Soldiers: Heroes, murderers or fools?

Remove all ads!

Does that matter Aldeth? If you are fireman but there are never any fires in your precinct is your job still not to put out fires? T2Bruno struck upon a very important issue and another one which I have given much thought and that is that it doesnt matter what your task is in the military. Even if you are a nurse or a doctor you are a part of an entity whose sole purpose it is to use force, often lethal force to achieve political objectives.

The other thing T2Bruno brings up is, is the old "it isnt my responsibility" aka "I was or would only be following orders". Did you have such a faith in your leaders that on their word you would kill, in the case of a nuke, tens of thousands of people? That doesnt make you into a killer as you say, it just makes you into a tool. Now I am going to where for some reason most threads go and which is quite often the death of any thread, we all know them and we all love to hate them: Nazis. Was the prisonguards in the koncentration camps? They were probably not violent men, they went home to their families, played with their children and most of them were probably decent chaps to hang out with. Does that mean that what they did was right? Does that absolve them of any responbility? I know we all love to be in structured societies, I know we love to have other people tell us what to do. To not have to feel that horror that is responsbility. It wasnt my fault, someone else told me to do it and it was my job to do it. It wasnt my fault the missile I launched wiped out a family with four children eating dinner, intel had told my officers that it was a weapon depot and my officers trust intel and I trust intel. On the word of another human being, a faulty, ignorant, prejudiced human being (like all human beings) I am willing to kill? Is that not something that ever crossed your mind? Hell, I would probably have done and reacted just like you and just like the nazi prison guard, it is how we humans work. I am not in that situation now though and from a distanced viewpoint I can see it for the abomination it is and see that it isnt *right*.

 

Aldeth: The 4,000 American deaths in Iraq has more to do with low recruitment than the possibility an individual will have to kill someone IMO.

joacqin: If you want to call me Stanley the Tool, that's fine. I never passed the responsibility up the chain. I am completely responsible for my own acts -- I can disobey orders, it is my option, and there are those who do just that. I have no problem with the individual who chooses to follow such a path and face the consequences. I fully understood the radius of affect of the weapons I used. A single 16" round made a crater 10 meters in diameter and 3 meters deep. It sent out shrapnel (some as large as 10kg) out from the point of impact at 1500 meters per second. Everything withing 100 meters of impact was considered killed. And we fired nine rounds in a single volley -- two volleys a minute. And that's just the conventional weapons -- we had the capability of launching the Tomahawk TLAM-N variant (a 20 megaton nuclear weapon).

I've been involved in planning and strategy. I understand what goes on to develop rules of engagement and how targets are classified. I also understand the fallibility of human intelligence -- as do those in command positions giving the orders. I understand the process for these decisions -- and what safeguards exist to prevent 'collateral damage.' I also understand how the decision making process in these events can go wrong. Yes, I trust the leaders that make these decisions, but I do not blindly follow them. Those who blindly follow their leaders are wrong. Those individuals in forward positions must assess the situation and use rules of engagement (including the requirement to minimize collateral damage) to meet the everchanging environment. That is the responsibility of every military member. You apparantly do not believe military members are capable of such responsibility -- and for a minority of individuals you are right. The vast majority of military men and women are very capable of making good ethical choices under pressure.

To compare every member of the military to Nazi prison guards is a bit extreme. I am sure there were some guards who were simply doing their job, but far too many appeared to be completely amoral. In many cases they were specifically selected because of their lack of morals. Your attempt to humanize those guards failed, just as it did when they were tried and convicted of war crimes and atrocities against humanity. In this case, you have gone overboard in your example and put a dagger in your own argument.

As I mentioned before -- the difference IMO is motive and intent.

 

So your closing argument is that it is ok to launch weaponry to wipe out other human beings if your intent and motive is pure or at least if you are reasonably sure the people you kill are "bad people"? Thats the thing here, rules of engagement? What is that? Is that to tell you when it is right to kill? How can it be right to kill? For what did you kill or would have killed? You are claiming that you in coldblood, fully knowing what you did (or would have done, not sure if you are saying you actually did it or would have done it if the situation had arised) and taking full responsibility for your action launched weapons that killed other human beings. How is that ok? How is that something that doesnt seem wrong to you? Were the people you launched (or would have launched) those weapons at threathening your family or your or your own life? What reasons would you have for such a an action? For me the entire concept boggles the mind and yet you think it is perfectly ok to do such a thing. You are even proudly declaring that you full well knew what you did. Are you so sure of yourself and the people above you on hte ladder that your intent is pure and your motive is good? Heck, every atrocity ever committed on this planet was done by people convinced their intent was pure and their motive good. Do you ponder these things? Would it be right for someone who was convinced your wife was the devil to go and shoot her? His intent is pure and his motive is good he would be getting rid of what he perceives as the root of all evil. That is a good and just thing is it not? What makes you so confident that you know better than such a man, what makes you so sure that you are better than the nazi guards? Do you have every fact, have you thought of every angle so you know, you knwo with every fibre of your being that you objectively did a good and just thing when you ended the lives of the people struck by the weapons you launched? Or, did you just kill a bunch of joes just like you who just happened to be born in another country?

