Follow us on social

google cta
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
google cta
google cta

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)
google cta
Analysis | Military Industrial Complex
nuclear weapons
Top image credit: rawf8 via shutterstock.com

What will happen when there are no guardrails on nuclear weapons?

Global Crises

The New START Treaty — the last arms control agreement between the U.S. and Russia — is set to expire next week, unless President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin make a last minute decision to renew it. Letting the treaty expire would increase the risk of nuclear conflict and open the door to an accelerated nuclear arms race. A coalition of arms control and disarmament groups is pushing Congress and the president to pledge to continue to observe the New START limits on deployed, strategic nuclear weapons by the US and Russia.

New START matters. The treaty, which entered into force on February 5, 2011 after a successful effort by the Obama administration to win over enough Republican senators to achieve the required two-thirds majority to ratify the deal, capped deployed warheads to 1,550 for each side, and established verification procedures to ensure that both sides abided by the pact. New START was far from perfect, but it did put much needed guardrails on nuclear development that reduced the prospect of an all-out arms race.

keep readingShow less
Trump Hegseth Rubio
Top image credit: President Donald Trump, joined by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Secretary of the Navy John Phelan, announces plans for a “Golden Fleet” of new U.S. Navy battleships, Monday, December 22, 2025, at the Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Florida. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

Trump's realist defense strategy with interventionist asterisks

Washington Politics

The Trump administration has released its National Defense Strategy, a document that in many ways marks a sharp break from the interventionist orthodoxies of the past 35 years, but possesses clear militaristic impulses in its own right.

Rhetorically quite compatible with realism and restraint, the report envisages a more focused U.S. grand strategy, shedding force posture dominance in all major theaters for a more concentrated role in the Western Hemisphere and Indo-Pacific. At the same time however, it retains a rather status quo Republican view of the Middle East, painting Iran as an intransigent aggressor and Israel as a model ally. Its muscular approach to the Western Hemisphere also may lend itself to the very interventionism that the report ostensibly opposes.

keep readingShow less
Alternative vs. legacy media
Top photo credit: Gemini AI

Ding dong the legacy media and its slavish war reporting is dead

Media

In a major development that must be frustrating to an establishment trying to sell their policies to an increasingly skeptical public, the rising popularity of independent media has made it impossible to create broad consensus for corporate-compliant narratives, and to casually denigrate, or even censor, those who disagree.

It’s been a long road.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

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.