Should we really honour the modern soldier?

[Fallen Angel]

zanket..

i disagree with your version of democracy. i don't think that would work. there needs to be a balance between the will of the majority and the rights of the minority. absolutely agree that the tendency is for the majority to steamroll the minority. but the way to protect that is through a system of laws and the government. if you don't have anything to balance out the people's individual right to choose for themselves then democracy will not be able to exist. what's the term..?? tyranny of the majority if i remember right. I could buy your idea of people making decisions for themselves, if you add in there.. making decisions that are best for themselves and the society. in my opinion, self-interest, or making decisions best for self, will not result in a democracy you speak of.

additionally, although we are a democratic society, our military is not democratic because it would not work. you're gonna make me dig up my sources for that statement aren't you ? it'll take me a while, it's been some time ago.. but continuing.. there is a trust and a responsibility in the military forces that is necessary, and which would not exist if people were able to quit as easily as you describe. if a unit is preparing to leave to go to war, and all of a sudden a number of people quit because they do not belive in the cause or any other reason (and understand that there would probably be many not so just reasons, like not wanting to be separated from family, or not feeling like it, finishing school, or anything else) then the unit becomes inefective and cannot accomplish the mission. you'd probably like that, cause then, according to you, that would be the voice of the people and so on and so forth. however, the average person is not very familiar with all the issues involved in making a decision of strategic importance. at a particular time when you are told to go, you go because it is your job, that is what is expected from you, and that is what the society expects from you. everyone eventually wonders why they are deployed or why they are fighting, but in order to be effective, in order to be capable of a defense of this nation AND its interests, the subordinates must place faith in the correctness of the decisions of their superiors. and you're right, in those soldier level decisions, where it's up to the individual to pull the trigger, or obey an illegal order, refusing can be the right thing to do. but on the level of deploying to war, or participating in a campaign, the individual soldier has incomplete information, and has to rely on his superiors to make the right decisions. so in reference to honoring the modern soldier, why not? if you don't like the war in iraq, it is the administration you have a problem with, but to condemn the individual soldier because he does not refuse to serve, i belive is unfair. the democratic society, which you are a part of, is who he serves. the only realistic way of implementing that servitude is through a chain of command led by an elected leader of this society. the individual soldier does what is expected of him, any faults on the trigger pulling level, may be his, but any faults on policy level are the failures of the administration.

you say "people should always refuse to be someone else's pawn." the military is a TOOL of our government that aids it in achieving its goals. at what point, below the policy maker level, is a member of the military not a pawn of the democracy he serves? he does what the nation thinks is best, because what he thinks is best, may not be best for the nation. it is not the soldier you have a problem with, it is the administration.

 

[zanket]

I could buy your idea of people making decisions for themselves, if you add in there.. making decisions that are best for themselves and the society.

Yes. The best decision that people can make for themselves includes society as well, for nobody is an island. That is why, for example, the majority has freely chosen to have police catch speeding drivers, even though each person in that majority knows that they themselves may receive a ticket. When people make the best choice for themselves they naturally include society. There are degrees to that though. For instance, in Italy few drivers respect the lane markings. A four-lane highway might have six lanes of traffic. Traffic gets horribly jammed of course. It’s a case of people thinking too much of themselves and not enough of everyone, to their own detriment, as least as regards driving. Still that is the best society that Italians can create.

The rest of your post is very good but faulty. Consider:

in order to be capable of a defense of this nation AND its interests, the subordinates must place faith in the correctness of the decisions of their superiors.

You say “defense.” Suppose the president comes right out and says he is going to attack another country offensively. Not defense at all he says, we need that country’s resources, pure and simple, and by golly we’re gonna kill as many of those heathens as we can while we’re at it and torture the rest. The majority is behind the president wholeheartedly and that makes the war perfectly legal. Now, should the able-minded soldier still do what he’s told?

Iraq differs little from that scenario. If a reasonable soldier were not convinced from the beginning that it was offense then he or she should be convinced by now. And ignorance is not an excuse.

and you're right, in those soldier level decisions, where it's up to the individual to pull the trigger, or obey an illegal order, refusing can be the right thing to do.