 

That's not the point I'm making. But if you want to use that example, if there was a very low probability of ever having to respond to a fire, you'd probably have a lot more people willing to become firemen.

All I'm saying is this: Joe Average probably doesn't want to kill other people. Joe Average DEFINITELY doesn't want to be killed by other people. All things being equal, Joe Average would rather not be in a situation where bullets are whizzing past his head and he's whizzing bullets past other people's heads. However, if there is a low probability of actually being placed in that situation, your risk assessment is different.

T2B is correct in that joining the army now means you almost certainly will see combat - and recruitment numbers are way, way down. The number of people signing up for the army today is about 1/3 as many that were signing up before the Iraq war. To put that in perspective THREE TIMES AS MANY were signing up before the war. I have to think that the threat to them and the possibility of having to kill others factors into the decision to not sign up.

 

joacqin: That was a much better expression of your argument. And I agree with you. I believe everyone must understand why they, as an individual, would do such a thing. They need to understand there is a difference between "bad people" and an enemy -- the enemy is rarely "bad" and often has very similar values and ethics.

We all have our own set of values and ethics. These guide our decisions (hopefully). A question you indirectly raise is "at what point is another person an enemy worthy of destruction and not an innocent?" I can't answer that for anyone other than myself.

The issue of an enemy is complex. On a personal level, the definition is simply as you say -- someone that is directly threatening the life of someone I care about. That's a very basic and easy to understand definition and probably universal for nearly everyone. A notable exception is a true follower of peace, such as Ghandi who said "there are many causes for which I would die, but none that I would kill." I believe he was a truly remarkable man with a level of courage I do not possess.

At what point the enemies of a society enter into the definition is an interesting topic and what you appear to be driving at. As I said, this is different for everyone. I believe a society must protect national interests. If threats to those national interests are great enough, there may be cause to remove that threat. That is what militaries are for -- removing threats to their country. The threat may not be physical attack. I don't believe the use of lethal force in the face of direct physical attack is a dispute here.

Most of my experience has dealt with the US military ensuring trade routes remain open. Seagoing trade routes are vital to the US economy and any power trying to influence trade routes are viewed with suspicion. Because trade is so important to the US economy, the US Navy aggressively ensures "freedom of navigation." This means, the US will operate in international waters as defined by internation convention. Some nations try to extend territorial waters to limit trade and threaten ships operating in those waters. The US Navy (and British Navy) usually responds to such threats.

Although we could go into history lessons and economic forecasts, I'll just state both the British and US governments believe a collapse of trade would destroy both governments and send the nations into chaos. As such, for those of us who agree with this assessment, lethal force is acceptable to ensure the trade routes remain open. Much of the conflict involving the US and Britain has come about from this belief.

Since I believe this scenario, I would use lethal force to support the US position on this issue.

Aldeth: I can see your point. Firefighters have a high risk factor -- yet they have people volunteering to do the job. I also believe people are more inclined to want to save lives than kill.

 

I've done some atrocious things well knowing my intentions were not pure and my motive definitely as far from good as you might imagine. I'm jut lucky enough so nobody's ever gotten seriously hurt or traumatized...I know how one might want to justify one's wrongdoings and for me those justifications mount up to diddley squat. Had I continued my military service, I probably would've never seen combat, not because I would've been unfit for it, but because of my studies back then entitled me automatically to a "special" training (noncombat and nothing to do with intel, just for the record)

Now only thing I can do is make sure that those situations would never come in which I could be the worst kind of person there is and get away with it. I'm not a pacifist as such, I just don't like the murdering bastard I would definitely be if there'd be war.

 

As mentioned by others, most members of the military don't kill people...and there's no way I would serve in the infantry. I served as a linguist and signals analyst and, if I returned, I would do so as a musician. The military, my friend, is a tool. Under normal circumstances, most of a soldier's time is spent training for missions that will probably never happen. If a politician chooses to prosecute an unjust and unnecessary war, blame for those deaths lies squarely on the shoulders of the politician, not on the soldiers, airmen, sailors, and marines just doing their jobs. The Army doesn't start wars.

I am proud to be a pacifist. I chose to leave the Navy after George W Bush delivered an infamous speech in which he labeled several nations as part of a so-called "Axis of Evil". When I realized that we had a president who didn't value peace or diplomacy and who was actually foolish enough to label entire nations as "Evil", I canceled my re-enlistment. I wasn't going to serve under a man like that a day longer than required. Contrary to popular belief, pacifism doesn't actually preclude you from service. Refusal to serve and to fight when necessary precludes you from serving. While I may be a pacifist, I most assuredly am not a conscientious objector. I recognize that war is sometimes necessary.

 

Hell of a post, Drew. I couldn't agree more.

