an

honorable discharge from the military and returned

home. In his letter, Predmore observed: ‘‘This looks

like a modern-day crusade not to free an oppressed

people or to rid the world of a demonic dictator

relentless in his pursuit of conquest and domination

but a crusade to control another nation’s natural

resources. At least for us here, oil seems to be the

reason for our presence.’’ He added: ‘‘There is only

one truth, and it is that Americans are dying . . . .

How many more must die?’’

Yolanda Huet-Vaughn

228 American Social Reform Movements: Primary Sources

American Social Reform Movements – Finals/ 9/13/2006 14:40 Page 229

I am refusing orders to be an accomplice in what I consider an

immoral, inhumane, and unconstitutional act, namely an offensive

military mobilization in the Middle East. My oath as a citizen-soldier to

defend the Constitution, my oath as a physician to preserve life and

prevent disease, and my responsibility as a human being to the

preservation of this planet, would be violated if I cooperate with

Operation Desert Shield.

I had hoped that we as a people had learned the lessons of Vietnam

[1954–75]—50,000 Americans dead—hundreds of thousands of civilian

dead—and environmental disaster. What we face in the Middle East is

death and destruction on a grander scale. Whereas in Vietnam we had 200

Military mobilization:

Gathering of troops and

military equipment.

An antiwar protester dresses up

like Uncle Sam during a

demonstration in Washington,

D.C., in 1991. The activists are

urging the government to end

what they consider to be an

unjust war. AP IMAGES.

Accomplice: An active par-

ticipant in illegal activity.

Yolanda Huet-Vaughn

American Social Reform Movements: Primary Sources 229