Soldiers: Heroes, murderers or fools?

Remove all ads!

Mercenary being a soldier who goes to war for financial gain, fights for no cause, deliberately seeks conflict zones and is not too picky for whom he fights, I'd say that a soldier working in his own nation's army is not a mercenary even if it might improve his/her financial status.

This comes from me thinking that doing anything just for improving your finances is not reason enough.

 

The poll is highly flawed, so I didn't vote in it, but here's my two cents. My father volunteered in WW2 because he believed the Nazi menace was something that needed to be fought. He did not and does not like killing. According to him, most of the boys he flew with had the same mindset -- they believed in the cause they were fighting for but were not happy about having to take lives. Dad hated the military and left it as soon as possible. Given what we know of the Nazis I think it is safe to say that he was not naive in his belief in the necessity of fighting them.

Of course, there were some people who really liked the military and stayed in because they enjoyed the violence. I met a few fellows like that during my time in Japan. Vicious, violent, bloodthirsty bastards, no question. I do not believe, however, that they represent the majority of military personel, though I do believe they are a sizeable segment.

Then there are the naive who join the military all starry eyed thinking of parades and glory and believing that every war is 100% justified because their country knows all and is always pure. Again, I don't think naivety like that is rampant in Western militaries, but I do believe it is present.

I myself would have to have some pretty compelling reasons to join the military because I would not want to associate with the bloodthirsty bastards I mentioned before, even though they are a minority in the military. Also, I am not keen on killing people though I would like to believe that given a good reason I would have the guts to take a life. That's the sort of thing I believe you never really know until the time comes, though. I hope I never have to find out.

 

I haven't been in the army myself - the compulsory service here ended last year, and my eyesight pretty much disqualified me anyway - but most of my friends who didn't go to college, or graduated it before 2007, had to serve 9 or 12 months, and a few decided to try it out as a career. In general, I'd say the soldiers I've met pretty much have all kinds. I haven't met any larger-than-life heroes or any bloodthirsty psychopathic nutjobs, though.

In general, I guess they are about as normal as possible considering that a) the Army requires them to behave in certain ways and b) during wartime, they are literally fighting for their lives - as well as any ideals, money, or anything else they may crave. I'm pretty sure I would do a lot of things I currently do not approve of if I were going through that, so I try to avoid passing judgement on privates and sergeants. I try to reserve it for those giving the orders.

 

A few people have stressed the hero bit but for there to be a hero there needs to be a cause worth fighting for. Is there such a cause in todays world? Is there something that it is worth fighting for and which you can fight for with force of arms? LKD brought up WW2 and that is an instance where even mostly pacifist me can say that yes, that was a fight that was worth fighting. However, the fight would never have occured if Hitler and his buddies hadnt managed to manipulate and fool a generation or two of young German men. The Nazi soldiers fought for a cause they were convinced were good and noble and with hindsight I guess most of us can agree that it wasnt.

If there is no one willing to be fooled into into fighting for an unjust cause there is no need for anyone fighting for a just cause. Who is to say which cause is just or not though? As I see it the world would be a better place if we all could agree on there not being any cause worth fighting for.

 

I take with calling WWII a war worth fighting. In my view, international relations is in large part the management of violence; how many die, who dies, where they die, when they die, how they die, and so on. Therefore, when tens of millions die violently in less than a decade, there's been a cataclysmic failure of leadership on the part of all involved.

 

I'm planning on signing up this summer. With the end of my university career coming up soon, I've been deciding what I want to do with the rest of my life. I don't see working in an office as being especially fulfilling, in the Forces I'd have a chance to make a difference in the world. I believe that patriotism isn't in fact an out of date ideal, I'm willing to put my life on the line to protect my country and its people. I also feel uncomfortable with the idea of simply sitting safe at home while others risk their lives. I would feel happier with the prospect of being in danger myself, rather than having other people to do it for me.

