Do you support the troops?

[kochman]

If people were already in the military, they could have refused duty, as some have done in the past.

They would have no honor then, because they made an oath. Unless the orders are immoral, you have to do it, or face the repercussions (read - spend the rest of your life working at McDonalds flipping burgers).

Besides Iraq, there are of course other examples of the American military doing horrible things in the past, but I am using a recent example. One older example I suppose, would be the troops who willingly carried out the Balangiga massacre in the Philippines.

Wow... holy crap, coming from a Frenchman, this is pretty ironic.

 

[MobBoss]

Mostly no because I do not support war for any reason.

So, just as an example of this, you would be ok with being over-run (or killed) by Nazi German forces led by Hitler and living under that regime?

(and yes, I fully realize the Godwin moment there....feel free to insert evil bogeyman of your choice if needed)

I mean I get that people 'say' they dont support war for any reason, but its generally my experience that its said without regard to every eventuality that they could face. A person saying that will usually have a 'yeah, but' moment if presented with an evil enough example or a justifiable enough reason to engage in said war.

 

[Me,myself,and,I]

A soldier must never ever disobey a legal order given by someone authorized to give that order.

Plus, international law? Ain't no such thing, that is a cover word originally used by communists and later adapted by the rest of the world for international treaties. The reason it was originally called international law is because they wanted it to override the laws of various nations allowing them to create a world wide communist regime, ofc the other nations wouldn't go for it as this was the cold war and everybody thought those soviets were up to no good.

TL;DR version There is no such thing as international law, only multi-national treaties.

 

[Me,myself,and,I]

On the "choice" issue, I think a lot of young people join the army without an adequate understanding of what they're getting into, or they were subject to high pressure salesman tactics of less than scrupulous recruiters. I am of the assumption that the vast majority of new recruits are very young. So while we have a "volunteer force" I do believe that the armed forces are "sold" to people as something they are not. Television and movie portrayals of war contribute to this, the military is not the only one complicit in glorifying what it is that they do.

Not to take away from the positives of the armed forces, I have many family members serving or who have served. But I won't fault a soldier who is serving in Iraq, for example, for their simple presence there on the basis that they chose to join the army/navy/air force. (@Shane, I don't think that was your point, but you made me think of this.) I will fault them for doing something wrong, to an extent, but of course then you also have to take into account all the psychological trauma and other issues swirling around serving in a war and what that does to your mind, as well as the military's responsibility to put people in the field who are capable of doing their job competently. E.g., not putting people who are apt to crack and do something horrible out in a war zone, or properly monitoring mental health and warning signs.

By the time you get deployed, you are ready. The military makes very sure to weed out those who won't make good soldiers or don't know what they're getting into. The US doesn't have "green" troops as you would historically think of them, a US green soldier is equivalent to a line soldier in older armies (such as the US during WWII).

 

[duckstab]

Mostly no because I do not support war for any reason. At best it is a massive waste that is necessary to stop an even more horrific waste of life, resources and history. Although as many wars have shown that doesn't seem to work out to actually save very much.

You're entitled to your opinion, but you should bear in mind that ultimately the reason you're able to express that opinion is because there is a military protecting you.

I'm saying this as someone who is basically an anti-war lefty. I'd strongly prefer nonviolent means wherever they can be effective.

But I'm also a realist. There has yet to be a time in human history where military force is completely unnecessary. Unless and until humanity evolves to the point where nobody is going to willingly inflict harm on another, a military will always be a necessary last resort to ensure that people's lives, rights, and property are protected from those who would use violence to take those away.

I can foresee a time, maybe even in the next century or so, when any war of choice, or even violent suppression of internal opposition, is basically regarded as a criminal act by a renegade government. But even that can only happen if the international community is prepared to respond to any aggression with superior force.

So to answer the OP, I support the troops. I don't always agree with how and when they're being deployed, but I applaud their courage and dedication, and am grateful they're there.

 

[Me,myself,and,I]

You're entitled to your opinion, but you should bear in mind that ultimately the reason you're able to express that opinion is because there is a military protecting you.

I'm saying this as someone who is basically an anti-war lefty. I'd strongly prefer nonviolent means wherever they can be effective.

But I'm also a realist. There has yet to be a time in human history where military force is completely unnecessary. Unless and until humanity evolves to the point where nobody is going to willingly inflict harm on another, a military will always be a necessary last resort to ensure that people's lives, rights, and property are protected from those who would use violence to take those away.

I can foresee a time, maybe even in the next century or so, when any war of choice, or even violent suppression of internal opposition, is basically regarded as a criminal act by a renegade government. But even that can only happen if the international community is prepared to respond to any aggression with superior force.

So to answer the OP, I support the troops. I don't always agree with how and when they're being deployed, but I applaud their courage and dedication, and am grateful they're there.

Yeah but the road to that future is paved with bodies. There are to many people who are simply mediaeval in their outlook, or evil.

 

[Smellincoffee]

The idea of people sublimating their individuality to the state's desires give me pause, to be frank. It's nothing I would do, and something I wouldn't endorse support. I understand the desire to serve, though, and know that soldiers are often the victims of the states that waste their lives in disreputable endeavors (like the Great War). They are willing victims, though. My kind of soldier is the person who questions orders and who strives to do the right thing -- not necessarily what s/he is ordered or instructed to do.

 

[illram]

By the time you get deployed, you are ready. The military makes very sure to weed out those who won't make good soldiers or don't know what they're getting into. The US doesn't have "green" troops as you would historically think of them, a US green soldier is equivalent to a line soldier in older armies (such as the US during WWII).

I'm not talking about green troops. I'm talking about pre-deployment mental health screening, adequate mental health monitoring and behavioral monitoring programs during deployment, and adequate mental health treatment post deployment. All of which are issues faced by any military, particularly one strained to its limits such as ours.

