Support Our Troops?

[Arwon]

OK, I'll bite this one - at what point does it become unacceptable to fail to say 'Mr President, this is wrong' when you are part of a chain of command? Clearly an individual private soldier or subaltern can't refuse to go to war because he disagrees with it, but equally clearly it must be the duty of somebody to refuse to carry out a decision against his conscience. Do note that I mean to resign, rather than to lead a coup.

Not sure about the strategic level, but don't uniformed personnel have an explicit expectation to disobey illegal orders? My sister and father in the Navy tell me that's how they're trained, at least:

Found on the Red Cross website

13.7 ADF [Australian Defence Force] members are open to prosecution for breaches of LOAC. Individual responsibility for compliance cannot be avoided and ignorance is not a justifiable excuse. ADF members will be held to account for any unlawful action that leads to a serious breach of LOAC. If such acts are committed, compliance with unlawful orders of a superior officer is not a justifiable excuse …

…

13.42 The fact that a subordinate was ordered to do an act, or make an omission, which was illegal does not, of itself, absolve the subordinate from criminal responsibility.

Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, §§ 13.7 and 13.42.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Um, so, we shouldn't have killed the Germans, led by the Nazis, in WW2?
What would you have recommended? Losing your freedom?

I agree with the assertion that the west is WAY to willing to throw the troops in the mix to enforce their will... however, there are clear cut cases where it was the right thing to do.

While I think WWII is a good example of a justified war, its grayer than you think. None of it was actually fought on American soil. And we by and large provoked Japan into attacking us via our economic policies.

For the record, I think that's exactly what we should have done, in world war two. I think Germany and Japan were worth stopping (I don't think most modern, petty dictators are worth it). But there is still some degree of debate on this issue. Its not unheard of for someone to suggest America should have gotten involved.

As for Iraq, that's why I wouldn't join the military, but I suppose I was advocating civil disobedience. I know the courts, they'll rule on behalf of the Federal Government even if/when it is totally absurd.

The ambiguity is the reason I'm not ready to condemn soldiers who don't share my beliefs, or are unwilling to go to prison for those beliefs. But a million and a half people died in that absurd war. If all the soldiers had said "No" it wouldn't have happened.

 

[MobBoss]

If all the soldiers had said "No" it wouldn't have happened.

Soldiers dont get to say 'no' to lawful orders. No, 'ambiguity' about that at all. Kinda the whole point, actually.

 

[Arwon]

I take it that means American military folk are similarly instructed about disobeying illegal orders to what I posted above?

 

[King Kalmah]

While I think WWII is a good example of a justified war, its grayer than you think. None of it was actually fought on American soil. And we by and large provoked Japan into attacking us via our economic policies.

I agree with all your points,but I would like to educate you on this piece of history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleutian_Islands_Campaign

It is even Parodied in Fallout 3's DLC where China takes Alaska over and America must liberate it.

Again it is good to learn something new everyday...

 

[Leoreth]

Soldiers dont get to say 'no' to lawful orders. No, 'ambiguity' about that at all. Kinda the whole point, actually.

What's a lawful order, specifically, though?

 

[kochman]

While I think WWII is a good example of a justified war, its grayer than you think. None of it was actually fought on American soil.

Ummmm, Hawaii is US soil... and Japan also took some islands in Alaska...
Furthermore, many of the islands in the Pacific had our bases on them, and some even were ours...

And we by and large provoked Japan into attacking us via our economic policies.

Jimminy Christmas man, you've let the revisionists get to you? Say it ain't so, Dommy.
So, it was our fault?

As for Iraq, that's why I wouldn't join the military, but I suppose I was advocating civil disobedience.

So, what about the people that were in BEFORE 9/11 or Iraq?

The ambiguity is the reason I'm not ready to condemn soldiers who don't share my beliefs, or are unwilling to go to prison for those beliefs. But a million and a half people died in that absurd war. If all the soldiers had said "No" it wouldn't have happened.

Welcome to unrealityland, a place where mass mutiny occurs and communism works
Come on Dom, you know very well the entire military isn't going to say "no" when it comes to attacking a genocidal maniac who tried to assassinate a sitting US President and they believed at the time was creating and proliferating weapons of mass destruction that would likely be used against the USA...
Hindsight is 20/20...

 

[Ajidica]

Jimminy Christmas man, you've let the revisionists get to you? Say it ain't so, Dommy.
So, it was our fault?

It was a combination of American opposition to Japan and the Japanese government lacking anything that could loosely be described as a sensible plan.

 

[Crezth]

Jimminy Christmas man, you've let the revisionists get to you? Say it ain't so, Dommy.

Dude, have you seen him talk about the civil war?

 

[MobBoss]

Ummmm, Hawaii is US soil... and Japan also took some islands in Alaska...

Cue him pointing out that WWII was before their statehood, although i'm not sure how he can think our military bases arent our 'soil' per se.

