83 ms·

I find it very strange that people talk about soldiers as if they had some special moral responsibility for what happens during a war. Sure, they should be thi

by swatow 12y ago

I find it very strange that people talk about soldiers as if they had some special moral responsibility for what happens during a war. Sure, they should be thinking about the implications and ethics of their actions, as we all should, and yet they also signed up to serve the nation, and to do what their nation thought necessary and just. Do people think that democratic nations should not have armies, and it is an ethical imperative for Americans, English and others to refuse to serve? If not, then it is all of our responsibilities, as voters and citizens, to ensure that only just wars are fought, and using ethical means. If not, then we are all responsible, not just the soldiers. Instead of asking "how could you kill someone" we should be asking "how can you live in a political system that causes people to be ordered to kill people, in which you have the ability to change this fact". I'm not a pacifist myself, I just don't see how in a democracy, the buck stops with the soldiers.

AdeptusAquinas 12y ago
Too true. This quote from the article reinforces that "Despite the rhetoric I internalized from the newspapers back home about why we were in Afghanistan, I ended up fighting for different reasons once I got on the ground — a mix of loyalty to my Marines, habit and the urge to survive." It's that rhetoric, created by almost everyone BUT soldiers, that sends them to war. And, especially in nationalistic countries where soldiering is viewed as some kind of heroism, no doubt leads to poor decisions once they arrive and face the reality of the situation.
- goodnights 12y ago
  "a mix of loyalty to my Marines, habit and the urge to survive" I think that is mostly a cliché too though. People stay in bad situations because uncertainty is even harder to deal with. The military generally go out of their way to make any other alternative "uncomfortable". If you're ready to sign away your freedom for glory, you should also be ready to do so for justice.
  - woodman 12y ago
    > I think that is mostly a cliché too though. It is not, not in the infantry at least, where brain wa... er - psychological conditioning is the strongest. For example: just days after my battalion got back from a fairly taxing deployment, the company commander informed us at morning formation that an artillery battalion was preparing to deploy to the area of operations we just got back from. It was part of some pilot program, where they give non-infantry Marines a couple of months of infantry training and then deploy them as if they were infantry... it was a horrible idea that would lead to a lot of dead Marines - and everybody at that formation knew it. The company commander asked for volunteers, a cadre that would lead in training for a month and then deploy with them into combat as fireteam, squad and platoon leaders. About a quarter of the company volunteered, myself included, which was more than the CO was willing to part with - so he limited the pool to Corporals. None of us wanted to go back, we knew that the odds were much worse throwing in with these guys, but we knew that they needed us. If that isn't loyalty, then I don't know what is. The Marine Corps put a lot of effort into building that sort of emotional connection, and it works.
    - bootload 12y ago
      "The Marine Corps put a lot of effort into building that sort of emotional connection, and it works." In civilian life, the concept of "I" is so ingrained there is little understanding of idea of "We" in this context. For the 99%, listen to war journalist Sebastian Junger explain this concept along with Brendan O’Bryne (Sgt. 173rd,2BC,503 IR,Rtd.), talk about this brotherhood of men @woodman describes. ~ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwOAVSprv64 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwOAVSprv64 Post deployment, the consequences of moving from the safe world of "We" where you'll be looked after, to the alternative where you are left on your own is stark. [0] [0] Loren Berlin, 'War Gives Way To Financial Strife For Returning Veterans' http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/05/veterans-war-financial-strife-finances_n_949720.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/05/veterans-war-financ...
