Should we really honour the modern soldier?

[Undecided]

I am largely ambivalent to this because I think war is indeed stupid (if unnecessary), and whose you fight in them voluntarily should not be surprised with what they get. But I don't think we should disrespect them personally. But I don't hold too strong a moral conviction on this one. Referring to this thread I stumbled across some interesting points:

Those troops signed up knowing full well they could die in battle. Mourning their 'death is pathetic- they died for what THEY thought was right- not what you or anyone else thinks is right, and their deaths were certainly not 'worthless'- as they and their family define their worth to their own cause.
---------------------
We’re not talking about an army of ideologically pure demigods who are somehow going to beat the enemy with their moral stand, these are just people who are doing their jobs, and saying that mourning their deaths is pathetic is supremely callous and arrogant, in my opinion.

Then of course you have the moral outrage that comes afterwards. But it does raise a serious ethical issue. How much "respect" should we give to people who unabashedly obeyed orders they must have known were wrong (Abu Gharib, and other reported abuses) *Objective justice*, invading a country for no appropriate reason without an inkling of opposition, and then expecting us to respect them? Now I don't personally share this position, but I can understand why someone would. Is the modern military man/woman, nothing more then another alienated member of the gov't, or are they something more?

 

[Tiassa]

I think it has something to do with a "chain of responsibility."

• Until the world gets better, violence is a generally-accepted tool.
• We recognize the need, therefore, to provide for our defense against violence.
• Is it so tight an issue that we might spend our days distinguishing between those who enter the service for noble if misdirected reasons from those who enter the service to be professional guns? (I knew one of these in high school who received permission to leave school early one afternoon in order to enroll. He was itching to go to Iraq. Of course, the first war was over before he hit boot camp, but maybe he got his wish this time 'round.)
• Thus there enters a degree of separation 'twixt the people with the rifles and the people who order them around.
• The President lied to the American people, the world, and also his soldiers before he sent them to Iraq.

These things present a large number of conflicts, but none so great as to override my general sentiment: "Thank you for going. I didn't want you to go in the first place. I'm sorry it turned out this way. Have peace, at last, please."

Imagine if Abu Ghraib had gotten so out of hand that one day annhilation occurred. And then we bring back dozens of bodies and start investigating what happened. Imagine that only then does the leadership and public start to get a sense of what was going on inside. If we were to honor our criminal dead alongside those who went because it was the job they signed on for--if we honor our evil among our naîvete and nobility ... then, I think, the question of whether or not to honor the dead soldeir comes into play.

But living soldiers ... we can still measure them by who they are and what they choose to stand for. Even I had soldier fantasies when I was younger, but I consider the basis of those aspirations to be falsehoods.

In my lifetime, it has been considered "rude" to find atrocities atrocious. I think this diminishes the soldier.

None of it explains Vietnam, though. They should have been carving the political establishment to pieces instead of spitting on soldiers. Seems rather ... misdirected.

 

[zanket]

I do think soldiers should be disrespected. They volunteered without any guarantee that they’d be used only for defense. So they share the blame when it’s offense. There are degrees of disrespect deserved depending on circumstances.

 

[Cazov]

How much "respect" should we give to people who unabashedly obeyed orders they must have known were wrong (Abu Gharib, and other reported abuses) *Objective justice*, invading a country for no appropriate reason without an inkling of opposition, and then expecting us to respect them?

Sounds awfully familiar from a history class I took...oh yea, the NAZIS...what'd we do with them anyway? OH YEA, they're war criminals now....I think we can all see where this is going...

I do think soldiers should be disrespected. They volunteered without any guarantee that they’d be used only for defense. So they share the blame when it’s offense. There are degrees of disrespect deserved depending on circumstances.

So should the ones stupid enough to think that they're only there for defense (that is, they thing that preemption is a solely defensive action) only be held in contempt for being stupid and not for choosing to be soldiers?

What about medics and other non-combatant soldiers?

 

[top mosker]

Why would anyone want to respect someone whose job it is to kill people?

 

[Mystech]

Though they are the instrument through which this administration has bought misfortune and shame not just to Iraq, but to our own nation, I don't think it would be fair to say they are worthy of contempt.

For the most part these are just people like us, some joined the Army to get money for college, others are idealists, and signed on with a misguided sense of obligation to do the right thing. These are not condemnable traits. They did sign on to follow orders, and be the pawns of our president, but at the same time they were full of faith that they would only be ordered to do the right things. Any failure you may wish to attribute to them should be reserved for Bush or Rumsfeld, the men giving the orders (this applies mostly in the broader sense of going to Iraq; I don't mean to imply that any individual act by a soldier is Bush's sin as well).

It may be true that they never needed to be there in the first place, however they are now doing a job that needs to be done. Iraq is a mess because of Bush, that can't be changed, but these people are going to be instrumental in setting things straight, and hopefully restoring some sort of order, and sustainable system in Iraq.

As for giving them our respect, I can understand how you might be hesitant. Just try to keep in mind that these men and women are staying loyal to a promise they made, and at least they have a noble pretext to fool themselves with.

