The Role of Military Personnel

[Brooker]

Remember the shameful stories of Vietnam soldiers, risking their lives and watching their friends die, doing what they thought they had to do to protect people who spit on them when they returned home.

It seems a lot of people don't make any distinction between the reasons for a conflict and the military personnel involved in the conflict, when it's really not the job of a soldier to consider the reasons that go into the decisions that are made, rather it's their job to do what their country asks of them (a reason I don't think I'd make a very good soldier).

By necessity, troops have to be somewhat a-political. They can't be too loyal to any particular party or leader, because if that party or leader looses the next election, their new boss will be the previous leader's opponent. If a military is too loyal to a particular leader, you end up with a military state or a country controlled by warlords. A soldier's loyalty is to the country.

So my point is, if you have a problem with the war in Iraq (or any decision a government makes), blame the leadership, blame the voters, but don't blame the troops who are at the mercy of the decisions that are made.

 

[Sr Pasta]

Since the Nuremberg laws, every soldier has a certain degree of responsibility to international law as well.

I'd never blame the soldiers for the war though. Soldiers becomes war criminals through institutions - they weren't born to it, and they very seldom got into that simple situation where there was an obvious choice to make.

However, it is important to never get quiet about what happens to people who are sent to war. A lot of them do end up as war criminals. That's a large part of what wars are about.

 

[Brooker]

Since the Nuremberg laws, every soldier has a certain degree of responsibility to international law as well.

But after WWII, it was mostly high up leaders who had made decisions, who were held accountable for war crimes, not soldiers.

I question everything I'm told to do, and could never fight for a cause I didn't believe in, but that's why I'm not a soldier. A good soldier wouldn't do what I'm inclined to do.

I see the soldiers as being victims of Bush's mismanagement and poor decision making. And it doesn't make sense to blame a victim. Many soldiers probably don't see it that way, but that's because it's not their job to be thinking about stuff like that. It's their job to do what they're told.

 

[No-name]

Couldn't agree with you more, Brooker.

A distinction between the normal shooting, bombing and routine killing which happens as part of a soldiers lawful orders and conduct like the Abu Garahib(sp?) scandal must be made. The soldier does not choose the war.

 

[Brooker]

Couldn't agree with you more, Brooker.

A distinction between the normal shooting, bombing and routine killing which happens as part of a soldiers lawful orders and conduct like the Abu Garahib(sp?) scandal must be made. The soldier does not choose the war.

Yes, Abu Garahib (I'll spell it the same way) is one of those instances where it's hard to pin down who's at fault. I personally think both the commanders and soldiers involved were at fault because it seems like those soldiers were acting alone to some degree, but the commanders probably knew about it, allowed it to happen, and maybe even encouraged it. Handing out penalties in a case like that is a tricky thing. But I think the blame should usually be put on the people in charge. Being unaware of what their troops were doing is a terrible excuse, because it's their job to know and be in controll of what their troops are doing. But then again, in a chaotic war time, keeping track of everything can be pretty tricky. It's difficult to make a call in a situation like that.

 

[No-name]

It came up in another thread that the victors never have to face up to war crimes. I would add unless they are enlisted. Guys with stripes seem to alway pay the price for their misdeeds, but it is hard to belive that the brass didn't know a thing. For that small percentage of GI's that committed attrocities in Vietnam, a Lt. was the highest ever convicted of misconduct.

I think the entire war may be illegal, and only a few at the top should be charged. won't happen though...

 

[CC1]

Being former enlisted myself (and a former Drill Instuctor) I can testify that many times when left unchecked, the enlisted ranks can and will do things that are not approved of by higher ups! It is sad but true!

As for the leaders being held responsable? Yes, they should be, but moreso than the ones committing the crimes? No! All I can do as a leader is instruct and supervise. No matter how closely people are watched, they will always find a way to impose their own will! People can be trained to always do what is right, but sadly there are sick people out there that will do what they want when given the opportunity...

I blelieve that these acts (at Abu Graib?) were performed willingly by the enlisted personell assigned there. I also believe that it was allowed to continue because the SNCO"s (enlisted leaders) knew what was happening, but were too weak to stand up and stop it! I do not believe that the offiicers (General's) knew what was happening! It is quite possible that the enlisted leaders found out what was happening and tried to cover it up...thus the photos being leaked out later by some of the lower enlisted because they knew what had happened was wrong, but they were too weak to stand up before in front of their peers!