Then refusing to fight at all can be the right thing to do when the war itself is illegal. Nowadays “illegal” is a loose term isn’t it? Whatever the US majority chooses to do is legal worldwide by virtue that they can get away with it. Hence the Iraqis fighting our invasion are “insurgents.” How dare they resist our invasion? At some point the soldier (along with everyone else in society) must decide on their own what is right for them. They cannot always depend on their superiors.

I don't buy the argument that soldiers would cut & run in droves when they're really needed for defense. In WWII people did the opposite, running to enlist.

you say "people should always refuse to be someone else's pawn." the military is a TOOL of our government that aids it in achieving its goals. at what point, below the policy maker level, is a member of the military not a pawn of the democracy he serves? he does what the nation thinks is best, because what he thinks is best, may not be best for the nation. it is not the soldier you have a problem with, it is the administration.

A soldier need not be a pawn. They just agree to be one. And I have problem with them when they then hide behind that agreement, or patriotism or whatever, when they unnecessarily kill unarmed little girls (and everyone killed in an offensive war is killed unnecessarily). I also have a problem with the majority of people who led the soldier to do that. The administration is just a figurehead for the majority.

 

[Fallen Angel]

on the first point you mentioned about Italians. I just don't believe that people are capable of making every decision with the good of the society in mind. i guess we differ here on the nature of man. but it's been my experience that at one point or another a person will stop caring about the effect of their decisions on society, especially if they feel they are the minority and feel disadvantaged. additionally, is it so hard to imagine that opposing views will both claim to be best for society? that will result in conflict will it not?

about your point on offensive war, notice i emphisised "AND." what i was saying was defense of the nation and defense of the nation's interests. here is where offensive war comes into play. it is in the defense of the nation's interests. now you argue that it is for the natural resources of iraq that we are fighting, but once again, i would like to point out that the administration's claim, whether true or false (which was not verifiable at the time) was that the iraqis posed a threat to the united states because of development of WMDs and supporting terrorism. now you have a soldier, and his superiors, who by the virtue of their position have more complete knowledge of the situation, .. his superiors are telling him/her that it is time to go to war because we have been attacked by terrorists in new york, and in order to prevent that, we must attack iraq who is helping the terrorists in preparing more of these attacks. that was the knowledge the soldiers possessed at the time. why would they want to leave? after all, invading iraq was to protect the U.S. from terrorists by taking out one of their main suppliers. once again, whether that is true or not, could not have been verified at the time by the individual soldiers. the government machine was moving ahead and identified a threat and a method to eliminate it. here is my point that i brought up earlier. the administration is at fault for the war if there is anyone to blame for it. just because the trust of the soldiers was broken by those in power, does not mean that they are the ones to blame. society expects them to follow orders in order to accomplish the will of the government, which is the representative of the people. that is the system that's in place, soldiers are the executioners of the administrations will because that is the trust placed upon them. administration is responsible for making correct decisions because that is the trust placed upon it. now who failed here.. it was not the soldier. please, remember, society does not expect soldier to refuse orders to go to war, they only expect to refuse illegal orders on their own level where they have the knowledge of the situation. strategery (pun intended) is at command level.

soldier's agree to be "pawns" as you put it, though i do not like the word, because that is their job. that is how the military operates. there is no free speech, no voting, no desertion. military is not a democracy. just because these people choose to defend our democracy, does not mean that within the military structure they practice it. they practice it through voting and elections in civilian world, but military could not work in the democratic way the way society works.

lastly, innocents are not killed intentionally. i agree, it is tragic, but i highly doubt that any of that is intentional. even in our own courts there is a distinction between intentional and unintential killing, murder vs. manslaughter. i assure you that soldiers do everything they can to prevent such incidents. the administration puts them in a position where they have to fight in order to survive. once the bullets start flying, soldiers are just defending themselves.

 

[zanket]

additionally, is it so hard to imagine that opposing views will both claim to be best for society? that will result in conflict will it not?

