Dissent is critical in trying to create social change; it's about challenging the status quo. Dissenting from the norm is the way we create change. The term dissent turns some people off, but what dissent really is, is critical thinking. When you're challenging and proposing new ways of doing things, that's also a form of dissent. Challenging the norm is really the only way to affect social change. Call it what you want as long as you aren't silent. The main thing is voicing your concerns, put some time into analyzing so you are clear, and talk to people to get things changed around.

What do you wish you knew about becoming someone identified with dissent, before you actually did it?

For me dissent was giving up a job, a career - I knew that was what I was doing. My dissent was resigning from the US government. In my resignation letter I listed the war in Iraq, the lack of balance in the US approach to the Israel/Palestine situation, concerns about N. Korea, and concerns about curtailment of civil liberties under the Patriot Act. I was told it was one of the longest letters of resignation yet submitted! You can find it online.

But for other folks-when they make the bold and courageous choice to dissent when they're in the military-they know what will happen, they know they can go to jail and yet they do it anyway. I hadn't thought through the ramifications of resignation, and maybe it was a good thing I hadn't. I was so wrapped up in my concerns regarding the Bush administration going to war (my letter was preceded by a Dissent cable I sent to state dept from the US embassy in Mongolia) - I was so focused on resignation, that when they received my cable in Washington DC, I knew they had gotten it because a personnel officer called and asked 'Where do you want us to send your stuff?" Before that moment I hadn't even thought where I would live or what I would do - I hadn't planned past that moment of resignation.

Maybe others in the military who have resigned or leaked information had similar experiences as we were so focused on the need to dissent versus what would happen afterwards. If I had been focused on consequences, maybe I wouldn't have done it. After I resigned I received messages from over 400 people who agreed with me but who felt they couldn't resign because of personal concerns-like kids in college, or a mortgage.

Maybe one of the reasons we have so little dissent is that people focus on the consequences of dissent rather than on dissent itself. Daniel Ellsberg, for instance, didn't know when he copied those pages that a possible consequence for him was 80 years in prison. If you think about those things you might not do it. The consequences are so monumental, so severe. For instance, over 35 people in our military have refused to go to Iraq and some have served up to 15 months in jail. That's a long time to sacrifice, but they after say they wouldn't have done it any differently because they have to live with themselves.

What advice would you give a young person thinking about a career in the military?

Right now, I would say be very careful about joining the military. The US is now involved in two wars with no end in sight. In Iraq, even though troops are supposed to be non combat, people are getting killed. Especially because there are no lines, the conflict is all around you. Once you are deployed, you will be in the conflict. You will come home with life- long terrible memories. For most people there will be nightmares, rage and anger, uncontrollable things that your mind can't stop happening. I would say, look to your longer life. While the military may seem glamorous, over 80% of vets have post-traumatic stress disorder. The statistics on suicide are the highest they have ever been-including Korean and Vietnam vets, there are 18 vets each day that commit suicide. These effects go on for decades. I say, talk to a veteran. That's where Veterans for Peace and Military Families Speak Out can help - they can tell you about the ravages of war.

Can someone be a peace advocate while working for the military?

It's a very hard thing to do, even though the military itself would say that they do have groups that work for nonviolence - I used to work with civil affairs group that works building schools, etc. If you start talking peace while you're in the military, you will develop a reputation that will make others in the military very uneasy. They want everyone to believe the same thing-that's the protection of the unit; everyone is working together toward the goal of that operation. If the secretary of defense says to other cabinet members, 'Maybe the military option is not right for a particular international situation, maybe another strategy is better' - in that way, something new can happen. But when people of lesser rank say something like that, they are castigated in their units and told that those types of decision are "above your pay grade." The American people have a propensity to elect people who have an inclination to go to war. If you're in the military, you're there to go to war whenever the elected leadership decides the country should go to war. There are other groups that are supposed to be trying to do negotiation and be nonviolent - like the State Dept - but many in the State Dept want to use the military to resolve international issues. And other places like the US Institute for Peace are an extension of the war machine - it's a military think-tank of a different name, it doesn't seem like a very peace-oriented institution.

Could creation of a US Dept of Peace make a difference?

A cabinet level department of peace would be at least a statement symbolically. Right now when you look at the State Department, its role is supposed to resolve things in a nonviolent, diplomatic way. But if you look at the funding, you'll see the state dept is funded like a pauper. We value war and the military because it's profitable. The question is: how do we make the pursuit of peace profitable? We have to make peace profitable. Millions of dollars could be made from solar energy. If we wanted to use the technological prowess the US is so proud of, then take the scientists out of the Los Alamos and Livermore Nuclear Laboratories - get them working on critical issues of the day, like how do we provide clean energy? If we wanted to focus these people on nonviolent profitable industries, then a Department of Peace might have some traction. But right now considering the plight of the State Department with very little funding - the military rules the roost. A Department of Peace would be a huge, huge leap, but the deck is stacked against us, because unfortunately America and most Americans are warmongers. We have to change our whole culture.