Just wondering, for purposes of some fiction, what -is- the standard operating procedure for military chaplains with combat soldiers who are concerned about the whole ‘thou shalt not kill’ thing? (“It’s okay, son, they’re the enemy” just doesn’t seem right somehow)
For one thing, many biblical scholars have indicated that the proper translation for the commandment in question is “You shall not murder.”
I believe that most military chaplains, consciously or not, are likely using this distinction, along with the belief that killing enemy combatants in the course of following lawful orders is not murder.
That’s right.
Pacifist sects that don’t consider killing an enemy in wartime to be a moral act at any time won’t generally be sending soldiers to the army or ministers to the chaplain’s corps.
Hrm. Perhaps I should clarify the question; Let’s say a soldier is having the moral dillema about the killing thing. What’s SOP for a chaplain counciling said soldier?
Shape up or ship out?
In no way a factual answer, but I seem to recall in movies scenes of chaplains talking about the moral imperative to fight evil, just as X did to Y in (verse) of the Bible.
For the uninitiated, military chaplains are not what they appear. They are in fact, instruments of a chain of command to maintain discipline in the ranks and provide an alternate avenue for service members to discuss problems, in lieu of directly confronting superiors. Military chaplains in the services are perhaps more analagous to many corporate-sponsored Intervention or Employee Assistantance Programs (EAPs), although they are not bound by “client” or “patient” confidentiality practices that most civilian practitioners are.
Going back to your scenario, typically, military chaplains when confronted with such service members will usually make official notes of all such counseling sessions and report their findings to that service member’s chain of command. The soldier’s chain of command will then annotate and place a record of that counseling in that military member’s 201 (personnel) file and administer necessary discipline accordingly.
It has been my experience in the service that any servicemember who intimates that he or she will not perform their duty – with “duty” being the catchall term for anything from simply “obeying orders” to “killing the enemy”-- can be regarded as “malinger” attempting to avoid duty, which is a court martial offense.
Even in peacetime, service members who express a refusal to train with their unit, or refuses to carry out lawful duties can be punished under UCMJ, either administratively through an Article 15, or criminally through a Court Martial.
From a servicemember’s perspective, telling a military chaplain or your chain of command that you have moral qualms about killing the enemy in combat is an ill-advised thing to do, as it can be construed as an act of disobedience and insubordination, thus opening yourself to being charged with a court-martial offense.
In short, saying you have a problem with killing the enemy is basically the same thing as intimating a refusal to do your duty. Any servicemember who expressed such sentiments would be encouraged to get over such qualms, ‘buck up’, and concentrate on doing their duty.
However hackneyed that may sound, the belief in doing one’s duty and living up to expectations in the accomplishment of one’s duties is the glue that keeps today’s U.S. Armed Forces functioning.
To express a reluctance/refusal to do your duty as a servicemember is tantamount to professional and legal suicide, as such individuals can be administratively and/or criminally punished under UCMJ.
kmg365, I agree with you, to a point: It becomes nasty for the servicemember if there’s an intent to shirk one’s duties behind claiming a “moral dilemma” over killing, then they can be charged under the UCMJ.
However, there have been cases where people have been either voluntarily or “non-voluntarily” retrained when they become “Concsientious Objectors”. There are plenty of other support jobs that don’t involve direct combat with the enemy.
A flat out refusal to train with a unit or carry out lawful orders will darn near land your butt before an Article 32 hearing (similar to an indictment hearing). But, if the servicemember has a genuine concern or reason why they can’t do things, there’s always other options.
It all depends on intent. If Airman Joe Bag’o’donuts can show that he’s got serious moral issues with direct combat, they’ll reassign him. If he’s in a paper-pushing financial job, and he refuses to show up to work because he feels the American “Great Satan” should be brought to it’s knees, he’s toast.
Tripler
Typically, if someone’s malingering, it’s going to be fairly obvious.
I wonder if it makes a difference (to the military) if you hired on voluntarily, or were drafted.
Peace,
mangeorge
I was a military chaplain years ago, so there may be some basic proceedures in place now that I’m unfamiliar with. That being said, I’ll offer a few personal observations. A chaplain confronted with such a situation would make some sort of notational record because it’s a necessary component of the proceedure for the person to establish his status as a conscientious objector. At some pojnt in the process, if the person sticks with it, he’s going to be asked, “When did you first begin to hold this opinion?” It’s going to be helpful to him if he can say, “I discussed it with Chaplain X on such-and-such occasions over such-and-such period of time.” My own records would help confirm that his is a well-considered position.