    - goodnights 12y ago
      That's a bastardisation of loyalty though. Yes, people volunteer, because they are expected to. What about speaking up about a situation that is going to get people killed? What about the people who didn't volunteer, where they fine with the whole thing as long as they weren't affected? Is the commander visiting his guys after years and year when they are dealing with PTSD? The military selectively decides what part of these virtues that are valued. That's why I'm saying it's a cliché and I think it's a major contributor to "fucking people up".
vacri 12y ago
When you volunteer as a soldier to be deployed to a war zone and kill people (or directly support other soldiers killing), you have a special moral responsibility for what happens during a war. and to do what their nation thought necessary and just. The US did not think that invading Iraq was 'just'. Iraq was a defeatable foe, and the war in Afghanistan wasn't producing results. There was nothing 'just' about the invasion of Iraq by the US - if the US did invade places because the dictator is nasty, they'd be a lot more militarily involved in Africa. I don't understand why Americans don't hold people who volunteer to go fight overseas to a stricter moral questioning. It's a total cop-out to say "well, I was doing it for my country, and my country wanted to go do it". The comments you make about refusing to serve are not appropriate; there was no conscription. it is all of our responsibilities, as voters and citizens In a four-year election cycle, how does a voter have an effect on a war late in year 3 started because of an unrelated-but-significant event in year 1? Basically the buck stops with the soldiers for the same reason that soldiers should decline to follow an immoral order. Otherwise you absolve them morally of anything their nation requires of them: hello Auschwitz guards. It's also an oversimplification, a false binary choice, to say that the buck can't stop in multiple places. It stops with the soldiers. It also stops with the politicians. It's not like there's only one entity responsible for something like this.
- woodman 12y ago
  > When you volunteer ... you have a special moral responsibility for what happens during a war. A responsibility for your actions, or everything that happens during the war? What if your voluntary enlistment was due to false information, or steady conditioning by the state since childhood? Does intent play no role? Do you extend that line of thinking to the justice system where manslaughter and murder are treated differently? > The US did not think that invading Iraq was 'just'. Opinion polls were pretty high at the time. The righteousness of the invasion, from a legal perspective, was pretty firm - UN buy-in, Saddam later admitting that he was intentionally trying to make his possession of WMDs uncertain, continuous violation of no fly zones, etc. From a strict moral perspective that observes principles of nonaggression, no - it was not just. > I don't understand why Americans don't hold people who volunteer to go fight overseas to a stricter moral questioning. Because the majority of people, not just Americans, don't deeply consider the morality of things like that. Consider the logical conclusion of this line of thinking. Your position is essentially that the state does not have the authority to define righteousness kills. If one were to accept that position, then the state would not have a monopoly on violence - which is pretty much the yardstick for state sovereignty. This is a position that is morally and logically consistent, but obviously not widely held. > ... how does a voter have an effect ... How about not reelecting a president to a second term when he started the war in the first term? > ... soldiers should decline to follow an immoral order. There is an obligation to refuse illegal orders, this gets back to my point about the majority of people not deeply considering the morality of actions, and deferring to the state.