Happens continuously. The majority rules.

now you argue that it is for the natural resources of iraq that we are fighting, but once again, i would like to point out that the administration's claim, whether true or false (which was not verifiable at the time) was that the iraqis posed a threat to the united states because of development of WMDs and supporting terrorism.

That issue was a joke. It was verifiably false to any reasonable person who took a little time to investigate the issue. Here’s a history lesson: There was no evidence that he was supporting terrorism. At one time Bush directed over 1,000 CIA & NSA operatives to work full time to find some evidence so he could boost support for his war bid. They couldn’t. The US sold Iraq their WMDs; the joke was that Rumsfeld knew they had them because Rumsfeld had the receipts. The WMDs became a “threat” when Bush Sr. double-crossed Saddam on Kuwait. (Saddam had asked the US for permission to invade Kuwait because they were slant-drilling under Iraq’s oil fields and wouldn’t stop. Saddam got the green light. After he was double-crossed Saddam even worked the international circuit showing everyone the transcripts of his meeting with the US enjoy who gave him the green light.) When Saddam surrendered to Bush Sr. the destruction of WMDs became a requirement, along with reparations. During the Clinton era Saddam paid $billions in reparations to Kuwait and other surrounding countries. Why would he willingly do that if he were planning to attack the US or any of its allies with WMDs? There is no reasonable reason why he would. And a no-fly zone and sanctions that cost peanuts per decade compared to full-scale war already contained him. The threat logic reached a ridiculous extreme when Bush (through Rumsfeld) demanded that Saddam prove he had no WMDs. That is logically impossible. Making the leader of the world’s nuclear superpower illogical, making Bush more of a threat than Saddam. Unless you believe that Bush really wanted the oil. Getting back on the topic, a soldier should know the history that led to the invasion, so they can confirm that they’re being used defensively.

now you have a soldier, and his superiors, who by the virtue of their position have more complete knowledge of the situation, .. his superiors are telling him/her that it is time to go to war because we have been attacked by terrorists in new york, and in order to prevent that, we must attack iraq who is helping the terrorists in preparing more of these attacks. that was the knowledge the soldiers possessed at the time.

Only if they believe what they’re told. They should not. They should question what they’re told, especially before being shipped over, because they are a deadly weapon. It’s not like they would have had to look very hard to see that it was offense. Or they can do what they want and earn my disrespect when it’s offense.

society expects them to follow orders in order to accomplish the will of the government, which is the representative of the people. that is the system that's in place, soldiers are the executioners of the administrations will because that is the trust placed upon them.

That’s just an excuse. Again, if a soldier is human enough to be expected to know which orders are illegal (like “kill that unarmed little girl”) then they must be human enough to know whether or not the war itself is defense. If they are to be judicial in battle then I expect them to not be a mindless tool as to the war itself.

soldier's agree to be "pawns" as you put it, though i do not like the word, because that is their job. that is how the military operates. there is no free speech, no voting, no desertion. military is not a democracy.

Again, they agree to join that dictatorship. That makes them blameful for its actions.

just because these people choose to defend our democracy, does not mean that within the military structure they practice it. they practice it through voting and elections in civilian world, but military could not work in the democratic way the way society works.

No, it could. It works just fine with mercenaries, of whom there are many in Iraq on the US payroll. Mercenaries don’t care about my respect. Pay the soldier more and let those who wish to opt out of the fight leave. With higher pay you’ll still have plenty left. The beauty of this arrangement is, offensive war costs far more than defensive war.

lastly, innocents are not killed intentionally. i agree, it is tragic, but i highly doubt that any of that is intentional. even in our own courts there is a distinction between intentional and unintential killing, murder vs. manslaughter.

In our courts, when a killing occurs in the commission of a felony, it’s murder. Offensive war should be a felony in my book. Anybody killed on offense is killed intentionally.

i assure you that soldiers do everything they can to prevent such incidents.