From my own perspective, any discouragement I might offer to a service member in pursuing such a course would have more to do with not wanting to see someone throw away a military career on a whim than maintaining the number of people willing to use a weapon. personally, I’d be looking for signs that the objector’s position is reasonably well-considered and that it represents an attitude that he is likely to adhere to for some time. My personal sense is that most objectors were willing to work through the process rather than demanding that they be removed from their status instantly.
Since you mention fiction I’ll offer one or two other thoughts about the situations of objectors. First, it’s not a dodge for people who are cowards. Things may have changed, but I’ve known Corpsmen who had religious objections to taking a life but whose work was theoretically very dangerous indeed. I don’t think it would be a realistic presentation to portray a CO as someone who just wants to get out of harm’s way.
Second, few people just wake up one morning and discover that they are objectors. Often there has been some essential change (like a religious conversion experience) that causes the person to reevaluate his life and the committments he has.
Third, as Tripler mentioned, there are some jobs that are less likely to invlove the application of violence to others, and the objector needs to have a sense of whether serving in one of those would allow him to serve with a clear conscience or whether only complete seperation from the military will suffice.
Finally, at least when I was in, one important distinction for a true conscientious objector was that he couldn’t pick and choose the wars he was unwilling to participate in. Taking the position that he’d be willing to fight the Soviets but not the Panamanians didn’t constitute conscientious objector status.
Curate
Upon re-reading the OP, I don’t think the question is limited to someone who wants out, but includes someone who is having qualms about killing. A combat vereran who has already killed, for example.
How would the chaplain counsel the person that killing in a war is ok? Lets say that the person is not a christian, and isn’t troubled on bibical terms, but feels a personal moral reluctance to take more lives. Lets also say (for giggles) that the person is concerned about non-combatants.
Your scenario reminds me of a memorable scene from an Australian-made WWI movie called The Lighthorsemen that came out in 1987. The story is about an infantry soldier of the Australian Lighthorse Regiment, who finds out in the middle of the Palestinian Desert Campaign, that he just can’t bring himself around to killing the enemy.
After a couple incidents like this that jeopardize the lives of others in his unit, at his squad leader’s request, he is counseled by the unit’s chaplain, who instead of trying to change his mind, simply offers a more suitable alternative – serving as a stretcher bearer with the Medical Corps.
I thought this depiction of a chaplain was realistic, as the chaplains I’ve encountered in the military are all about being pragmatic. In other words, they tend to be no-nonsense individuals, who on one hand, tend to be rather jaded having seen it all and heard it all in terms of typical soldierly bitching, but on the other hand, have neither the time, desire or volition to get into heated discussions or debates with soldiers about the meaning of duty or the rightness/wrongness of killing. These types of issues are usually aired at the small-unit level. (Chaplains are typically regarded by gruns as being too out of touch to have such meaningful discussions about such things.)
Also, those type of discussions – if at all – are typically the stuff of late-night, back-of-the-barracks type discussions, or bull sessions during lulls in training with other squadmembers, or one-on-one’s with a squad leader or other NCOs. Anyhow, most grunts, like I was, would feel more comfortable discussing such matters or issues – such as moral qualms about killing – among their own peers or prefer to keep such a discussion within their own squad/team.
I personally don’t think a chaplain would ever try to consel a soldier or attempt to persuade a servicemember along the lines that “killing is OK.” What a chaplain would probably do if confronted with someone expressing a moral reluctance to kill in combat, as Curate described would be to verify whether the servicemember is a bonafide conscientious objector or simply someone attempting to shirk their duties.
If the situation is the former, as Tripler stated – assuming that there is proper intent – a chaplain would probably recommend that that servicemember be reclassified or reassigned to a different MOS.
If the situation is the latter, the chaplain may try to find out what the real problem is – dissatisfaction with peers/MOS/unit/chain of command, etc. – and may recommend a transfer/reclassification accordingly.
If the servicemember, however, continued to expresses intransigence about doing his duty despite offers of reclassification, reassignment or transfer, as I stated previously, this could be construed as a refusal to perform lawfully assigned duties, and could result in charging that servicemember with a court martial offense. (Chaplains are not above making such implied threats in order to “motivate” service members or to help them see the ‘light.’ )
I would think though, that perhaps the most likely scenario is the one described by Tripler where a bonafide objector would probably be encouraged by a chaplain to accept a transfer or a reassignment into a ‘safer’ MOS.
This is a point I had never really thought about. . . I thank you.
Granted, in your example, it’s night and day, but it’s a good example.
Tripler
I am much obliged.
