Is what I do and am wrong?

[Chazumi]

When you are part of a team of men that depends on each other, and the training involved in that.....having those kind of doubts can get people killed.

Thanks Mob, that honestly is prob the best advice I can get from an outside source. I just been having some emotional issues with this third deployment. Needed to vent somehow. Love you buddy

 

[DNK]

Being proud of that is wrong, yes.

It's quite human. Too bad reality doesn't live up to ideals.

You're a soldier, not a murderer. You are no more a murderer than your Commander In Chief, and if he is a murderer then so are the 300 million Americans he represents. You are being sent over there because this nation, collectively via its elected leadership, wants you over there.

He doesn't represent 300 million Americans... more like (rough figure) 50 million. A bit crazy, isn't it, democracy that is? 50 million people deciding the fate of 250 million others. Quite representative imo... Then again it's the fault of about 100 million of them for not voting in the first place. Lovely thing, politics.

So is there no room for personal choice, critical thought? A soldier can't say "no" ever to a deployment? Decide this war is not worth fighting for? Not to take part in the killing? He can disagree with an order on the ground that is clearly immoral, but not a war that is, in his opinion, immoral? Why?

I'm not arguing against Iraq/Afghanistan specifically here, just the idea you brought up as it is.

 

[choxorn]

It's quite human. Too bad reality doesn't live up to ideals.
He doesn't represent 300 million Americans... more like (rough figure) 50 million.

Actually, more like 70 million, according to Wiki. About 130 million voted out of about 305 million, so 175 million either did not or can not vote.

 

[bhsup]

The President is every citizen's President whether they voted for him or not. I sure as hell didn't vote for Clinton in 96, but he was my President nonetheless. So yes, the President represents all 300 million of us.

 

[choxorn]

The President is every citizen's President whether they voted for him or not. I sure as hell didn't vote for Clinton in 96, but he was my President nonetheless. So yes, the President represents all 300 million of us.

A. It's 306 million, according to this. Yes, I'm just being a nitpicky SoB, it's fun.

B. Regardless, the opinions of a nation's leader are not equal to the opinions of the nation he is the leader of. That he wants soldiers in Afghanistan does not mean all 306 million of us do.

 

[DNK]

Actually, more like 70 million, according to Wiki. About 130 million voted out of about 305 million, so 175 million either did not or can not vote.

wiki: 50 million in 2000, 62 in 2004. Lets say 62 to be fair.

The President is every citizen's President whether they voted for him or not. I sure as hell didn't vote for Clinton in 96, but he was my President nonetheless. So yes, the President represents all 300 million of us.

He legally represents us, yes, that is clear.

I did not consider GW to be "my" president after about 2002.

 

[choxorn]

wiki: 50 million in 2000, 62 in 2004. Lets say 62 to be fair.
He legally represents us, yes, that is clear.

Wait, what? What number are we going by here?

 

[DNK]

Wait, what? What number are we going by here?

Popular vote, it's in the graphic area to the right of the 2000/04 election pages.

 

[choxorn]

I was going by the one in 2008 (between 69-70 million), which I thought was what you and VCRW were talking about.

 

[Defiant47]

If the representation thing were true or relevant, then killing civilians would be no different morally and legally than killing commanding officers.

 

[Gustave5436]

Chaz...there is nothing wrong with being a good soldier. Follow the laws of war, obey legitimate orders and do what you have to do. End of story.

Considering the general left side spin of the audience here...there is absolutely no way that solicting any advice here would be of benefit to you. If you are truly having questions I suggest a trip to the Chaplain is in order. Remember, you are not alone, and are part of a brotherhood - a team. Never forget that.

Resignation (or, if that be impossible, desertion) is a perfectly reasonable piece of advise. Humans naturally have reservations about killing other humans, the only way to avoid the negative emotions related to participation in acts of violence is to not engage in acts of violence.

 

[Death_Machine]

could you tell me about your experience in iraq and afganistan? and if there is discrimination towards arabs/muslims in the army? and how wide spread is it?
i am seriously considering dropping out of college and enlisting when i turn 18.

Don't drop out. If you wish to serve then finish college (see about a GI BILL) and then go in as an officer.

No, you're doing humanity a favour by culling the herd.