I'm well aware of the fact that I'll be asked to take other peoples' lives, but the sad fact is that someone has to do it. If you believe otherwise, then you're naive. While I agree in principle with the "Wouldn't it be nice if everyone is nice" camp, you have to consider human nature. Mankind is a violent and competitive, and always has been. It's why we are the dominant species on the planet now. There will always be someone willing to attack someone else, and to defend against that, we need people that are willing to risk everything to stop them. As far as I can see, as long as humans exist, we will need soldiers.

 

Well, the thing is, you have just stated you are one of the people who are willing to attack other people. I know that we humans are self centered but dont you find it odd that everyone who is willing to fight is quite convinced that he is fighting for the good cause?

 

You're dreaming, Joacqin. As Warrior of the World pointed out, humans have been fighting and competing and killing each other for thousands of years. There is always going to be a group of people somewhere who are willing to use force to take advantage of those they perceive as weaker than themselves. That group frequently says that their victims should just shut up and take that violence because THEIR cause is just. Maybe sometimes it is, who knows, but the fact is that the "weaker" group is going to believe that their right to defend themselves is just and I really can't fault them for defending themselves or their interests

Bottom line, war and violence is not going to go away completely no matter how many people might wish it otherwise. Because it is so pervasive, it's going to sweep up all sorts of people into it.

That said, I really dislike militarism. The basic thrust of military behaviour is accomplishment of goals by force. To be completely honest, I wouldn't want the last line of defense for my country to be anything but. That said, military training can help soldiers stay alive in wartime situations, but in peacetime in a civilized society that training can be a detriment, as instead of using civilized options to solve their problems their minds default to violence and intimidation. That's why the one fellow I worked with in Japan has my undying contempt -- he was nothing more than a 5th grade bully in a grown man's body. I think he was attracted to the American military because it gave him an outlet for his violent anti-social stupidity. He was the type who would never make anything more than cannon fodder. Another American military type I ran across was a West Point student. He was the other side of the military coin -- a man of honor who wanted to defend America. He was, of course, officer material. He has my undying respect, probably because he gave respect to those around him.

I hear several stories even here in Canada about people discharged from the military who have a tough time re-integrating into society. While I think that the military should do all it can to help these people, in a basic sense I would say they were probably violent, anti-social people long before their time in the military.

 

Thats the very point LKD as you point out yourself. Everyone who is filling to kill and die is convinced they are doing it for the right thing. At least one side in every conflict is not doing it for the right thing and most often both. Why then, do we still put the people willing to do these things on such pedestals? Why do we revere the people willing to kill for ideas? We are rather fast in saying that suicide bombers are evil viscious people but what difference is there between them and the honorable man you met from West Point? They are both convinced they are fighting a just cause and in the case with the suicide bombers they are so convinced and so desperate that they are willing to blow themselves up to further their goals. As for then bringing up who they are killing is in my eyes irrelevent, they are all killing what they perceive as the enemy whether that is a schooclass on a bus, an entire village going about their life when they are struck by a few missiles or a uniformed soldier that has just killed your mate does not matter to me.

Who are we, or anyone to judge which cause is noble? To me the entire concept is obscene and insane. If we look at America when have that country ever really been threathened? Their soldiers have never fought to defend their country and loved ones the closest they have got is to help defend allies and yet it is one of the most miliatirized countries in the world and currently by far the most aggressive. What American soldier who joins up can actually be expected to *defend* their country? They might be expected to defend foreign interests but is that their country? What can be noble about expecting to go out and lay down your life or kill for pure political gains? Not to protect your family, not to protect your country but to achieve political goals in a foreign country (I am pretty sure you know my views on the Iraq war but even if you think the war was a good thing you cant really say the soldiers who fought were the weaker part trying to defend themselves from an aggressor).

It is the very fact that people are thinking like you we have the conflicts, every soldier thinks he fights for what is right (if he thinks at all most often I wonder if there is much thought going on anywhere in anyone) and our society feeds that idea, we lavish praise and admiration on people for it while if there hadnt been people willing to do it we wouldnt be overrun by the barbarian hordes cause if no one was willing to fight and die then there wouldnt be a barbarian horde.

