reply to post by TrueBrit
I understand the sentiment presented in your post, however I do not agree with it. When you join the military, you are in effect submitting to your
commanding officers, whoever they may be. The only effective army is a disciplined army and as soon as soldiers start to question their orders, your
army becomes completely ineffective and lives as well as national security will ultimately pay the price. You need to rely on and trust your direct
command that they are making the right call and are competent in their judgment. However, that is a gamble that you take upon signing up for the
military and once you sign that contract, you have taken that gamble. If you aren't willing to take that gamble or make that sacrifice, then you
shouldn't have signed the contract and taken the oath. That oath by the way, is your word that you will follow through with the commitment.
When in the military, you are going to get many orders which may not make sense to you, though it is of utmost importance that you follow those orders
without hesitation. You may not understand those orders for a plethora of different reasons, the biggest being that you do not have the whole picture.
It is not a soldiers place to question those orders, unless of course he knows without a doubt that they are illegal. For instance being ordered to
shoot a civilian or a clear break in the Geneva Conventions. However, if you refuse those orders on such grounds, then you are also taking a gamble
because if you are wrong, then technically you can receive the death penalty, though realistically you wouldn't. However, that could very well be the
case if it becomes a problem and I completely agree with such measures, as becoming a soldier is a sacrifice that you agree to make. Nobody else
forced anyone to join the military. It is a completely professional force made up of volunteers.
If someone feels as if they may have a problem with orders or that they do not trust the judgment of government or the accuracy of intelligence, then
they should refrain from making such a commitment as joining the military. However, what is absolutely essential to any military, is that soldiers do
not question or hesitate on their orders and instead, maintain a level of discipline that is only befitting a professional soldier.
Why did the Iraqis lose the first Gulf War? It wasn't because our military is technologically superior, though many falsely attribute our success to
that. Instead, it was because we are disciplined and they weren't. We can reference what happened in Vietnam to support such a notion, as well as
what is happening in Afghanistan now. The Afghanis and Taliban fighters are extremely disciplined and don't hesitate on orders, which is making them
extremely effective at keeping our technologically superior military force from just slaughtering them. A war is fought on strategy, strategy that is
planned by very competent military tacticians (for the most part), which requires absolute discipline from the troops in order to meet the margin of
error for a particular plan. When that requirement of discipline isn't met, then the plan can easily fall through, making the over-all strategy
faulty.
Of course, you could have complete incompetent military commanders who have flawed strategy, but again, that is the gamble that you take when signing
your commitment to the military. If orders aren't followed or if they are questioned, than it no longer matters if that strategy is faulty or not.
Now in order to make such a system work in any kind of way that even resembles effectiveness, there can't be all chiefs and no indians. It takes
control away from the commanders and effectiveness away from the fighting force. It is of the utmost importance that a chain of command is
followed.
When a soldier enlists or a junior officer is commissioned, he is basically submitting to his commanders and accepting the fact that he is no longer
in control. It is then up to the commanders whether an order is given or not.
The soldiers who purposefully failed to deploy on moral grounds or because they didn't trust the intelligence on Iraq, basically promoted themselves
to chief, defying effective fighting force 101. It wasn't their call to make but they made it anyway and I'm in full support of prosecuting them to
the fullest, as they broke the cardinal rule of being a soldier, as well as dishonored themselves by defying the oath they took.
Now don't get me wrong, I do not agree with either war and I even suspect that these wars are completely illegal, though it isn't my decision to
make. As a soldier, I follow orders, not question them, at least not on a professional level. Sure, I can question them to myself and I do, though I
dare not hesitate, lest I fail to do my job and uphold the oath that I took. I submit that my chain of command knows what they are doing and I put my
trust in them upon taking the oath. If I am ordered to clearly break the law or the Constitution, then it is my duty to refuse said order, though if
legalities are ambiguous or I don't have on the spot proof that something is illegal or unConstitutional, then it is my duty to carry out those
orders without hesitation. With that being said, it is also my duty to know the Constitution and to know what I can and can't order my troops to do.
However, I am forced to submit to the better judgment of my commanders and that is the only thing that makes our fighting forces effective. A private
does his job, no questions asked, just as a Sergeant, Captain, Major and General does. It is their job and it is their duty and once you fail at that
duty, you compromise the whole effectiveness of your fighting force and you are then not only letting yourself down, but you are also letting your
fellow soldiers and countrymen down.
It is the duty of American citizens to not vote in a Commander in Chief who would issue orders that the American people wouldn't want to be issued,
though it is the duty of the soldier to follow those orders, regardless of whether he personally agrees with them or not. It is not the duty of a
soldier to decide whether he likes or personally agrees with said orders.
With that being said, it is up to the soldier to know the law (as it pertains to his particular job) and any particular treaties, thus it is on the
soldier to refrain from following orders that are in clear violation of the law, such as taking over the home of an American citizen, or shooting a
civilian. It is not up to the soldier to decide the legalities of a war or morally object to an order. I might be able to understand this if our
fighting force wasn't volunteer, though it is a volunteer force.
But I do not accept that a soldier ought to have no right to choose his battles, before he even gets to theatre.
He gives up that right upon raising his right hand. Sorry, you don't get to pick and choose which orders you agree with and follow. It just doesn't
work that way.
There should be an amendment to the way soldiery are enlisted, which includes a right to refuse to deploy on moral grounds without fear of
discharge , or accusations of dessertion or cowardice.
