5 ms·

The soldiers didn't know any better, and the situation wasn't clearly evil enough for there to be expectation of rebellion or refusal of orders. The leaders, b

The soldiers didn't know any better, and the situation wasn't clearly evil enough for there to be expectation of rebellion or refusal of orders. The leaders, by contrast, knowingly engineered it (according to parent) No one brought up isis soldiers.

ZenoArrow 10y ago
If the soldiers didn't know any better, then that's a sign that our cultural attitudes towards war are somewhat lacking. Those people were not forced to sign up to the military, and if their moral compasses were distorted enough to believe wars not based on self defence can somehow be justified then why is that message getting across? We shouldn't blame the soldiers for doing a difficult job, especially after the damage is done, but we can and should discourage people from signing up in the first place.
- toyg 10y ago
  > Those people were not forced to sign up to the military You should read up a bit on the US military. A lot of those people came from disadvantaged backgrounds where army careers are the only ticket out of poverty. The US political and military establishment literally preys on the poor for their cannon fodder. It's the post-Vietnam equilibrium: they won't draft, so (white) sons and daughters of the middle-classes will be left alone, and in return such middle-classes don't ask too many questions about where, how and why the military is used. To assuage collective guilt, a narrative has emerged in which grunts are not blamed, since they are effectively victims of a system nobody really wants to change.
  - ZenoArrow 10y ago
    > "A lot of those people came from disadvantaged backgrounds where army careers are the only ticket out of poverty." They are not the only ticket out of poverty, speaking broadly these people have choices. What is happening is that the military provides, for some people, an attractive way to get out of poverty, because it comes along with a certain level of prestige. Change the level of prestige and you change the influx of new recruits.
    - toyg 10y ago
      > Change the level of prestige and you change the influx of new recruits. Who can change the level of prestige? Upper and middle classes. Why would they do that, when the system works just fine for them? Nobody is legally coerced, and still cannon fodder is overwhelmingly provided by the "right" people. From a certain perspective, it's a beautiful system.
      - ZenoArrow 10y ago
        > "Who can change the level of prestige?" We all can, and we can start by resisting the narrative to refer to those involved in preemptive war as 'heroes'. There's nothing heroic about playing the role of the aggressor. Furthermore, we need to find a way to better engage with those who have taken part in war so that we can learn from their experiences. The more we can see war for what it is, the less likely we'll be so casual about it continuing.
        toyg 10y ago
        You also have to design and pay for alternative careers and education streams. It's not a coincidence that the countries who most value military careers are often ones where higher education is extremely expensive or restricted. That will mean raising taxes and fighting tax evasion, which might mean less "free money" from VC gluts.
        ZenoArrow 10y ago
        Putting aside the situation in developing countries, I'm suggesting making the changes closer to home. In developed countries potential soldiers already have other options so it's not a question of making economic changes, it's a question of changing how we cut through the propaganda that glorifies soldiers. The only cases for soldiers as heroes are in cases of defending against an external aggressor or defending the helpless. Becoming a soldier does not automatically make you a hero, just as lawyers are not automatically heroes, it all depends on the causes they serve.

ZenoArrow 10y ago

If the soldiers didn't know any better, then that's a sign that our cultural attitudes towards war are somewhat lacking. Those people were not forced to sign up to the military, and if their moral compasses were distorted enough to believe wars not based on self defence can somehow be justified then why is that message getting across? We shouldn't blame the soldiers for doing a difficult job, especially after the damage is done, but we can and should discourage people from signing up in the first place.

toyg 10y ago
> Those people were not forced to sign up to the military You should read up a bit on the US military. A lot of those people came from disadvantaged backgrounds where army careers are the only ticket out of poverty. The US political and military establishment literally preys on the poor for their cannon fodder. It's the post-Vietnam equilibrium: they won't draft, so (white) sons and daughters of the middle-classes will be left alone, and in return such middle-classes don't ask too many questions about where, how and why the military is used. To assuage collective guilt, a narrative has emerged in which grunts are not blamed, since they are effectively victims of a system nobody really wants to change.
- ZenoArrow 10y ago
  > "A lot of those people came from disadvantaged backgrounds where army careers are the only ticket out of poverty." They are not the only ticket out of poverty, speaking broadly these people have choices. What is happening is that the military provides, for some people, an attractive way to get out of poverty, because it comes along with a certain level of prestige. Change the level of prestige and you change the influx of new recruits.
  - toyg 10y ago
    > Change the level of prestige and you change the influx of new recruits. Who can change the level of prestige? Upper and middle classes. Why would they do that, when the system works just fine for them? Nobody is legally coerced, and still cannon fodder is overwhelmingly provided by the "right" people. From a certain perspective, it's a beautiful system.
    - ZenoArrow 10y ago
      > "Who can change the level of prestige?" We all can, and we can start by resisting the narrative to refer to those involved in preemptive war as 'heroes'. There's nothing heroic about playing the role of the aggressor. Furthermore, we need to find a way to better engage with those who have taken part in war so that we can learn from their experiences. The more we can see war for what it is, the less likely we'll be so casual about it continuing.
      - toyg 10y ago
        You also have to design and pay for alternative careers and education streams. It's not a coincidence that the countries who most value military careers are often ones where higher education is extremely expensive or restricted. That will mean raising taxes and fighting tax evasion, which might mean less "free money" from VC gluts.
        ZenoArrow 10y ago
        Putting aside the situation in developing countries, I'm suggesting making the changes closer to home. In developed countries potential soldiers already have other options so it's not a question of making economic changes, it's a question of changing how we cut through the propaganda that glorifies soldiers. The only cases for soldiers as heroes are in cases of defending against an external aggressor or defending the helpless. Becoming a soldier does not automatically make you a hero, just as lawyers are not automatically heroes, it all depends on the causes they serve.