Culling the Herd by EXODUS:

They're everywhere and everyplace
Scum of the human race
Stickin to my skin like a rash
Society's their scapegoat
But I am the antidote
And it's time to take out the trash
The world's a big cesspit
Of puke and piss and dogshit
But I ain't gonna be its whore
Follow and I'll lead the way
Predators are now the prey
Results like these are hard to ignore

You may think I'm insane
Or maybe just a little absurd
What you don't understand is
I'm just culling, I'm just culling the herd

I know I'm not the only one
Who thinks that something must be done
To clean the garbage up off the street
Dare to look me in the eye
I bring the truth, never lie
To me, they're just another piece of meat
The punishment will be swift and sure
For this disease, I am the cure
No problem, the doctor is in
My prescription for a better life's
A riffle or a razor knife
Remove whoever's under your skin

But please, don't call it a murder
Cause murder's such a dirty word
What you don't understand is
I'm just culling, I'm just culling the herd

[1st Solo R. Hunolt]

[2nd Solo G. Holt]

When will everyone realize
Some people should be sterilized
Their tubes are only fit to be tied
All they do is . .. .. .. . and breed
To ignorant to ever succeed
Stupidity should not be multiplied
Lend them not a helping hand
Or the future will be damned
The world will take a turn for the worse
The human race should be purified
Or we'll all be mongrelized
Implement the cure for the curse

You may think I'm a madman
Or maybe just a little disturbed
What you don't understand is
I'm just culling, I'm just culling the herd

Chaz...there is nothing wrong with being a good soldier. Follow the laws of war, obey legitimate orders and do what you have to do. End of story.

Considering the general left side spin of the audience here...there is absolutely no way that solicting any advice here would be of benefit to you. If you are truly having questions I suggest a trip to the Chaplain is in order. Remember, you are not alone, and are part of a brotherhood - a team. Never forget that.

excellent post

 

[Defiant47]

Obviously you need to seek professional psychological help because of your war experiences. As such, don't let anything you read on the Internet (i.e. my post) affect you in any way. I post this because I am going to disagree with you on some points, which may be offensive to you because of how much you sacrifice. You are free to read no more, but I somehow doubt I am going to affect you in any way; you are either too over-the-top and not necessarily so dead-serious, or way too strong to actually be affected.

I am a killer. A destroyer of men. Funded by tax dollars and time from the government to destroy those we don't agree with. I am a weapons expert, trained and proficient in my warrior tasks and drills.

That's basically the way it is.

I am a guardian of freedom and the American way of life. Yet I am sent on missions and patrols that often cost many people their lives. To include Americans that fight for the same cause I do.

And that is indeed noble. If you believe that you are actually guarding freedom and your country, then you are a patriot. However, that breeds some interesting problems which I'll address later.

I risk everything in my job. My wife, daughter,

Pardon me, but how are you risking your family? Is your family not safe back home? How are their lives being put on the line by you serving overseas? Unless you were some sort of spy on domestic terrorism where they could be kidnapped as collateral or revenge, I don't see it.

my life, am I merely a murderer? In 15 days time from this post I will be in Afghanistan. Not my first tour of duty as an "infantryman". I have been to Thailand during the uprising, Kuwait, Iraq during Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), and now Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) in Afghanisan.

By strict definition, you are not a murderer, as your killing is not unlawful.

I kill people. That is my job. I am trained and even through numerous training sessions of "We are there for Hearts and Minds men", I am still a killer. That is what I train to do. Kill people. Does that make me a monster? Am I nothing but a murderer?

Assuming an ideal world:
Not necessarily. Sometimes it is necessary to have people like you risk their lives and their sanity to protect others so that not everyone has to bear through what you have endured.

The issue is, what about when you're not in the ideal world? What if you are twisted and manipulated by your superiors and politicians to perform deeds that do nothing to aid anyone, especially Americans? What if your missions are immoral? Then you become a tool of evil, doing all sorts of evil deeds, without even knowing it. (Consequently the reason why I'm not joining any armies anytime soon)

People it seems, are easy to kill. There are a hundred different ways to do it, and they train me in 99 of 100 ways to kill someone. I am resourceful and unrelenting. I am remorseless. Is this "uncaring, unwavering, unsettling" way in which I bring about individuals deaths, does this make me unhuman? Why do I not care? Roughly 7 billion humans, and I bring about 50-100 deaths everytime they send me, does this make me a murderer? Am I one to judge America's destruction? Or am I just a cold-blooded killer?

It may make you unhuman because of the nature of your work, but you deserve no less praise because of that. You undertake tasks that are necessary, and sacrifice your humanity so that the rest of us don't have to.

Two weeks, two weeks and they send me again, I cause death once more. In a different country. A different mentality. A different sector in the world. I don't think twice about it. They shoot at me, I kill them. I offer my life as collateral. Am I a murderer?

To continue from a point I started earlier, you have to keep in mind that you are doing what you believe is right. You are protecting freedom and the American way of life, as you believe, and thus would logically have no moral qualms about doing what is necessary.

The flipside is that your enemy believes the same. They are protecting their own freedom and their own way of life, and in many ways believe that what they are doing is right likewise; maybe in different ways, but with the same conviction and the same belief in rightness.

