Read this http://www.suntimes.com/output/iraq/cst-nws-ikosovo19.html
I thought that Ronald Reagan made a deal with Canada not to take in Draft or War Dodgers anymore. Even though many people are starting to show their disapproval of the war “including Spain who has announced that they are pulling all of their troops out immediately” Does anyone here think these two American soldiers were right for doing this?
If you start from the premise that the war in Iraq was illegal and immoral (as I do), then defecting is an honourable thing to do. So to answer your question, um yes.
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_141.html
Doesn’t really relate to soldiers in the current war, but seems to contradict the idea that Reagan made a deal wrt to the draft.
Oh, and to answer your final question, absolutely.
Canada is welcome to keep them.
One of the two idiots is 18 years old, meaning that at most, he has been in the Army one year.
Ahem
WHAT THE FUCK WAS GOING THROUGH HIS PEA-SIZED BRAIN WHEN HE ENLISTED?
Canada, do your duty in the War on Terror™ and keep the ignorant fools.
I would disagree with that while accepting the premise that the war is illegal and immoral.
As a soldier one is obligated to thier country, to do as their country commands them, regardless of that task. I think the duty to your country is greater than any moral qualms.
Oh, this is my first time in GD, go easy on me.
Certainly not. What does the military do with desserters these days?
Marc
Assuming that these fools had any great moral qualms and were not just surprised they were actually called on to do what they had signed up to do…
That is hardly a fair starting point, a more relevant, I believe, premise would be something like: is it moral defensible for a person to renegade on a contract he himself freely has signed on to, if he at some later time find it goes against his personal morals or change his mind. As much as I despise them, on the whole I’d say yes: But I’d have had a lot more respect for them had they opted to stay in America and face the consequences of their belief, as it is they’re just taking the easy way out.
In such cases one should always try to find examples that are moral disgusting to oneself and see if one can still accept the consequences. E.g. would a Nazi be in his right, morally speaking, to refuse to combat fires at a Jewish old peoples’ home? Is it morally right for a white supremists to refuse to give blood to a Negro? Etc. If you can say yes to those, then you can say yes to the deserter – if not, then I can’t see how. You’re are just saying “right is as I do”.
aw. You’re just trying to avoid being flooded by deserters.
You’ve got to be kidding me!
Do you really, truly believe this? Heck even military law has guidelines allowing a soldier to disregard illeagal actions.
On a more personal level were I a soldier, I would not carry out an order I deemed to be immoral (which is why I’d make a poor soldier).
If my superior tells me: “Kill those bunch of unarmed civilians”, he’ll be lucky if I don’t turn my gun on his ass and make him regret the words.
Now, certainly this particular example is quite different from my little theoretical scenario.
I agree that this war was illeagal, and a bit immoral, but I’m not sure that defecting was the right thing to do either. I’m torn on this one.
Rune: Assuming that these fools had any great moral qualms and were not just surprised they were actually called on to do what they had signed up to do…
Well, if you read the linked article, you’ll see that one of them had already served in Afghanistan:
So he, at least, seems entitled to the benefit of the doubt when asking whether these soldiers are just trying to evade their responsibilities or are really motivated by ethical considerations.
I was going to take that remark out in my original reply because of the possibilty of remarks such as yours. Instead I’ll add to what I said.
What I meant was they would complete a task that was within the guideline for being a soldier. So in the example you gave, the soldier would be within their right to refuse that order.
LOL - 
As for obeying "regardless of that task" you're completely wrong... or the Nazis soldiers were right in killing millions in concentration camps. Any American Civil or Military servant if given an illegal order should not do it. Obeying illegal orders doesn't exempt you from being a criminal.
If someone has moral qualms about shooting other people then they shouldn’t enlist. If they have moral qualms about shooting people WHEN in an illegal war… then I might give them the benefit of the doubt.
If you would see a granfalloon
Just take the skin off a toy balloon.
-Kurt Vonnegut
A granfalloon, of course, is an arbitrary collection of people based on an irrelevant characteristic: middle names, skin colors, handedness, geographical residence, etc. And there’s no greater granfalloon than the nation state.
A person has no real moral obligation at all to a granfalloon. There’s no such thing as duty to one’s country. There is, of course, such a thing as duty to one’s friends, to one’s family, and duty to humans in general exists. But “country” doesn’t exist. “Country” has no moral rights and can impose no moral obligations.
As I see it, there are several conflicting moral imperatives facing these soldiers:
-If they don’t fight, they’re breaking their word. That’s a significant ethical failing.
-If they do fight, they’re risking their own death, which can have very real negative consequences for their family and their friends, to whom they have very real moral obligations.
-If they do fight, they’re risking committing unethical killings. That’s just about the biggest possible ethical failing.
-If they don’t fight and do go to prison for it, they may be unable to satisfy their moral obligations to their family. Furthermore, according to the article, they could be executed for their actions.
-If they don’t fight and flee the country, they’re not taking accountability for their oathbreaking.
On balance, I think they’re doing well to go to Canada: while breaking your word is a terrible thing to do, it’s far worse to keep your word when doing so involves committing unethical killings. And the punishments they’d face for breaking their word in the US far outweigh the crime they’d committed; while they may deserve some punishment for refusing to hold to an unethical oath, certainly they don’t deserve years in prison or the death penalty.
I hope that they’ll think far more carefully next time before they swear an oath that might end up obligating them to commit unethical killings.
Daniel
FTR, the last time anyone in the US military was executed for desertion was back in WW2, and IIRC it involved actual in-the-battle-line desertion. We’ve had a couple of cases in my hometown of people trying to welch on their enlistment and all points to just some jail time. And there is no dishonor in doing your time in order to stand up for what you believe is right – and BTW you CAN apply to have your status changed to conscientious objector after-enlistment – but fleeing just looks like you’d rather not face any consequences.
Interesting–thanks! It’s a hard case for me, because I definitely believe any soldier who refuses to fight in Iraq is doing the moral thing; viscerally I have a hard time advocating punishment for someone who does the right thing, when someone who does them immoral thing (continuing to fight in an unjust war) goes unpunished.
However, I do have to recognize that these guys, unlike Vietnam-era draftees, did sign up for duty, and they knew when they signed up that they might be ordered to do things they considered immoral, and they signed up anyway. I have a harder time letting someone out of a devil’s bargain when they knowingly signed the contract.
Maybe if they get jail time, it’ll discourage other moral folks for signing up.
Daniel
I’d understand a draftee doing a runner but if volunteer doesn’t want to fight in a particular fight they should stand up and be a man about it and take their medicine.
Death penalty must be an extremely remote threat. Because if not, what idiot would sign the contract stipulating that if you break it you get shot. However, if US gov. actually offers such contracts, let’s hear about it.
Well, could it be that his outlook on the Army and the US has changed thanks to his experience? As opposed to his uniformed opinion of military service based on movies and recruiters from a year ago? I could accept that as a real possibility - but I believe he should have stayed with his unit, petitioned for conscientous objector status, and faced the consequences of those actions. That way, at least, I could believe he was satisfying his conscience while also attempting to satisfy his contract.
So, all in all I believe seeking asylum in Canada was not “the right thing”.
Exactamundo: the worst these guys would likely be facing is a stretch in jail that would not be much longer than their original military committment.
Damn straight. But you didn’t stand there and say “No sir, I will not” like a man or a soldier would. You ran like a little boy.