 

[Flying Pig]

Not sure about the strategic level, but don't uniformed personnel have an explicit expectation to disobey illegal orders? My sister and father in the Navy tell me that's how they're trained, at least:

Yes, but there is an exception for orders 'above your pay grade' - basically, if it's 'shoot that civilian' from your immediate commander, you're expected to disobey it, but if it's 'assemble at 0800 to fly out to Iraq', you can't refuse because you don't think the invasion is legal - somebody above your pay grade has assessed it and decided that it's fine, so they will take the rap if their judgement turns out to be wrong. It's not all that easy to express, but the basic point is that it allows you to follow your conscience when it matters while not allowing any space to the barrack-room lawyers.

 

[Takhisis]

Indeed. As usual, Mobboss is yet again trying to rationalize and defend the indefensible by even claiming that even he is personally helping to lead a crusade to make the US military a far better place. A military which he even claimed he would possibly leave himself if DADT was ever rescinded.

Erm, this is not my claim…

While I think WWII is a good example of a justified war, its grayer than you think. None of it was actually fought on American soil. And we by and large provoked Japan into attacking us via our economic policies.

Never mind the humiliation of the Black Ships in the 1850s which was a stain on Japanese honour and a wound in their pride.

For the record, I think that's exactly what we should have done, in world war two. I think Germany and Japan were worth stopping (I don't think most modern, petty dictators are worth it). But there is still some degree of debate on this issue. Its not unheard of for someone to suggest America should have gotten involved.

As for Iraq, that's why I wouldn't join the military, but I suppose I was advocating civil disobedience. I know the courts, they'll rule on behalf of the Federal Government even if/when it is totally absurd.

The ambiguity is the reason I'm not ready to condemn soldiers who don't share my beliefs, or are unwilling to go to prison for those beliefs. But a million and a half people died in that absurd war. If all the soldiers had said "No" it wouldn't have happened.

So, saving people has a minimum of people worth saving? Is this what you're saying?

If all the soldiers had said "No" it wouldn't have happened.

Soldiers dont get to say 'no' to lawful orders. No, 'ambiguity' about that at all. Kinda the whole point, actually.

Well it's rather obvious that it'd be insubordination, or mutiny, whatever legal term the U.S. military prefer to use.

Yes, but there is an exception for orders 'above your pay grade' - basically, if it's 'shoot that civilian' from your immediate commander, you're expected to disobey it, but if it's 'assemble at 0800 to fly out to Iraq', you can't refuse because you don't think the invasion is legal - somebody above your pay grade has assessed it and decided that it's fine, so they will take the rap if their judgement turns out to be wrong. It's not all that easy to express, but the basic point is that it allows you to follow your conscience when it matters while not allowing any space to the barrack-room lawyers.

Something of this was used in Argentina for the due obedience ('obediencia debida') laws, because otherwise every single conscript who was near an illegal detainee should get 25 years in jail, which would have meant doubling or tripling the capacity of the penitentiary system, as well as unnecessary punishment all around after the last military coup.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Yes, but there is an exception for orders 'above your pay grade' - basically, if it's 'shoot that civilian' from your immediate commander, you're expected to disobey it, but if it's 'assemble at 0800 to fly out to Iraq', you can't refuse because you don't think the invasion is legal - somebody above your pay grade has assessed it and decided that it's fine, so they will take the rap if their judgement turns out to be wrong. It's not all that easy to express, but the basic point is that it allows you to follow your conscience when it matters while not allowing any space to the barrack-room lawyers.

OK, I'll take the rep, you take the bullets. Sounds like a plan.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Erm, this is not my claim…

No, that is my claim. I was merely agreeing with your statement and expanding upon it.

Further examples of how pervasive bigotry in the US military continues to be, even at the highest levels:

Al Jazeera on the US military's anti-Islam classes


Link to video.

 

[civver_764]

No, it is a perfect example of why we must. Remember, there were limits on the German military... Hitler just went ahead and broke them. Had there not been standing military with trained cadre amongst the allies to train the much larger force that was necessary to stop the Nazis, Hitler would most likely have won...

Had the German military not existed in the first place Hitler wouldn't have accomplished much. You see what I'm saying?

Care to turn this into a coherent sentence... I think I get you but with all the pronouns you've used I want to be sure before I lambaste you.

I'll make it as clear for you as I can:

1. The world is a dangerous place and people need a basic ability to defend themselves.
2. Large militaries are not the solution to this problem, they are actually what is making this world so dangerous to begin with.
3. The US military is a perfect example of this and I do not support it.

You are on record as seeing no distinction between targeting military vs civilian...
What fantasy world do you live in?

Well first of all, killing someone is killing someone. Someone's life doesn't lose worth because they sign up/get drafted into the army. Second of all that isn't what I said. I meant that both US troops and Al-Qaeda soldiers seem themselves as doing something good.

In recent conflicts, you are only right because the scale of the "battles" the US military is in is so vastly larger... We don't TARGET civilians. Intent is important.
No one sane likes war... civilians die in war, it sucks... but if we just targeted civilians it would be catastrophic (see firebombings of Germany for details).