 

[Shooter452]

The price you pay....

We have what is a professional military force. The all-volunteer force created it because conscription was so unpopular, but there is a cost to having it. Professional armies (etc.) are a political force whether they exert their influence or not. We are very fortunate in that even the pro's recognize a higher authority than their commanding generals/admirals--the US Constitution.

But the potential is there. No US president will act in a way that would too vastly undercut his authority with the armed forces. Remember the way that President Clinton backed down on his plans to open up the ranks of the armed forces to the openly admitted gay volunteers? The potential back lash of those in uniform caught him by surprise. Even he was not willing to press that hard on a professional military. He knew that if he made his administration too unpopular, it had potential consequences--unlikely as it was/is, military revolt was one of them. Clinton was loathed that much by not just the generals and admirals, but by the large numbers of the rank and file in all of the armed forces. He could not afford to press that emotion any futher than he did.

I do not think that a military coup is likely in the USA. But a professional, large, long-standing armed force is the political effect it can have. I explained this at length in another thread. Historically, every world leader has faced up to this threat when he maintained a large professional army. Most could not oppose it successfully, and those who did only did so with the upheaval of his society in the price. But there is only one way to avoid it in a republic such as ours.

All must serve, and serve willingly. When that level of civic vitue is no longer resident in your culture, your nation is on the skids, and it is usually only a matter of time before your culture no longer prevails.

In a sense, you have in the US a much better professional armed force than you actually deserve.

"When a nation re-awakens, its finest sons are prepared to give their lives for its liberation. When Empires are threatened with collapse, they are prepared to sacrifice their non-commissioned officers." Menachem Begin, the Revolt, (1951)

 

[digicross]

Follow those who you like, don't vote, and don't enter the military.

"blame the leadership, blame the voters, but don't blame the troops who are at the mercy of the decisions that are made."

Hmmm... Blame the leadership and the voters.

The problem is that, the leader is NOT the President or King or Prime Minister, and no, it's not the Senate or the Parliament either.

Some people often said that the war in Iraq was caused by George Walker Bush, but they seem don't realized that he is nothing more but a puppet that is only put in the president seat to pretend that he's a leader, intelligence is not required, only willingness.

No, George Walker Bush don't made the decisions, he's as innocent and as guilty as the soldiers in the frontline.

The same people who caused the Iraq war are the same people who caused the Vietnam War, World War II, World War I, the Punic Wars, and so on.


The voters? If the outcome is already been decided before the elections are held, does your vote even matter?

Besides, there's something wrong of having have to choose either a bread or a pancake when what you really want is a beef steak, the election result has already been decided, you can't have a beef steak.


As for the troops.

Their bad decision is to enter the military force in the first place, by therefore giving up their ability to choose what action they want to do.

Their second bad decision is to do something that is against their will. Of course if they disobey their order, they risked court martial, or worst, stationed on a post in the middle of nowhere that made a death sentence sounded like a good idea. Their call, disobey the order and risked court martial, or do the order and risked the international court.



My advice?

Don't give a damn who is a leader. If you like someone's leadership, you follow it. If you don't, don't follow. It's as simple as that.

Don't give a damn on voting and elections. It's already being decided anyway. Besides, making a decision based on the number of votes is a bad thing to do anyway.

Don't enter the military force, that way you would still have your freedom to choose. You fight or not would be based on YOUR own decision.



As for "If a military is too loyal to a particular leader, you end up with a military state or a country controlled by warlords."

I see no problem with that, a country benefits the most if its army (which can encompass the whole population) and its leader has a strong ties with each other.

Besides the best war is fought without any physical battles, a good leader realized that, and if he don't, his position as a leader wouldn't be long anyway since someone else will probably bump him out and replace him.

The only problem would be, if the leader isn't actually the leader but instead is only a puppet following orders that neither benefit either him or his country. That way the 'leader' could 'made' all of the mistakes never get replaced (because he wasn't even the leader in the first place), and even if he is replaced, he would be only replaced by another puppet.



As for "A soldier's loyalty is to the country."

To be correct, a soldier's loyalty is to organization he enlisted to. If you ever enter the military you will realized that the moment your superior start ordering you around.

Of course a person's loyalty is to himself or herself. Selfish? Yes. Self-centered? Yes. But there's no problem with that.