That’s crap. Didn’t I mention in this thread about the cruise missiles launched at the sleeping neighborhoods for the teeny tiny chance of getting Saddam? Lots of soldiers eagerly participated in that (Pushing the button now, yes SIR!). Just because nobody hears the screams of the dying doesn’t mean they aren’t. Just today in the paper another wedding party is wiped out. 45 dead, more injured at whom we'll throw a few bucks and let them deal with their lifelong disabilities and inability to earn a living. Yes the idiots were firing in the air. But before the attack, soldiers visited the site and verified it was a wedding party. Likely a communications problem, but this kind of thing has happened so often, and continues to happen, that at some point you have to conclude that there is little effort to prevent needless death (I believe it’s really a cost-cutting issue; the towel-heads just aren’t worth a dime to the average American--a nickel maybe).

Your posts are great but I still disagree. We’re going in circles now. I may not post again on this topic but I'll consider whatever you do.

 

[Fallen Angel]

zanket.. i enjoyed this.. and yeah, we'll keep on going in circles because i as well disagree ... see you on another thread

 

[spike_k]

What's going on with the modern soldier is in the minority. None of this is new, it's been around for centuries in hundreds of war but we have the 'power' of the media, so it's more publicised. In every group there are a few rotten apples, but unfortunately, soldiers are needed for the security of the country, a thing the hippies don't quite get and never would unless they lived in the real world.

 

[The Flemster]

Yeah!

You tell 'em, Steve-Dave!

Damn peaceniks!
So what if a few Jawas get pissed on or pointed at?
It's better than being burned alive or beheaded!

The Flemster.

 

[zanket]

Here's a soldier I can respect.

 

[shadarlocoth]

you all make me sick....

the USA modern trooper no mater what they do what they say need respect and to be honnored.... If we did not have them then the rest of the world would be screwed...

with out our little police force that everone hates the world would fall apart...

africa would be one big killing zone... because no one would stop them...

inda and packistan might go at it... the middle east would be one big smoking hole...

I'm sure Tiwain would be gone... maybe some other small countrys...

our friends to the south would all still be high and our friends to the north would still be drinking beer... there might be some hostile action but not sure how many...

mass ethnic killings would go on in former USSR block countrys....

the onlything keeping the world togeather is these little guys with the little red white and blue flags on there arms... do you really want to live in a world with out modern troopers?

 

[zanket]

Troop who defend I want. Those who offend I can do without; they make us less safe. Resist your patriotic urge to lump them together.

 

[CYNDEELOUWHO]

you all make me sick....

the USA modern trooper no mater what they do what they say need respect and to be honnored.... If we did not have them then the rest of the world would be screwed...(DOES THIS INCLUDE THE BARBARIC TREATMENT OF PRISONERS?)

I live next to a military base, my friends and family are active military. We talk all the time about how much they hate going to the desert! I also hear so many stories about how many of their fellow soilders are complete morons!!! I respect those who are respectful. I honor the honorable. I pray for the sick and demented.

As for the keeping peace throughout the world,,,,I think you better look a little deeper then what the media tells you. Last I checked, there were still hungry citizens in our own Country that need to be fed and using our tax dollars to police the world is not helping the homefront too much! I feel sorry for the men and women in uniform who know they dont agree with our foreign policies but have to go over there anyway.

 

[zanket]

Welcome to sciforums, cyndeelouwho.

They don't have to go over there anyway. They can choose one year in jail instead. If they still choose to go then they share the blame when it's offense.

 

[slotty]

How many of you on this thread have served in the armed forces? Its a dirty job but somebodys got to do it. Remember all you liberal hand wringing pussies, if it was`nt for your forces you would`nt be here slagging off anybody. (Moderator Edit) The forces is not a job , its a way of life. I know, i did 12 years worth.You are safe in your beds at night because of your forces.Nobody attacks a strong nation. Give a bit of respect were its due.

They're called turbans, not towels. Much like we call soldiers "soldiers" and not "criminals."

 

[The Flemster]

Anyone who is prepared to die so that I can have a freedom of choice in my daily life instantly gets my lifelong respect and gratitude. It should be the same with the rest of you lot too.
It really is that simple.

The Flemster.

 

[Tiassa]

Anyone who is prepared to die so that I can have a freedom of choice in my daily life instantly gets my lifelong respect and gratitude. It should be the same with the rest of you lot too.