Ok, let's examine the intent of the United States. Usually it's for the benefit of some private interest. And while the United States doesn't target the civilians directly, they certainly don't seem to care about if they killed indirectly. The wealth of oil companies definitely seems more important to them, for example. At least Al-Qaeda were killing civilians for what they saw as some sort of altruistic good, America does so for entirely imperialistic purposes.

And I should also note there's a huge difference between the capabilities of Al-Qaeda and the United States. If Al-Qaeda wants to send a message it'd probably be more effective for them to knock down the Twin Towers than to try and fight the US military head-on.

Also can you try to be less condescending when you post? It'd make this whole thing much more pleasant.

 

[kochman]

Formy, did you actually watch that 25 minute video from AJ?
Do you expect everyone to?

In the military, you get all sorts of training on how to be sensitive, respectful, etc... ("while we train young men to drop death from the sky").

Where does your hugely anti-military, in all cases, slant come from?

 

[Flying Pig]

OK, I'll take the rep, you take the bullets. Sounds like a plan.

I've never really bought into the outrage about 'getting our boys killed' - we signed up for it, we knew the risks - I remember how happy I was before my first tour and how I had to hide it from my family, and the jubilation when we heard that we were going to be Spearhead Falklands, the cheer that went up when we were told that we were going to Kuwait - soldiers aren't innocent, war-ravaged beings: most of them are lean, mean killing machines, praying - sometimes literally - for war. As Orwell said, we sleep safe in our beds at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on our behalf to those who would do us harm - don't romanticise the military.

 

[kochman]

Had the German military not existed in the first place Hitler wouldn't have accomplished much. You see what I'm saying?

Yes, but what I am saying is, how do you keep people like Hitler from having an army?

1. The world is a dangerous place and people need a basic ability to defend themselves.
2. Large militaries are not the solution to this problem, they are actually what is making this world so dangerous to begin with.
3. The US military is a perfect example of this and I do not support it.

So, WW2 example completely irrelevant... sorry, I can't follow this.
I'm also glad the US military was at least big enough to prevent Stalin from rolling over Western Europe.

Well first of all, killing someone is killing someone.

If only the world were so simply black and white.

Someone's life doesn't lose worth because they sign up/get drafted into the army.

No, but they are wittingly taking a risk of death.

Second of all that isn't what I said. I meant that both US troops and Al-Qaeda soldiers seem themselves as doing something good.

One person's perspective is irrelevant. If you've managed to talk yourself into thinking that targeting civilians is ok, you are a nutter.

Ok, let's examine the intent of the United States.

In which conflict?

Usually it's for the benefit of some private interest.

And I would join you in opposing those wars.

And while the United States doesn't target the civilians directly, they certainly don't seem to care about if they killed indirectly.

If the US military didn't care, there would be a WAY higher death toll. Having been in and serving on the ground as an infantry officer, I can tell you point blank that we DO care.

The wealth of oil companies definitely seems more important to them, for example. At least Al-Qaeda were killing civilians for what they saw as some sort of altruistic good, America does so for entirely imperialistic purposes.

There is nothing altruistic about killing civilians, especially when military targets exist.
America isn't an imperialistic force... we just want to ensure we can continue to consume and carry on our lifestyle at any cost (except that of damaging our own environment, we'll let the other places do that).

And I should also note there's a huge difference between the capabilities of Al-Qaeda and the United States. If Al-Qaeda wants to send a message it'd probably be more effective for them to knock down the Twin Towers than to try and fight the US military head-on.

So, their only option was civilian targets? What about targeting things like the USS Cole, wouldn't that seem a little less insane?

Also can you try to be less condescending when you post? It'd make this whole thing much more pleasant.

Well, you're basically living outside of reality here, making excuses for murderous terrorists targeting women and children, etc... it makes it tough, but I'll try.

 

[Bugfatty300]

No, that is my claim. I was merely agreeing with your statement and expanding upon it.

Further examples of how pervasive bigotry in the US military continues to be, even at the highest levels:

Al Jazeera on the US military's anti-Islam classes


Link to video.

2:30. Bill O'Reilly has Hamas connections.

 

[Cutlass]

I've never really bought into the outrage about 'getting our boys killed' - we signed up for it, we knew the risks - I remember how happy I was before my first tour and how I had to hide it from my family, and the jubilation when we heard that we were going to be Spearhead Falklands, the cheer that went up when we were told that we were going to Kuwait - soldiers aren't innocent, war-ravaged beings: most of them are lean, mean killing machines, praying - sometimes literally - for war. As Orwell said, we sleep safe in our beds at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on our behalf to those who would do us harm - don't romanticise the military.

They may have signed up for it. Many may even be eager for it. That does not excuse spending the soldier's lives cheaply or for no worthwhile objective.

The problem with the neocon movement in the US, as an example, sees soldiers as no more than pawns. They have no understanding or empathy for the soldiers, and so see nothing wrong with spending their lives as if they were pennies. Often for little to no gain to the national interest and safety.