 

[zanket]

So should the ones stupid enough to think that they're only there for defense (that is, they thing that preemption is a solely defensive action) only be held in contempt for being stupid and not for choosing to be soldiers?

Only if they’re mentally disabled. I doubt there are many Forrest Gumps there. Otherwise the blame they share is greater.

What about medics and other non-combatant soldiers?

If they refused to go, the war couldn’t happen. So they share the blame too.

Why would anyone want to respect someone whose job it is to kill people?

Becomes killing is sometimes necessary to minimize casualties. If someone is about to throw a Molotov cocktail into a crowd and the only reasonable chance you have to stop it is to kill the thrower, you deserve respect for the killing.

They did sign on to follow orders, and be the pawns of our president, but at the same time they were full of faith that they would only be ordered to do the right things.

If their faith is misguided that’s their fault. Faith is not an excuse. They should have refused an order to offend.

It may be true that they never needed to be there in the first place, however they are now doing a job that needs to be done. Iraq is a mess because of Bush, that can't be changed, but these people are going to be instrumental in setting things straight, and hopefully restoring some sort of order, and sustainable system in Iraq.

The job does not need to get done, nor are they setting things straight. They are engaged in creating a new dictatorship in Iraq. Any democracy will be nominal. The soldiers are helping the US build 14 military bases and facilities for a staff of 4,000 Americans who, led by the US president, will be the true rulers of Iraq. The Iraqi government will be subservient to the US by force if necessary. And of course the US will still control the oil.

As for giving them our respect, I can understand how you might be hesitant. Just try to keep in mind that these men and women are staying loyal to a promise they made, and at least they have a noble pretext to fool themselves with.

Loyalty is not an excuse.

 

[Cazov]

Only if they’re mentally disabled. I doubt there are many Forrest Gumps there. Otherwise the blame they share is greater.

heh, I can agree with that.

If they refused to go, the war couldn’t happen. So they share the blame too.

Like that would stop the war...it'd just make it more bloody I think.

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

For the most part these are just people like us, some joined the Army to get money for college, others are idealists, and signed on with a misguided sense of obligation to do the right thing. These are not condemnable traits

In reality a large percentage of soldiers signed up to 'kill towel heads', pure and simply. I'm not saying that to slander them, its the honest truth. People I know that joined the army were excited over that prospect, thats why they joined, they hoped to get that opportunity.
I wouldn't say all soldiers are like this or anything close to all but a lot more than we would like to think, and probably the majority.
Something people who join science forums don't seem to realise is many people enjoy violence. Most people are 'bummed' that the law demands they can't kill someone.
When I say this I am talking about nearly every male between the ages of 12 and 40 that I know. Most everyone i know well admits they want to kill someone before they die. Most or all almost certainly will not, but still.
I guarantee most soldiers want to kill someone, they simply would not have joined if that wasn't the case. Some might be guilty of this pleasure and refuse to admit it but then many of them aren't ashamed. As I have said all the people I know that joined the military were openly 'pumped' about the prospect of shooting someone.

 

[zanket]

I believe that. Many were practicing with simulators (violent video games) for years.

 

[laughing weasel]

I would say that most soldiers that I know have older family members that are or were in the service. It is a tradition in some families that you do your patriotic chore of serving your country. If you believe in a representative democracy then you accept the fact that the government will sometimes have to do unpopular things. You agree to obey the will of the people as expressed through their choice of leaders. It takes a special kind of commitment to obey orders that you do not agree with but that are lawful. I did not want to kill any one when I joined up but knew that it might be required of me. I hoped that when the time came that I would be capable of doing what was necessary. How can you not respect someone who is willing to sacrifice their freedom and maybe their lives in order to protect yours? If you feel that they are serving in an unjust war write your congressman and your senators. If enough people agree then the policies will change. That is what the soldiers are fighting for, everyone’s right to be free and to participate in the decisions that have an effect on their lives.

 

[Cazov]

That is what the soldiers are fighting for, everyone’s right to be free and to participate in the decisions that have an effect on their lives.

You speak for the entirety of the American military? I find it hard to believe that even a majority of the soldiers in the military are doing it first and foremost to "protect freedom" and etc. I know some people who have joined the military, and sure, they parrot off the whole spiel about doing it for their country and etc, but usually it seems like they're doing it more because they enjoy being soldiers, they enjoy playing with the neat "toys" that most citizens never get to touch, they enjoy the feeling of power and superiority. Now, there's nothing wrong with that but I think its important to understand that a lot of soldiers aren't any more noble and much of the rest of us...

Though for people like you, laughing weasel, I do think that if you truly do believe that what you're doing is a net positive to humanity...then you're probably not of the "jerks" who're depicted above...

 

[zanket]

How can you not respect someone who is willing to sacrifice their freedom and maybe their lives in order to protect yours?

I respect you if you’re defending me. If you’re on offense or killing/endangering people haphazardly then you don’t deserve my respect. The will of the people is irrelevant. They will have you kill all day long to get what they want. To earn my respect it is incumbent upon you to hurt others only when it’s truly necessary for defense.

