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.
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.
> 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.
You can't really push that sort of responsibility up. You own it.
I'm a conscientious objector because of that, not because I'm a pacifist (far from it). Reduced to the simplest of arguments: if everybody thought that way the only people that would end up pushing for a fight would be the politicians but they never ever want to get their hands dirty, problem solved. Don't be someone else's tool.
As for the 'righteousness of the invasion': I'm not sure if we lived in the same world at the time but from a legal perspective it was - and is - a total sham and UN buy-in hinged on the UN not being lied to which is something that we know for a fact happened.
Colin Powell's stature never recovered after that ill fated speech.
> Because the majority of people, not just Americans, don't deeply consider the morality of things like that.
That's not entirely true either. Flag worshipping, supporting the troops and other nationalistic elements are not equally present in all countries, America has these in spades. Very few countries in the world are so gung-ho about going to war as the US is.
> How about not reelecting a president to a second term when he started the war in the first term?
That's one of the problems right there, America likes to see itself at war against overseas foes, nothing brings out support for the sitting president as a war does. See the Bush quote: "I'm a war president". That made all the difference in getting him re-elected in the first place, critical thinking does not enter into it.
> 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.
I've decided that the buck stops with me.
If someone ever invades the country where I live I'll be more than happy to do my bit but in the meantime I won't allow myself to be used as a tool for political ends whose murky origins (business, empire building, posturing, political careerism) are purposefully obscured.
> You can't really push that sort of responsibility up. You own it.
That is pretty unrealistic. I agree with you about ignoring intent, but I also recognize the fact that at present this sort of philosophy would not work in a world dominated by states.
> ... the only people that would end up pushing for a fight would be the politicians ...
Or defense contractors. In a world where the majority of people believe in ghosts, it is not likely that things will work out in the way you think they would. I'm pretty confident that the US would start exercising its legal authority in drafting military aged males. I can already hear you saying "But they'd refuse!", but that would require you to ignore history.
> I'm not sure if we lived in the same world at the time but from a legal perspective...
I'm guessing not, because you seem to have forgotten all the games played with UN weapons inspectors and violation of no fly zones.
> That's not entirely true either. Flag worshipping...
Actually, the same logic that dismantles the moral authority of the state's power to wage war, dismantles the moral authority of every other state power. So obviously this sort of moral analysis is not occurring regularly, because the world is full of states. I have no doubt that there are a lot of countries full of people who are less predisposed to military expeditions than Americans, but my point is that it isn't due to deep moral reflection.
> That made all the difference in getting him re-elected in the first place, critical thinking does not enter into it.
And yet you are expecting widespread moral reflection from the very same people.
> I've decided that the buck stops with me.
That is great and all, but not every effective in terms of systemic change. If you really want war to go away, then you need to get rid of the state. That is the reason I got involved with development in the bitcoin ecosystem several years ago, popularization would likely deal a killing stroke to the state.
Bitcoin has nothing to do with waging war or the end of the state.
As for me being unrealistic: it's my life, I'll be happy to live it without ever having to say that I allowed myself to be used whatever the consequences, and yes, I would refuse.
Defense contractors can't wage war without people willing to operate the weapons, the circle of concern/circle of influence nicely overlaps if you simply say 'I refuse'.
That's where you exert maximum pressure. Developing bitcoin to stop wars is about as relevant as invading Iraq was as a response to 9/11.
As for the no-fly zones and the UN weapon inspectors:
(1) the no-fly zone was a unilateral arrangement, how do you think the US would respond if some entity declared a no-fly zone over the US?
(2) the UN weapons inspectors were in agreement that Saddam did not possess a credible threat of WMDs.
It's all just dumb wars over resources no more, no less.
> Bitcoin has nothing to do with waging war or the end of the state.
Cash is just as important in war as bodies to throw into the meat grinder. If the state loses its control over the money supply, it isn't going to be able to finance war... or exert much influence otherwise.
> As for me being unrealistic: it's my life, I'll be happy...
Cool, I thought you were interested in solving a problem outside of yourself - carry on.
> Defense contractors can't wage war without people willing to operate the weapons...
There will always be people to operate the weapons, offer more money or tell them that their god demands it.
> As for the no-fly zones and the UN weapon inspectors:
How about not reelecting a president to a second term when he started the war in the first term?
The reality is that had the opinion polls indicated that he would be resoundingly removed from office, he would never have gone in. He needed permission from a group of people who value re-election above almost all else. As he himself did. Even in the middle of a 4 year term the people have the power - the problem is that they approved.
To imply that the war was against the conscience of the majority of (voting) Americans is a falsehood. They were consulted, and their response sealed the national decision. As such the soldiers were respecting their oaths and their country.
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.
"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.
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.
"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
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]
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".
> That's a bastardisation of loyalty though. Yes, people volunteer, because they are expected to.
It is pretty clear that you have no idea what you're talking about. You know that you can dislike people in general, but still recognize positive qualities right? Here is another example: Sergeant Major Bradley Kasal. This guy used his own body as a bullet stop to protect his Marines, nobody expects that.