What's the end result of this? People who believe what they're doing is right killing people who believe what they're doing is right. How to stop this? How to prevent killing and bloodshed if even good-thinking people can be brought to kill good-thinking people? When you find the answer to that, you have solved the world peace problem.

Because of this, I choose not to enter into a military career (though I might change my mind were my country ever to be invaded).

 

[MobBoss]

So is there no room for personal choice, critical thought?

Of course there is. However, there are also ramifications for that. If you have such thoughts dont enlist or re-enlist. Simple. But when you put name to paper on a contract you obligate yourself and have made your choice.

A soldier can't say "no" ever to a deployment?

Not without a court martial resulting. Typically 'I dont wanna' isnt a good enough reason to not go.

Decide this war is not worth fighting for? Not to take part in the killing? He can disagree with an order on the ground that is clearly immoral, but not a war that is, in his opinion, immoral? Why?

An order to deploy isnt an immoral order, but rather a legal one. Sure he can have his opinion about the war - but he is still called upon to meet the obligation of his enlistment and serve. To disobey such an order is to face a courts martial.

 

[Bill3000]

Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword."

ten chairs

 

[DNK]

I was going by the one in 2008 (between 69-70 million), which I thought was what you and VCRW were talking about.

Why use an outlier? It'll be back to 50 mil in 2012 probably once everyone realizes there aren't political "saviors" and all the kids get jaded.

If the representation thing were true or relevant, then killing civilians would be no different morally and legally than killing commanding officers.

I think the distinction here is that although the civilians that directly supported the war would be morally responsible for its impact, they also have made the choice to not participate in the bloodshed directly and so are not a direct threat to anyone so involved and so killing them would be fairly pointless and unnecessary - an ethical wrong with no positive ends to justify its means. With commanders you are limiting your opponent's capabilities, organization, whatever - inflicting sometimes marginal sometimes massive operational inefficiencies. You can take out a Cpt Smith and the unit loses morale and is commanded by a less competent newly-promoted Cpt Jones. You will do better in battle. You can take out a Gen Patton and you can exact a massive toll on your opponent's strategic competency, and you can greatly increase your chances of winning.

Killing even 1000 citizen Joneses isn't going to do jack for your chances of winning or ability to fight on the "battlefield". By all means it will just increase your opponent's morale and tools he uses against you. Kill 0 civilians and there are no secret prisons, no all-out measures. Kill 1mil civilians and you're looking to get carpet bombed or nuked.

You could argue killing them would decrease the opponent's will to continue the fight and that they are indeed the ultimate commanders in this line, but without nuking an entire country it would be impossible to eliminate the commands. Historically and sociologically these actions seem to increase the will to fight so it's not a valid reasoning unless your goal is to get the opponent to fight you. I would argue a lot of terrorism and violence in general has this as its root cause, at least in the less "civilized" parts of the world, but that's getting out of the philosophical arena.

So, it's basically an argument of utility: the ends are not there for civilians as they are for officers.

Edit (further subtext): there is no ethical argument to be made for killing someone in a war save to serve a utilitarian end which has an ethical ends for with the means are considered in balance with the reality of the situation. It is not a matter of killing because someone is responsible but because doing so can bring about a better world through some logically sound system of justification.

 

[Death_Machine]

You can take out a Cpt Smith and the unit loses morale and is commanded by a less competent newly-promoted Cpt Jones. You will do better in battle. You can take out a Gen Patton and you can exact a massive toll on your opponent's strategic competency, and you can greatly increase your chances of winning.

Wrong. This is why small unit leadership is so important. I know in the USMC (probably the other branches as well) there is a big emphasis on not only knowing your job, but whoever is directly above you.

The converse of your example could also be true: by eliminating a Gen Patton you might just end up promoting a Gen Sherman, then you just screwed yourself hard.

 

[DNK]

Of course there is. However, there are also ramifications for that. If you have such thoughts dont enlist or re-enlist. Simple. But when you put name to paper on a contract you obligate yourself and have made your choice.

Understood. But it is a legal contract, and if you feel following the contract would not be ethically sound, do you not have an ethical personal obligations to break the contract, assuming the perceived negative consequences of going through with the contract would outweigh whatever negative ethics would come out of breaking a promise/contract?

 

[Defiant47]

1) Civilians provide for the industry.
2) Civilians are easy to kill.

If it weren't unethical, killing civilians would be useful and efficient, assuming that a proper opportunity cost analysis is done (i.e. a better military target and damage is not available).

 

[Dachs]

1) Civilians provide for the industry.
2) Civilians are easy to kill.

If it weren't unethical, killing civilians would be useful and efficient, assuming that a proper opportunity cost analysis is done (i.e. a better military target and damage is not available).

You're assuming that the destruction of industry is a viable goal.