Follow us on social

Meet the veterans who chose 'paths of dissent'

Meet the veterans who chose 'paths of dissent'

They sacrificed for their country in Iraq and Afghanistan but these individuals want you to reconsider whether they ever should have.

Analysis | Military Industrial Complex

One of my heroes, Major General Smedley Butler, said “We Americans who will protect our flag should have a voice in where it is flown.” The two-time Medal of Honor recipient and author of War is a Racket exemplifies the model of a dissident soldier. 

Voices of today’s soldiers, all veterans of the Global War on Terror, have been collected in a new anthology, Paths of Dissent: Soldiers Speak Out Against America’s Misguided Wars, edited by (Ret.) Maj. Danny Sjursen and (Ret.) Col. Andrew Bacevich, President of the Quincy Institute.

The book shares fifteen individual stories of how soldiers — in some ways big, in some ways small — dissented from what their high command, their government, and in many ways society expected of them as they advocated to bring our troops home.

Their perspective should come as no surprise. “War dissent is committed by those with a deep love for the country and its soldiers, for honesty, justice, humanity, and the rule of law. They bring light to situations clouded by secrecy, lies, and propaganda,” relates contributor Kevin Tillman, whose family is intimately familiar with the government’s secrecy, lies, and propaganda.

For several years, polls have demonstrated that veterans support military withdrawals from the Middle East at higher percentages than the civilian population. We witnessed firsthand the failures of nation-building, the ineffectiveness of raw military power to solve political problems, and the lack of coherent strategy or victory conditions.

As contributor Matthew Hoh discloses, “The entire U.S. government, including our military, intelligence, and diplomatic corps, was — and is — full of people who don’t believe in America’s endless wars, don’t believe in our supposed reasons for fighting them, and don’t believe that the sacrifices and costs are worthwhile.”

What Paths of Dissent achieves is giving a human face to those polls.

Each veteran writes in their own unique style — some very casual, others much more academic — with each new chapter a refreshing change from the one before it. Others who have served will recognize many moments in the book related to their own experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

Encountering “waste, fraud, and abuse” is a common moment. Daniel L. Davis witnessed how military contractors falsified weapons test results so they could continue fleecing the U.S. taxpayer for billions, all under the nose of a Pentagon leadership content to keep the money flowing. Gil Barndollar recalls overseeing the construction of a schoolhouse in the remotest part of Afghanistan, so shoddily put together by local contractors that it stood a better chance of collapsing on the children’s heads than educating any of them.

The unglamorized carnage of war and counterinsurgency is another familiar theme. Dan Berschinski walks us through the day he lost his legs to an IED only a month into his deployment. Erik Edstrom describes an eighteen-year-old private in his platoon, “lying on his back, bones broken, blood pouring from his lacerated lips” from an antipersonnel mine blast, coughing blood onto his uniform as he pleaded, “I want to come back to the platoon, sir.” And Joy Damiani, tasked with creating a military-issued newspaper, describes a page of casualties whose “font size shrank in every issue, the list stretching into two and then three columns as the months heaved on.”

Lastly is realizing how your fellow Americans see you and your service, both during deployment and when you return. Buddhika Jayamaha compares the chattering commentariat (“peddlers of self-serving delusions”) back home to the “spiritual leaders” and clerics of Iraq, happy to bloviate about a situation where they have no skin in the game.

Elliott Woods says the men he served alongside “came home to a country that thanked them for their service but had little interest in understanding what they had actually done overseas or what they had left behind.” Jason Dempsey refers to this disposition as “respectful indifference” to “an institution applauded at sporting events but never questioned about what it does overseas.”

Paths of Dissent is addressed explicitly to that respectful but indifferent public. The book is not just an account of the Global War on Terror, but a plea for its immediate end. But for veterans, reforming American society may prove as difficult as trying to win in Afghanistan.

Several of the contributors lament how the connection between citizenship and public service has been severed by the elimination of the draft and the creation of an all volunteer force. In a country where less than 1percent of adults are on active duty and debt-spending replaces taxes, what incentive do most Americans have for caring about our wars? About the lives of our soldiers?

But despite the gargantuan task, in chapter after chapter these veterans describe the actions they’re taking to make a more conscientious citizenry, whether through writing, educating, or organizing. “[I]f you’re supposedly trying to stop a war, then you should be willing to sacrifice as much as those who are fighting it. If not, why bother?” asks Vincent Emanuele.

We labor tirelessly so that our brothers and sisters in uniform may be spared the consequences of our government’s bad choices. That’s patriotic dissent, and it’s why you must read this book.


(Shutterstock/Leena Robinson)|(Shutterstock/Leena Robinson)
Analysis | Military Industrial Complex
Trump tariffs
Top image credit: Steve Travelguide via shutterstock.com

Linking tariff 'deals' to US security interests is harder than it looks

Global Crises

In its July 31 Executive Order modifying the reciprocal tariffs originally laid out in early April, the White House repeatedly invokes the close linkages between trade and national security.

The tariff treatment of different countries is linked to broader adhesion to U.S. foreign policy priorities. For example, (relatively) favorable treatment is justified for those countries that have “agreed to, or are on the verge of agreeing to, meaningful trade and security commitments with the United States, thus signaling their sincere intentions to permanently remedy … trade barriers ….and to align with the United States on economic and national security matters.”

keep readingShow less
Kurdistan drone attacks
Top photo credit: A security official stands near site of the Sarsang oilfield operated by HKN Energy, after a drone attack, in Duhok province, Iraq, July 17, 2025. REUTERS/Azad Lashkari

Kurdistan oil is the Bermuda Triangle of international politics

Middle East

In May, Secretary of State Marco Rubio declared that a strong Kurdistan Region within a federal Iraq is a "fundamental and strategic component" of U.S. policy. Two months later, that policy was set on fire.

A relentless campaign of drone attacks targeting Iraqi Kurdistan’s military, civilian, and energy infrastructure escalated dramatically in July, as a swarm of Iranian-made drones struck oil fields operated by American and Norwegian companies. Previous strikes had focused on targets like Erbil International Airport and the headquarters of the Peshmerga’s 70th Force in Sulaymaniyah.

The attacks slashed regional oil production from a pre-attack level of nearly 280,000 barrels per day to a mere 80,000.

The arrival of Iraqi National Security Advisor Qasim al-Araji in Erbil personified the central paradox of the crisis. His mission was to lead an investigation into an attack that Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) officials had already publicly blamed on armed groups embedded within the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF)—components of his own government.

keep readingShow less
Sudan
Sudanese protester stands in front of a blazing fire during a demonstration against the military coup, on International Women's Day in Khartoum, Sudan March 8, 2022. REUTERS/El Tayeb Siddig

Sudan civil war takes dark turn as RSF launches 'parallel government'

Africa

In a dramatic move last week, the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) announced the selection of its own prime minister and presidential council to compete with and directly challenge the legitimacy of the Sudanese government.

News of the new parallel government comes days before a new round of peace talks was expected to begin in Washington last week. Although neither of the two civil war belligerents were going to attend, it was to be the latest effort by the United States to broker an end to the war in Sudan — and the first major effort under Trump’s presidency.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.