 

[laughing weasel]

Then vote in leaders who are worth the time of day. Let your legislators know your feelings before the soldiers are on the way. I believe that this war was necessary to show that America is still capable of defending her national interest. if we had only wanted the oil in Iraq we could have just eased off the sanctions which France and Russia were in favor of any way and then we would not have had to spend over a hundred billion dollars fighting this war and Hussein would still be in power and the agubu torture chambers would still be operating . Well we'll shut them down as soon as we're through with them. Why do liberals always want to blame someone else and take shortcuts across the system. It would scare me if the military just decided that it could do whatever it wanted to and started to ignore the orders that it was issued. Is that what you are asking the soldiers to do? That is not a wise policy to institute it leads to martial law and coup d'états.

 

[zanket]

What national interest? The legislators already know the public’s feeling. Whatever the legislators do is at the behest of the people by definition. That’s how democracy works. The people have spoken and whether through ignorance or greed or whatever, the majority of the public wants war. Offensive war. If you want to follow the public’s whim, go ahead. You just won’t get my respect. Maybe you can do without it. That’s your choice. Or you can convince me that the war is defensive.

Why do liberals always want to blame someone else and take shortcuts across the system.

Because the system is set up in such a way, institutionalized in such a way, that unless shortcuts are taken significant progress is unlikely. There are times when a person has to take a stand against the system. For example, Rosa Parks had to break the law to show that the law was unfair.

It would scare me if the military just decided that it could do whatever it wanted to and started to ignore the orders that it was issued. Is that what you are asking the soldiers to do?

This is easy. Were you ordered as a soldier to shoot an unarmed little girl, would you do it? Let me answer in advance. No, you would not, because that’s an illegal order. Now, let me ask you differently this time: Were you ordered as a soldier to shoot an unarmed little girl, and the public had declared that legal, thus a lawful order, would you do it?

Now what is the difference between that order and an order to fight in an offensive but legal war wherein little girls will surely be shot?

That is not a wise policy to institute it leads to martial law and coup d'états.

It does not lead to that when everyone makes the choices that are obviously right for they themselves.

 

[laughing weasel]

I would not shoot a little kid unless the individual pointed a weapon at me and I would probably still risk my life by trying not to kill the idiot. If I decided that this war was unjustified then I would terminate my career and service to the country by not going. I do believe that this war is both legal and justified. Not for the reasons that bush uses but for the simple reason that if you are running training camps for people to teach them to be more effective at fighting Americans then you are attacking America and can hardly get mad when we fight back.

 

[zanket]

Good answer. Except... Iraq had no such training camps. Now what?

 

[Fallen Angel]

zanket.. first of all.. there is a HUUUGE difference between an oder to shoot an unarmed little girl and going to war.

secondly... if we lived in a world where everyone made decisions that are "obviously" right for themselves, then it would be far worse than any democracy, or whatever your form of ideal government is.

i'm not stating any new points in this post. i'm just pointing out the inconsistency in your arguments. additionally, do you have any ideas for improvement? once you point out a fault, perhaps you would care to propose a solution that will better accomplish the goal?

 

[Cazov]

Not for the reasons that bush uses but for the simple reason that if you are running training camps for people to teach them to be more effective at fighting Americans then you are attacking America and can hardly get mad when we fight back.

...

So the war is just but the premises are incorrect to you?

So if Bush had said "we're going into Iraq to get all of our oil that's under their sand." You'd have still gone because the leadership in Iraq hates America and wants you, and I, and everyone else dead?

Your argument above seems to imply that.

 

[zanket]

zanket.. first of all.. there is a HUUUGE difference between an oder to shoot an unarmed little girl and going to war.

Like what? I’m talking about offensive war here. Unarmed little girls get shot for an unfair reason in both cases.

secondly... if we lived in a world where everyone made decisions that are "obviously" right for themselves, then it would be far worse than any democracy, or whatever your form of ideal government is.

No, you’d have the best possible civilization. Democracy was created from people’s desire to have the right to choose for themselves rather than being told what to do and even what to think by a monarch, dictator, or church. Should Rosa Parks have continued to sit at the back of the bus?

Now, if everyone did this, would we have anarchy? No, because the democracy we have is already a result of people’s individual choices. The problem with democracy is that sometimes the majority steamrolls over the minority. Like how whites held down the blacks. What took civil rights so long was that blacks did not demand their own choice en masse, so individuals got beaten and that cowed the rest. Once most of them got fed up with that, civil rights were quickly a reality. Now we have an ongoing situation where soldiers who volunteered to do good and then required to do bad. The ones who care are afraid to stand up for themselves, fearing retaliation that the system will mete on them. But if they all stood up, the system would change in a hurry and offensive war would no longer be possible for a selfish majority and their representatives. Bottom line is, people should always refuse to be someone else’s pawn. Soldiers, when they enlist, should demand that they be allowed to quit without penalty.

i'm not stating any new points in this post. i'm just pointing out the inconsistency in your arguments. additionally, do you have any ideas for improvement? once you point out a fault, perhaps you would care to propose a solution that will better accomplish the goal?

I’ve got a million of ‘em. State a goal.