 

Drew, I voted against Reagan when he chose to routinely call the Soviet Union "the Evil Empire." IMO, Reagan was scary, he intentionally goaded the Soviets on a regular basis.

 

It's in actions not in status. If they fight for the country, for a good cause, they're heroes. If they kill for fun and enjoy causing suffering, they're psychos. There is also a number of less extremal types.

 

Exactly. The innocent blood would be on the hands of the one who ordered the unjust war, not on the hands of the soldiers. A soldier is responsible for his conduct, not the orders given.

 

In general, I agree. Still, can't a soldier be held accountable for following unlawful orders, such as performing massacres, ethnic cleansing or other war crimes?

I think something like that was put forth at Nurenberg and the related trials, where quite a few military commanders (and possibly soldiers) were prosecuted. I think there was something about not carrying out unlawful orders, strange as that may sound at war.

 

First two comments to T2Bruno, very good post. I do not agree with you but that is the best most well thought out argument I have seen for your stand poin. It is nice to see that some people actually do give their actions some thought even if I do not agree with their conclusions.

My second comment to you is, wow, you are the first American I have seen who seems to share my view of Reagan. I was very young when he was in power but I get really afraid just seeing his old speeches. From my point of view he threw the dice with a 50/50 chance of either starting a nuclear war or bankrupting the Soviets. Thankfully for all of humanity the Soviets went bankrupt and did not respond to Reagans goading but it is a gamble that even when you in hindsight saw that it worked was not worth risking.

It is nice to see so many people chip in to a thread without actually having read many of the previous posts, do that myself as well quite often but it makes it hard to reply to things you have already adressed in earlier posts.

I am going to single out Drew again though. Of course it is the politicians who are responsible but it is the fact that there are people willing to die and kill for those politicians who enable them to make decisions about sending them out to die. If there were no people willing to fight then the politicians could have shouted their lungs off about how wicked X is and how we needed to go and kick their butts. You cant control what orders the politicians are going to give the military and when you join you agree to follow whatever orders they do give (and I know about codes of conduct and unlawful orders and whatnot). Also, as I stated before what you do in the military really have no bearing, everything that is done within is done with the aim to kill people in some way. Even if it is only to cheer up the troops with a bit of music or impress the civilians with a rousing Souza march so they will think it is ok to see their children sent off into whatever conflict is going on.

Edited it for being awkward to see people quoting me when I have accidentely left out words which makes my statements something not intended.

 

Actually the most important part of my job after the training was to ensure that the guys who were reaching their mental breaking points didn't go out and kill themselves or anyone else, of our guys that is. During peacetime and during war that would have been my duty.

That, and keeping up the morals for those who were in need of religious guidance. It'll be interesting to see what my duty'll be if there'd be a war, since I've gone through the training, yet I'm a civil servant nowadays and I have nothing to do with the armed forces and nothing much to do with theology anymore.

 

Splitting hairs here, T2, but it'd be more accurate to say you would never kill another for your own money, power, or amusement. Nations don't tend to engage in armed conflicts that don't have any money or power at stake.

And no, I'm not taking you to task for being an ivuldemonsoldierfromhellyoubadbadmanyou.

 

I think you understood that there were supposed to be a "no" in the phrase you quoted from me Iko but in case you didn't I am pointing it out now.

Even what you would have done in the army would be to further the goal of the military of wacking the guys on the other side. It would be rather demoralizing to have a bunch of freaked out wackoos running around doing nasty things. Could have a very detrimental effect on fighting spirit.

 

@joacqin: You're right, you're right. What I'd like to underline is that there's soldiers and then there's soldiers and even though it takes a certain type of people to join the armed forces or start a military career, the group of people that are called 'soldiers' can't be boxed in into a clearly defined category. And then there's the question of a person doing one's job and making a mess of one's life when he/she's wearing civilian clothing...A career or a job doesn't define the person to an extent that might be considered relevant...

For instance, how would you classify soldiers working in peacekeeping, or how would you classify soldiers guarding charity organisation's shipments?

 

Mostly fools who willingly brainwash themselves to be able to kill a man without any bad coincence. Mostly.

 

Register: If a person needs brainwashing, they shouldn't be in the military. To call men and women serving in their military "fools" is totally inappropriate.

 

Conscription. You don't need to be willing to fight. They can always draft you. For a man with a family to support, getting paid to fight in a war you don't agree with is a far cry better than going to prison. You also ignore the fact that dismantling an army won't make potential enemies go away. Dismantling your army won't stop less enlightened nations from building up their armies and invading your country. In fact, it tends to encourage it.

You are right, of course, that war usually isn't necessary. Most wars (even some of the worst wars of our history) could have probably been avoided with smarter diplomacy or more timely intervention. Some wars cannot. It only takes one irresponsible, irrational, power hungry war monger to start a war. Unless you consider rolling over and surrendering your nation's sovereignty to a psychotic despot a valid and reasonable way to handle an invasion, there are times when war will be necessary.