by swatow 12y ago

AdeptusAquinas 12y ago

Too true. This quote from the article reinforces that "Despite the rhetoric I internalized from the newspapers back home about why we were in Afghanistan, I ended up fighting for different reasons once I got on the ground — a mix of loyalty to my Marines, habit and the urge to survive." It's that rhetoric, created by almost everyone BUT soldiers, that sends them to war. And, especially in nationalistic countries where soldiering is viewed as some kind of heroism, no doubt leads to poor decisions once they arrive and face the reality of the situation.

goodnights 12y ago
"a mix of loyalty to my Marines, habit and the urge to survive" I think that is mostly a cliché too though. People stay in bad situations because uncertainty is even harder to deal with. The military generally go out of their way to make any other alternative "uncomfortable". If you're ready to sign away your freedom for glory, you should also be ready to do so for justice.
- woodman 12y ago
  > I think that is mostly a cliché too though. It is not, not in the infantry at least, where brain wa... er - psychological conditioning is the strongest. For example: just days after my battalion got back from a fairly taxing deployment, the company commander informed us at morning formation that an artillery battalion was preparing to deploy to the area of operations we just got back from. It was part of some pilot program, where they give non-infantry Marines a couple of months of infantry training and then deploy them as if they were infantry... it was a horrible idea that would lead to a lot of dead Marines - and everybody at that formation knew it. The company commander asked for volunteers, a cadre that would lead in training for a month and then deploy with them into combat as fireteam, squad and platoon leaders. About a quarter of the company volunteered, myself included, which was more than the CO was willing to part with - so he limited the pool to Corporals. None of us wanted to go back, we knew that the odds were much worse throwing in with these guys, but we knew that they needed us. If that isn't loyalty, then I don't know what is. The Marine Corps put a lot of effort into building that sort of emotional connection, and it works.
  - bootload 12y ago
    "The Marine Corps put a lot of effort into building that sort of emotional connection, and it works." In civilian life, the concept of "I" is so ingrained there is little understanding of idea of "We" in this context. For the 99%, listen to war journalist Sebastian Junger explain this concept along with Brendan O’Bryne (Sgt. 173rd,2BC,503 IR,Rtd.), talk about this brotherhood of men @woodman describes. ~ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwOAVSprv64 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwOAVSprv64 Post deployment, the consequences of moving from the safe world of "We" where you'll be looked after, to the alternative where you are left on your own is stark. [0] [0] Loren Berlin, 'War Gives Way To Financial Strife For Returning Veterans' http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/05/veterans-war-financial-strife-finances_n_949720.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/05/veterans-war-financ...
  - goodnights 12y ago
    That's a bastardisation of loyalty though. Yes, people volunteer, because they are expected to. What about speaking up about a situation that is going to get people killed? What about the people who didn't volunteer, where they fine with the whole thing as long as they weren't affected? Is the commander visiting his guys after years and year when they are dealing with PTSD? The military selectively decides what part of these virtues that are valued. That's why I'm saying it's a cliché and I think it's a major contributor to "fucking people up".

vacri 12y ago

When you volunteer as a soldier to be deployed to a war zone and kill people (or directly support other soldiers killing), you have a special moral responsibility for what happens during a war. and to do what their nation thought necessary and just. The US did not think that invading Iraq was 'just'. Iraq was a defeatable foe, and the war in Afghanistan wasn't producing results. There was nothing 'just' about the invasion of Iraq by the US - if the US did invade places because the dictator is nasty, they'd be a lot more militarily involved in Africa. I don't understand why Americans don't hold people who volunteer to go fight overseas to a stricter moral questioning. It's a total cop-out to say "well, I was doing it for my country, and my country wanted to go do it". The comments you make about refusing to serve are not appropriate; there was no conscription. it is all of our responsibilities, as voters and citizens In a four-year election cycle, how does a voter have an effect on a war late in year 3 started because of an unrelated-but-significant event in year 1? Basically the buck stops with the soldiers for the same reason that soldiers should decline to follow an immoral order. Otherwise you absolve them morally of anything their nation requires of them: hello Auschwitz guards. It's also an oversimplification, a false binary choice, to say that the buck can't stop in multiple places. It stops with the soldiers. It also stops with the politicians. It's not like there's only one entity responsible for something like this.

woodman 12y ago
> When you volunteer ... you have a special moral responsibility for what happens during a war. A responsibility for your actions, or everything that happens during the war? What if your voluntary enlistment was due to false information, or steady conditioning by the state since childhood? Does intent play no role? Do you extend that line of thinking to the justice system where manslaughter and murder are treated differently? > The US did not think that invading Iraq was 'just'. Opinion polls were pretty high at the time. The righteousness of the invasion, from a legal perspective, was pretty firm - UN buy-in, Saddam later admitting that he was intentionally trying to make his possession of WMDs uncertain, continuous violation of no fly zones, etc. From a strict moral perspective that observes principles of nonaggression, no - it was not just. > I don't understand why Americans don't hold people who volunteer to go fight overseas to a stricter moral questioning. Because the majority of people, not just Americans, don't deeply consider the morality of things like that. Consider the logical conclusion of this line of thinking. Your position is essentially that the state does not have the authority to define righteousness kills. If one were to accept that position, then the state would not have a monopoly on violence - which is pretty much the yardstick for state sovereignty. This is a position that is morally and logically consistent, but obviously not widely held. > ... how does a voter have an effect ... How about not reelecting a president to a second term when he started the war in the first term? > ... soldiers should decline to follow an immoral order. There is an obligation to refuse illegal orders, this gets back to my point about the majority of people not deeply considering the morality of actions, and deferring to the state.