I agree it's quite simple. However, that hasn't happened for so long in this country that nobody should have any illusions anymore about what they're joining.

Tell me, how does a soldier gunning down the mother of small children because he decided that the unarmed woman "was in the way" protect my freedom of choice?

How do over 100,000 soldiers prosecuting a dubious war in violation of the international agreements my country made in order to protect my freedom actually protect my freedom?

(Oh, yeah ... oil prices.)

 

[Fallen Angel]

so tiassa, what about the modern soldiers in afghanistan? do they not deserve respect? then you're gonna say, but iraq is different. and then i'm gonna say, but soldiers don't get to pick where they go. the same type of people that are in iraq are also in afghanistan. yet nobody here is badmouthing them. hate the war, not the soldier.

 

[Tiassa]

Ask someone else. It's a straw man as far as I'm concerned. I would invite you to go back and read my prior post, and pay attention to the quoted excerpt I'm responding to.

You asked, "what about ... Afghanistan?" As compared to what? My mention of "over 100,000 soldiers," meaning Iraq?

I mean, why are you asking me?

 

[The Flemster]

Iraq. Afghanistan.
So what? A few trigger-happy (mainly American) troops get all excited and do a few naughty things.
What about the other side of the coin?
How about the British soldiers in Basra and other places carrying out their duties with dignity and respect for the locals?
If you don't want the Iraqis running at you, strapped to the gills with explosives, dont erect an American flag on every corner. Dont use dogs to search their houses (it's seen as very disrepsectful in their culture to be searched by a hound). Dont play American music at full volume whilst cruising around in a Hummer thinking you're John Wayne.
The Brits don't do this, hence why they're not attacked so often.
Don't get me wrong: I think every soldier out there (in the Middle East) deserves respect, weather they are being 'good' or naughty. They put their lives on the line for the rest of us.
They are prepared to die for our way of life.
For our flags and all that stands for.
And they'll do all this even for those of you that don't want them to.

THAT deserves praise.

The Flemster.

 

[Tiassa]

A simple question:

• Why does any discussion of honoring the soldier (or police officer, &c) come down to "what they do for us" in concept?

There is an automatic and excessive respect expected of people where soldiers and such are concerned.

But soldiers don't pick their battles, as Fallen Angel points out. Rather, they sign on for hell or high water. And when that means they're accepting the possibility of prosecuting an illegal war and orders to violate the rules of warfare to which the soldiers are trained, well ... we must consider that.

So the automatic respect really is questionable. We presume that the soldier in the box is a hero, that he died honestly. Of the thousands dead in Vietnam, for instance, nobody can expect me to believe that every one of the dead died honorably.

And while the revulsion shown our soldiers in the wake of Vietnam was inappropriate (they were conscripts), so also does our American warring culture have fits every time someone legitimately criticizes our armed forces. And instantly we're back to issues of respect and honor.

In this country, we're expected to write a blank check on dignity. The guy who comes home in a box, who was killed while committing wrong acts, is still expected to be honored. At least until the press gets hold of how he was killed, and the myth of the noble, defensive soldier is shattered.

And no. Being prepared to die for a piece of cloth does not deserve praise. That's just downright stupid. If we Americans, military and civilian alike, actually lived up to what that flag alleges to stand for, I might have a different opinion about dying for a flag.

I mean, the Nazis are reviled, but in WW2, the craziest man in the war was not Hitler, but rather a Scot who played his pipes on D-Day. For all the savagery of the Nazi machine, nobody shot the piper, in part because even a Nazi hesitated at the idea of shooting someone who was visibly insane. (Whether he was actually insane or not is its own question.) Frankly, I find that quite honorable. But it's absurd to assign any value to that honor in the face of what those armies did.

It's just that there's "honor among thieves."

And how we regard that ....

In the end, it comes down to a soldier's conduct. But the automatic respect ought to be suspended, especially considering that they volunteered.

 

[Fallen Angel]

i did not say anything about automatic respect, but what i disagree is the automatic desrespect mentioned by various posters here. as i've said here before, each soldier can be judged on decisions he makes that he has power over. but to dismiss all of them because of the war in iraq is inapropiate.