I know I am being extremely idealistic but I just want to get at least a few people to see it all for the insanity it is, to open their eyes to the morbid spectacle it all is and how we, you feed it with your admiration and talk of justice and goodness.

 

joacqin,

You just may be the most enigmatic person I have ever known (at least in the capacity that an internet board allows you to know someone).

On one hand, you are an idealist, always seeking the greatest good for the greatest amount of people, and without exception seem to seek the moral high ground with altruistic intent. And yet, most paradoxically, you possess an unbelievably low opinion of your fellow man, and are extremely skeptical of everyone's motivations (no matter how sincere they may seem), which makes you come off as an uncaring cynical bastard, who doesn't give a damn about anyone.

I'm completely flummoxed. (And the above is intended neither as an insult or a compliment - it's just my observation).

On topic, most people I know who joined the military did so because they were having a tough time finding a job. If you were a college graduate, you could go to officer candidate school instead of enlisting in the regular military. And, if you agree to give them four years, they even pay off your student loans. Some of my friends thought it was a pretty good deal. And for one of my friends who became an officer on a nuclear attack sub who never really had his life threatened in any major way, it probably was.

I also know a few people born with star spangled-eyes who were very idealistic in their thinking if a tad naive. I know of no one who joined because they were bloodthirsty thugs, and similarly I know of no one who joined because they wanted to be viewed as a brave hero.

 

When it comes to myself I am still trying to work that out. I think the core paradox is that I view myself as a base, selfish, "evil" jerk but yet when I look around in the world I see that everyone else is a lot worse or at least no better than myself. It is just that they seem to lack the self insight to be aware of it. It can make you pretty weary and cynical if you know that you yourself is an ignorant selfish prick and yet when you look around you have yet to encounter many if any who seems to be any better. The bearing that has of my opinions of peoples motivations is that I judge others as I judge myself, and seeing as I view myself in such a light while still being convinced that most are a lot worse than me my view of their motivations must then of course be even lower than my already low opinion of my own motivations. From my point of view you could say that I am the only honest person I have ever encountered. I am even honest with myself and that seems to be rare in humanity.

Or it could just be that I am an arrogant, narcissistic self worshipper who really enjoys talking (or typing) about himself and is extremely flattered by your post.

 

Joacqin, I think most of us have days that we feel like jerks and we just wish all the stupid people in the world would vanish. However, I don't think that the world is full of moronic, unenlightened fools just because they happen to think differently than I do.

At the risk of sounding like a patronizing old coot, I think perhaps you are making the mistake that I see so many of my teenaged students make. They believe that just because they are smart the rest of the world must be dumb. As they get older, they realize that there are myriad other intelligent people out there who have also had occasion to deeply ponder life's mysteries. I can guarantee you that the people you are judging have no less "self-insight" than you do. Of course, they have no more, either!

 

Thats the thing LKD, thats the view I used to hold but the more I learned about the world and the more people I encountered the weaker that attitude got. Now I am fairly sure that there are plenty of people out there smarter and more enlightened than me, I just havent encountered many. That said, part of my narcissistic delusion is that I am also convinced that I am one of the few people who are aware of just how ignorant I am and am willing to admit it. Which in its own perverse way again allow me to think that I am smarter than anyone else.

 

Exactly. A lot of military members will spout off some patriotic BS when asked why the serve, but it you ask them again why the really serve, you'll find out that they like the stability, the (rather substantial) non-taxable housing allowance, the free (!) health care for themselves and their families, and the luxury of not having to go through the trouble of picking out an outfit every day. Having lived the lifestyle, I can tell you that it was actually quite a comfortable way to live. I've often thought about going back in (and when Bush is finally out of office, I just may). For all its inconveniences, the benefits almost always outweigh the drawbacks of the military lifestyle.

 

If anyone can enlist for military service for either patriotism or trying to get themselves a better life I have nothing, but the deepest respect for them. I am a person who I believe cares for the welfare of others in front of myself, but still I could never join the military. I'm just too much of a coward to do it, and that is one of my great weaknesses. So every single soldier in my book commands the most respect and reverence that I could give anyone unless they've proved otherwise they don't deserve it. If that means they're heroes, than I guess they are.

