4 ms·

True, but there are plenty of soldiers who are simply trying not to get killed. The calculus of "if I don't commit this war crime, I'll for sure die, but if I

True, but there are plenty of soldiers who are simply trying not to get killed. The calculus of "if I don't commit this war crime, I'll for sure die, but if I do, the US has pledged to literally invade countries that try to investigate us war crimes, and don't have a great track record of internally policing war crimes" is pretty clear. My point isn't to defend the actions of war criminals, but instead point out that relying on foot soldiers to become conscientious objectors at the spur of the moment against the structural pressures against that is well documented to not be a great strategy for reducing war crimes.

watwut 5y ago
> point out that relying on foot soldiers to become conscientious objectors at the spur of the moment against the structural pressures against that is well documented to not be a great strategy for reducing war crimes Nor is excusing all those as a result of them all being scared of forced to do them. A lot of those are committed, because soldiers on the ground in fact want to commit them. Sometimes you have no choice and would be shot otherwise. And many times you do have choice and can choose to not rape or not kill that civilian. That is something that former soldiers report on too - if you read their accounts. > but if I do, the US has pledged to literally invade countries that try to investigate us war crimes, and don't have a great track record of internally policing war crimes" is pretty clear. For all US faults, US actually has better track record that ISIS or Russia or China. They are not bunch of angels, plenty of sociopaths all around. But specifically in US army, you are unlikely to die or be tortured of you don't commit war crime.