And on a finer point, how much blame to lay at the hands of the supervisory authority in assigning culpability when things go wrong, when one takes into account all the variables leading to the wrongful act. Such as when troops commit war crimes.

 

[civver_764]

I support them insofar as I don't want them to die, same with any human being. But beyond that no I don't support them at all and I think they do a lot of evil around the world.

 

[MobBoss]

The idea of people sublimating their individuality to the state's desires give me pause, to be frank. It's nothing I would do, and something I wouldn't endorse support. I understand the desire to serve, though, and know that soldiers are often the victims of the states that waste their lives in disreputable endeavors (like the Great War). They are willing victims, though. My kind of soldier is the person who questions orders and who strives to do the right thing -- not necessarily what s/he is ordered or instructed to do.

This is another largely false assumption...that soldiers are mindless automatons with no individuality what-so-ever.

Of course there is room to be an individual while in the military, but not the point where it over-rides the team mindset. There is a need for uniformity and discipline, sure, but make no mistake even with that we are still individuals regardless.

I dont mind a soldier questioning orders, as long as its done in an effort to learn and to understand they why of things. Such knowledge and experience only makes a good soldier an even better leader down the road. But a soldier who continually second guesses his leadership is not a soldier at all...he is simply a touble-maker, a noxious weed that needs to be pulled from an otherwise orderly garden.

The old adage holds true...we do what we are told to do (presuming the legality of the order is not in question) because at the end of the day to do other than that is to put lives at risk.

 

[civver_764]

I dont mind a soldier questioning orders, as long as its done in an effort to learn and to understand they why of things.

Not much point to that if the soldier isn't allowed to act on that reluctance(without being guilty of insurrection) is there?

 

[MobBoss]

Not much point to that if the soldier isn't allowed to act on that reluctance(without being guilty of insurrection) is there?

Questioning an order doesnt need to infer a reluctance to perform that order. But good NCOs have myriad ways to encourage soldiers that appear reluctant to follow lawful orders.

Military isnt a country club or debate team. Often there isnt time to 'discuss' options, and literally hestiation can get people killed. We train, and train, and train....and then train some more so that such things we do when lives are really on the line are ingrained and second nature and done without hesitation.

 

[NickyJ]

Do you support the troops?

He[ck] yes. I still have dreams of someday becoming worthy enough to serve in their ranks.

 

[Tecknojock]

I'm curious as to why it matters if the order is Legal or not. Shouldn't the question be if the order is Moral?

Consider a world where it is legal to rape Muslim women. Suppose a CO gives an order that involves raping Muslim women. Shouldn't the soldiers disregard this order because its an immoral order, despite the fact that in that world it is a legal order?

 

[zjl56]

The military is enshrined at the constitutional level as one the of the primary tools of protecting the Republic, and I hope that it will always remain an apolitical institution. As an apolitical institution all the blame or credit for political effects of our military actions should fall on the shoulders of the President and the Secretary of Defense, and never on the shoulders of our soldiers. While this is incredibly vague, the prime example would be the Vets returning from Vietnam. While the Vietnam war was an incredible waste of both men and money, the way we as a society treated our veterans was absolutely disgusting. We were angry and upset at actions that had been decided at the highest political levels, but this disgust was put on to returning soldiers rather than McNamara and President Johnson. With this in mind, despite the skyrocketing costs that are occurring in facilitating our new crop of veterans, I believe that the last possible place we should look to cut in the budget should be the VA.

 

[MobBoss]

I'm curious as to why it matters if the order is Legal or not. Shouldn't the question be if the order is Moral?

By who's morality?

Thats a huge grey area to be honest. Whats moral to you, might not be to someone else.

By using legality as a yardstick, we create a definite what is black/what is white system with no grey area what-so-ever. Its much clearer and easier to implement, and enforce.

Consider a world where it is legal to rape Muslim women.

Why do you have to use such an outrageous example? Do you have anything more realistic?

Suppose a CO gives an order that involves raping Muslim women. Shouldn't the soldiers disregard this order because its an immoral order, despite the fact that in that world it is a legal order?

Presumably, in such a world that would allow such an order as legal, who's to say it wouldnt be morally acceptable to such a society?

You are comparing two entirely different things here....you take an utterly nonsensical example that has no comparative value in our real world, and then apply our current level of accepted morality to it without thinking that maybe, just maybe, such a society that would allow such a thing could have far, far different morals than we do.

 

[Ajidica]

By using legality as a yardstick, we create a definite what is black/what is white system with no grey area what-so-ever. Its much clearer and easier to implement, and enforce.

Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't many aspects of the legal system quite subjective? What one judge may find objectionable the other may not find it objectionable, and so on?

 

[MobBoss]

Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't many aspects of the legal system quite subjective? What one judge may find objectionable the other may not find it objectionable, and so on?

We arent talking about a judges interpretation of the law, we are referring to what a soldier is told about legal orders and illegal orders. It is very well defined in military regulation what is allowable and what isnt, plus, its briefed and trained into soldiers so much and so often that there is literally no excuse - no defense if you will for following an illegal order. Thats why the military has like a 90% conviction rate for court martials on soldiers that fail to obey orders, there simply no real subjective question involved on whether you did it or not.

Again, there are more than a few differences in the civilian legal system and the militarys Uniformed Code of Military Justice.

 

[BuckyRea]

As long as you pay your taxes, it doesn't matter what you think.

 

[Tecknojock]

Such an example has no relevance if one holds moral relativism is true, I suppose. It seems you do, however, admit that legality does not always line up with morality.

What if you find your orders to be immoral? Doesn't a moral agent have a duty to act morally?