 

Nice to see the thread back on track and not getting mired down in my personal reflections about myself.

Drew, what inconviences would that be? Uniforms and discipline or that your job would be to kill people? Must say that I am surprised to see you ponder this, for some reason I had you pegged as a militant pacifist. Well, it seems to be that most people think it is perfectly ok and even admirable to make a living killing other people. That it is just a job like any other and seeing no moral issues with it whatsoever.

 

The way I see it, there isn't a moral issue of soldiers killing fellow soldiers. Both sides know that the risk of being killed is part of the job when they sign up, and if they don't, then they haven't considered it properly. I admit it gets a little more murky if you're dealing with conscripted forces, but to be honest, I can't think of a current conflict that we (British and NATO forces) are engaged in that isn't comprised of voluntary combatants.

 

So it is ok to kill people if both sides have volunteered? How can you be sure the people you kill have volunteered? What conflict today is between two standing armies where the lines are clear cut and the victims are only uniformed volunteering soldiers?

I know the hippy who handled the paper recycling told the kids to simplify but seriously I think humanity has gone a bit too far with our simplifying of the issues.

 

I think the difference between labeling somone a killer (murderer) versus someone who has killed another is motive.

There are certainly "murderers" in the military. By that I mean men and women who kill because they can, they probably get enjoyment out of it. There are many others in the military who would (did) pull the trigger when necessary. There are also many in the military who would not pull the trigger unless imminent threat existed.

When I first joined, I chose to serve on a support ship (we refueled other ships, gave them food, supplies and ammunition). I did not want to "pull the trigger." After a while I came to realize it didn't matter if I was handing the other guy the bullets or firing the gun -- in the overall scheme of things it was the same.

Yes, I would have fired the battleship's guns at any target I was ordered to fire upon. I would have launched a nuclear missile at a target if ordered by the President (only the President can issue such an order). I would have used lethal force to protect the weapons we had on the ship (I was in charge of security of the battleship). I never had to do those things, but I would have without hesitation. That was my job as a soldier (or sailor in this case).

Yet, I don't own a gun and am not violent. If you wish to classify me as a killer, then do so. But I would never kill another for money, power, or amusement.

 

Most people I know in the military haven't killed anyone. In fact, until the recent war you could argue it was quite likely that you didn't kill anyone.

I know two people who are active in the military. The one is the navy officer I mentioned. He hasn't killed anyone (not surprising as he serves on a sub). The other is with the army. He's been to Iraq twice, but both times handled logistics support, and never saw any action. (He's 38 years old, and they use the young ones on the front lines.)

I know three other people who joined the army right out of high school in 1992. The one went ROTC, the other two enlisted. The two enlisted served 4 years, and got out, never killing anyone, and then used the GI Bill to go to college. The ROTC guy ended up staying with the military through 2000 (you have to give them 4 years after you graduate college). He didn't kill anyone either.

The current conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan is actually the first time in a while that we have soldiers killing people. (There was hardly any killing in the first gulf conflict - Saddam's army melted away.) Not surprisingly, recruitment in the military is at record lows. Most people don't actually want to kill other people, and most definitely don't want to be killed by other people. This is the first time in a generation that there is a good chance you'd be ask to kill people in the military. If you served in the second half of the 70s, there were no conflicts of significance. Same thing for the 80s. (OK there were a few dust-ups in the Middle East and Latin America, but nothing that involved more than a small fraction of our military.) We had the Gulf War in the 90s, but not much killing there. Former Yugoslavia (but only if you were a bomber pilot), but a small fraction of our military, and now this.

I think it is reasonable to say that the reason why recruitment numbers are down is that people know they will be in a situation where they may be killed and will be asked to kill others. For the 25 years before the current Iraq and Afghanistan wars, you had better recruitment because it was much more likely that you would NOT have to kill anyone.