No, there shouldn't, as it would fundamentally undermine the effectiveness of our fighting force. However, if the American people agree to such a
thing and their representatives pass such an amendment to the Constitution, then so be it. However, that would directly undermine the effectiveness of
our military and I certainly wouldn't then allow my children to join such a military. However, I highly doubt that such an amendment would be created
and I'm sure if it was, our top military brass would resign in mass.
There have been situations where fully qualified and utterly brave men, have refused to go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan, because they had a
massive moral issue with the intelligence levels used to justify the war, the probability that the war would claim sickening civilian
casualties
It's not their job to make that judgment, They should have thought of that before taking the oath. If they had a moral issue with following the
orders of their commander, then they shouldn't have made such a commitment. After all, that is the commitment that you take, to follow the orders of
your command. Again, you can't have all chiefs and no indians. They might be brave, but they aren;t qualified to make that decision, unless of course
they are at the very top of the command hierarchy, where it would be their job, thus they would then be qualified to make that decision.
and that in Afghanistan particularly , the enemy have no infrastructure to destroy, no target presented
That is false and I can personally attest to that. Look, I don't agree with either war either, but that is my opinion, as I have no authority as a
soldier to decide the rights or wrongs of this war. As an American citizen I do and I voted accordingly, though I was overruled by my fellow
Americans, so as a soldier, I ultimately follow their will. As a soldier, that is my duty and if you don't like or agree with it, take it up with the
American people.
Just regular people, with one or two per hundred thousand actually having anything to do with the battle.
If a soldier doesn't want to kill a "regular person", then he doesn't have to. In fact, it is his duty not too. That, actually is his job. I have
not yet seen a single commander who has ordered his troops to fire against their will on civilians. Has a soldier fired on civilians? Absolutely,
though that is on him. I suspect that in most cases, it is a soldier making that judgment call right there or getting permission from a commander
based on his judgment call. It is then on the soldier, as it is his duty to make that right decision. There has been not one single case that I'm
aware of, where a soldier has been punished for refusing orders to fire on civilians. There probably has even been cases where a low-level leader has
rdered his soldiers to fire on civilians, though again that is a clear breach of protocol and law and it is the duty of the soldier to refuse that
order and aga8in,. I'm not aware of a single soldier being prosecuted for refusing an unlawful order within his scope of responsibility, such as
firing on an unarmed civilian.
With that being said, I can almost guarentee that the ratio between innocent civilians and combatants is much higher than 1-2/100,000. However, as I
have said before, I don't personally don't agree with that war, though my personal feelings and professional duty are two different things and I
don't let my personal feelings interfere with my professional duty. In fact, to be affectivea and disciplined, I must seperate the two and when I
don't, it is a failure on me, my commanders and the American people. Again, it is not my duty to interfere with the will of the American people, as
it is my duty to enforce the will of the American people by following lawful orders that have been handed down to me.
Those men were arrested, but thier point was utterly valid, and thier candour not at all fear based, but actually conforming to the highest
standards of personal responsibility , and a desire to prevent the name of thier nation being tarnished with murder on thier account.
Again, nobody is forcing them to commit murder and if killing is their objection, then they shouldn't have signed the contract, took tax-payer money
and swore an oath. By refusing a deployment, you are in effect desserting, breaking your oath, failing your duty and most important of all, you are
failing and defying the American people, a public you swore to serve.
I agree that the brave men and women who fight for my nation, and for the others allied against "terror" are the highest examples of bravery
and determination. However , they are the lowest example at this time, of compassion, understanding, and personal responsibility.
Again, I object to that sentiment. That just isn't true. Sure the media only reports on examples of soldiers failing their duty to uphold the law,
such as firing on civilians, though I can guarantee that compassion is taking place on much more regular basis than murder and this is in spite of the
fact that neither murder, nor compassion is the duty of a soldier. You never see the compassion expressed by our troops over there. Our troops reflect
a whole gambit of individuals, soldiers who have families and children and feel empathy for the children over there. You'd be amazed at many of the
lives changed or saved on behalf of American soldiers in Afghanistan. However, that is not the duty of a soldier so any compassion is access. It is
your responsibility to know this before joining the military. If your goal is compassion, then maybe the red-cross is your bag. If your goal is to
serve the American people (and get a chance to show compassion), then the military may or may not be for you.
They have, as no others in our society (no matter which side of the pond you refer to ) more power to change that which is wrong with their
deployment, that which is wrong with the choices made, than do any of our citizens, and they know better than do regular citizens, what is asked of
them, and the moral implications of those activities.
No, your wrong. It is the American people who hold the responsibility of ensuring their government and Commander in Chief reflects and carries out
their will. It is the responsibility of the soldier to carry out and protect this will. It is the duty of the American citizen or American public to
decide the course of their country and it is the duty of the soldier to follow orders in accordance with that will. A military is pointless without a
chain of command and without a military, the American people wouldn't be able to project their will. The soldier has no ability to set policy or
decide the course of their country, that is completely up to the American public.
Look, a soldier fights for the American people and since government is supposed to follow the will of the people, the soldier ultimately follows the
will of the American people, through his commanders who in turn follow the will of government, who in turn follows the will of the American people.
Now, I'm under no illusion that the government follows the will of the people, but it is up to the American people to ensure that they do. This was a
failure with the American people, not the soldiers, as a soldier just ultimately follows the will of the people (through a chain of command).
You are putting the cart before the horse and issuing blame where it doesn't belong. We do not have a country that is run by the military, we are
supposed to have a country that is run by the people and it is up to the people, not the military, to ensure that their will is carried out by their
government. The Constitution allows them that ability and if it isn't being done, it is because the American people have failed at their duty, not
the soldier.
--airspoon