After reading the entirety of this post, especially starting with the preceeding paragraph and a couple of other select sentences:
To me, it seems that you don’t really sense the need of a Chaplain. Chaplains do in fact provide an alternate avenue for servicemembers to discuss their problems. However, they serve this function as an ‘outsider’, as someone who can provide them with some solace in times of need, without remorse, without recompense. Personally, I think your image of a military Chaplain in any branch is just plain incorrect. [sub]I’m not sure which branch you may have served in, but having met Air Force, Navy, and Army “padres”, they seem very standardized across the board.[/sub]
Granted, there are specific times that a Chaplain must act on a confession, but unless I am mistaken, the same priviledges of confidentiality apply unless specifically subpoenaed.
I fully agree with you that a Chaplain would work, but more for the individual to find resolution than for the system as a “Shirt” or “First Sergeant” would. However, given the OP, I think a Chaplain would take more account into the personal issues of the given servicemember to try to place them into the proper moral position than anything you are giving them credit for.
Tripler
Chaplians are priests, ministers, rabbis, and preachers first and foremost. Not soldiers or adjutants.
Now you’re talking about taking confession, which is a totally different thing altogether with its own rules and regulations as prescribed by the Roman Catholic Church. (Confession, btw, is not the same thing as day-to-day counseling.)
Of course they are, but you are mistaken if they don’t also take their roles as soldiers and adjutants seriously. However the main distinction I’d like to make is not the cleric-soldier distinction that you have introduced, but rather that unlike health professionals, chaplains are not bound by patient confidentiality rules.
So although your military padre may have the best of intentions, chaplains are oftentimes instruments that are used by a chain of command to maintain efficiency and discipline within the ranks.
I honestly have to admit that as a infantryman, I’ve never put much faith in military chaplains, b/c I think they serve more of an adjutant/ceremonial role – even though that is not what they would deign to be. However, as is the case in the military, you don’t need me to tell you as an ostensible veteran yourself, that there is a big disconnect between how things appear to be, versus how they actually are.
Anyways, my point is that in infantry units like I served in, where there is good unit cohesion and better-than-average espirit de corps, personal problems or issues are oftentimes best aired and resolved at the small unit level among your own squadmembers.
Going to a chaplain to discuss things that should be discussed with your squad or squad leader is oftentimes seen as a chickenshit way of resolving things from a grunt’s perspective.
For REMFs, however, going to a chaplain may make more sense, and I certainly wouldn’t begrudge them that right, as REMFs – in general – require a little more hand-holding and mollycoddling.
I have a question about this. Does this apply if a objector has for example close relatives in the panamanian army? I’d have a real hard time shooting at group that might contain family. I don’t think I could do it, even to save my own life.
Given that the US hasn’t had a draft in 30 years or so, can we all agree that that lately servicemen are voluntary?
Now, I can see why many would want to join up. A college education being the most heavily advertised. In addition to long-term carreer options including family health, housing subsidies, and an awesome pension plan.
However, these benefits come by agreeing to put your life on the line, if ever called into combat. It’s not a free pass for a degree, then “jump ship” when the s*** hits the fan.
I can see where an unwilling draftee would have an argument, but if you join the military of your own volition, you knew it wasn’t the girl scouts.
back to regularly scheduled programming
A good example of the U.S. Army’s policy of precluding recent immigrants from having to fight against their own nationality was when the U.S. Army deployed the 442nd RCT (Regimental Combat Team), and other Nissei (second-generation Japanese-American) Army units to the ETO (European Theater of Operations) to fight the Nazis. (No Nissei units were deployed to the Pacific.)
I guess this made practical sense at the time. However, in today’s desegregated Armed Forces, I’m not aware of any policy that would grant a waver to someone from having to fight in their homeland.
In fact, during “Operation Restore Hope” in 1992-93, one of the Marines who landed on with the MEU into Somalia was the son of Farad Adid. Of course, at that time, they weren’t trying to kill Adid-- they just were trying to keep the peace in a PKO.
(It was after the Marines pulled out, and after Clinton took office that Adid became a target.) I would say that servicemembers who are recent immigrant members of a nationality that is an opposing force, could be best used or deployed in an intelligence role or translator/interrogator capacity, but that’s just my 2 cents.
You make a good point, SeekingTruth, but there is another side to this. Sometimes the oath is sworn outside the reality of that promise, or without any real opportunity to refuse the oath. And the military can sell the kid a bill of goods. Maybe it’s not the girl scouts, but those recruitment commercials are full of bullshit. Many enlistees don’t make the grade. That’s no reason, IMO, to shame them for life.
he might well offer St Augustine of Hippo’s doctrine of the ‘Just War’, summarised here http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/ethics/war/jwhistory.shtml