> What about speaking up about a situation that is going to get people killed?
There was a lot of that, we got it shut down at the eleventh hour.
> What about the people who didn't volunteer, where they fine with the whole thing as long as they weren't affected?
I didn't poll everybody, but I'm pretty confident in saying that nobody was fine with the situation. At lot of those guys were pretty torn between loyalty to their families, the guys that they'd just been in combat with and their fellow Marines in the artillery battalion. There were many private conversation had were they tried to talk volunteers out of it, and more than one anonymous letter to a General.
> Is the commander visiting his guys after years and year when they are dealing with PTSD?
Do you think that is practical? In their careers they will have commanded thousands of men. There is a strong bond though, for example: another personal story :) When I got out of the Corps I drove all the way across the country, for a job in DC. After a few days of searching, I found a basement apartment for rent - the landlord lived upstairs with his wife and toddler daughter. Purely by chance, the landlord was a Colonel in the USMC, and he instantly treated me like an old family friend - standing invitation to dinner, long conversation on the porch, etc. The wife was not a big fan of this, and I'm pretty sure my new buddy was constantly catching hell for it. Until one day, several months later, when I came home from work and found the front door wide open and heard panicked footsteps inside. Now this was in pretty much the worst part of DC, and I could have easily just made my way to my private entrance and ignored the possibility that the landlord was getting burgled. Instead, I began clearing the house room by room - armed with a paring knife from the kitchen. I gave the cleaning lady quite a shock, she had forgotten the alarm code and was rushing around trying to find it. I was sure that I'd get the boot for that, but instead I got a dinner invitation from the wife. The cleaning lady informed her of what happened, and it suddenly clicked for her - I was family.
> The military selectively decides what part of these virtues that are valued.
Again, spoken like somebody who has no idea what they're talking about. Outside of the philosophy department in college, I've never seen an organization focus as much on morality as the USMC. Of course, the perspective is that of the state. So any flaws you find in the logic of military morality will be rooted in the state, not the military.
"It is pretty clear that you have no idea what you're talking about."
That's no way to have a discussion. You clearly didn't either read or understand my previous comment. You should probably stick to speaking to your loyal colleges who has everything figured out.
Please explain to me how the US military isn't breaking their loyalty to their soldiers when more people die of suicide than was killed in action, when soldiers requesting psychological assistance (which is hard to do by itself) after carrying the bloody children left behind by a gunship just to hear that they should "suck it up" or when the soldiers with blisters from chemical weapons aren't believed their damages are real in a war that was supposedly about finding those kinds o weapons.
As long as the miliary's loyalty doesn't also encompass those scenarios, how is it not a bastardisation of the word?
> No, I don't understand you since you have no arguments.
Seems pretty clear to me:
1. You say that Captain Kudo's loyalty to his Marines is "mostly a cliché"
2. I disagree and provide personal examples (which isn't really necessary, because examples of loyalty among soldiers are pretty well known)
3. You say that I don't know what loyalty really is
> As long as the miliary's loyalty doesn't also encompass those scenarios, how is it not a bastardisation of the word?
Your definition of loyalty seems to require the meeting of impossible goals. The military would not be able to meet its obligations and also fully protect all soldiers. PTSD is an unavoidable reality that comes with the job, and the military has really made massive improvements in handling it in the last decade. There are plenty of examples that demonstrate failures, but that is true of every system that has ever existed.
Maybe you should provide an example of loyalty that meets your lofty definition of unfaltering perfection.
> Or maybe I should understand you by your lack of arguments?
Or the more obvious answer: We aren't going to come to agreement on anything because we can't agree on a definition for "loyalty".
I'm not a newbie, this isn't my first account. In the spirit of civility you might want to spell out why it's not a good idea to "try and piss-off a Marine" instead of resorting to implying things. I'm also quite sure that the Marines can speak for themselves.
I'm being fairly civil, I don't appreciate people telling me that I don't know what I'm talking about. Especially when they in their previous statements have recognized their own bias in the form of "psychological conditioning".
"In the spirit of civility you might want to spell out why it's not a good idea to "try and piss-off a Marine" instead of resorting to implying things."
Because as soon as they mention their profession, they stand out. Because they stand out it makes them a target. A lightening-rod to anyone who is looking to rant and let off steam about their POV, Ad-nauseam. @woodman has clearly answered your points. Marine & service men & women just want to be treated like everyone else, no more, no less. Polite, tactful, restrained, but won't back down. This is called bearing.
> In the spirit of civility you might want to spell out why it's not a good idea to "try and piss-off a Marine" instead of resorting to implying things.
He is probably cautioning you against antagonizing Marines, because we'll resort to telling jokes about the Army, and quoting Eleanor Roosevelt. Nobody wants that.
> Especially when they in their previous statements have recognized their own bias...
Hmm, who to trust between two individuals - one who recognizes his own biases, or the other without such introspection?
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.