Necessity of the Military and Moral Responsibility

Great Debates
1

Currently this thread in the Pit is re-hashing the age-old ‘are soldiers morally responsible for the wars in which they participate’ question.

It seems to me that the folks who say “yes” are asserting that a soldier, when faced with a questionable war, is under the moral obligation to quit his/her job.

For quite some time I felt basically the same. Heck, if you signed up for a job in the military, you are responsible for your actions insofar as you allow yourself to do whatever someone else tells you without question.
But, I think there’s a fatal flaw with this distribution of responsibility.

Assuming that a standing army is necessary (which I most definitely believe), then as a citizenry that employs that army, we have to allow some latitude where moral responsibility is concerned. If soldiers didn’t participate in any action that their personal moral code had some questions about, then we could not have an army as we know it. I certainly wouldn’t want to pay (via taxes) to educate and train soldiers who might decide to quit when we went to war, the very event that validates the job of a soldier.

So, if I expect soldiers to do their jobs appropriately, which in the best of circumstances involves steadfastly obeying orders in the face of danger, personal distaste and moral ambiguity, then I cannot cherry-pick which choices a soldier is responsible for, particularly when those choices are as broad as, “am I going to deploy.”

I grant that there are extenuating circumstances, and am not suggesting that a soldier rape babies on the order of his CO. However, I think there is a lot of latitude that we need to grant soldiers, because it is the nature of the job that we hired them for that they not question orders, and that they put their personal feelings aside for the good of their fellow soldiers and their country.

In summary, I’d like to debate whether or not a standing army can exist if each soldier is burdened with the moral responsibility of every action he is asked to take in the course of his job.

2

To me soldiers are doing a job. A job that not everyone has the stomach for. Still it is a job that needs to be done. I would not fault a surgeon for saving the life of a known murderer or serial killer. Should he? Not my call to make. Doesn’t seem like a call that he would make either. Not a call I would make for a soldier either. And not a call a lot of soldiers seem to make either. Maybe because like doctors they took an oath.

3

I don’t buy it. Firstly I don’t agree with the necessity of a standing military (but I don’t want to derail this so I’m not going into that).

Most importantly though I think your argument leads to an acceptance of the ‘just following orders’ excuse. One which was not accepted at the Nuremberg Trials. Which is to say that any order, given by someone with sufficient authority, must be followed regardless or the morality of it. And that leads into some fairly nasty territory.

4

Well I agree, and maybe I wasn’t as explicit in my OP as I should have been. I think there are circumstances where, despite the job expectations, a soldier becomes morally culpable for some of his actions. Torturing prisoners, for example. However, there’s a broad spectrum, and I think soldiers should get a pass for most actions at the opposite (more benign) end, such as deploying to a specific location, firing on defined military targets (and trusting COs that the target is legitimate), etc etc etc.

Neither a “soldiers are always responsible for everything,” nor a “soldiers are responsible for nothing,” attitude is really viable.

5

I don’t think there is any question to anyone who actually understands how the military works at a fundamental level. If soldiers could simply choose when to fight and when not to fight then you wouldn’t HAVE a military. Assuming you feel that a nation state requires a military then you simply can’t give the soldiers the choice of when to fight and when not too.

In the US that’s why the military is under CIVILIAN control…a civilian control I might add that is answerable ultimately to the people who elect them. Any US citizen who is attempting to blame the soldiers in Iraq for anything basically has no concept of what their citizenship means. WE sent those boys (and girls) over there. It was the government that the majority of us elected. Not just Bush et al, but the Congress and Senate approved it as well. AND the majority of us supported that war when we sent those soldiers over there…when we ORDERED those soldiers over there. In addition, we fucking RE-elected Bush for another term…and the recently elected Congress is still going along with the war at this point. That’s OUR government…we hired them to represent us.

This doesn’t get into soldiers who go off the reservation and do something outside of the UCMJ…obviously those soldiers have broken the laws which govern them and should be rightfully punished. Which is why we HAVE a UCMJ, ehe? And obviously if a soldier is given a patently illegal order then its up to the soldier to make a determiniation that it IS an illegal order. However, if they are given a LEGAL order then wtf do people think? That they should disobey that as well? I wonder if these fluff brains ever think about the implications of THAT. I’m guessing…they don’t. If the military decides that it won’t follow the lawful orders by the civilians in charge I think that would be a very Bad Thing™…and I think those self rightous and clueless priggs who think differently would seriously regret it when circumstances change and its not Iraq we are talking about anymore.

YMMV.

-XT

6

Can we quit with the “just following orders” thing, already!? It is already established in the military that a soldier MUST NOT follow an unlawful order. This has nothing to do with participation in morally ambiguous wars. Soldiers were lawfully deployed from the United States to Iraq. Those soldiers were sent there to kill insurgents… legally. So, guess what. “I was just following orders” IS a valid reason for them to be there killing insurgents. And, provided they follow the ROE, Laws of War and international standards, they will never need an “excuse” for killing. It’s part of their job.
If they were later ordered to break the law by executing prisoners or something–and if that was what we were debating–then the “I was just following orders” thing and the Nurnburg Trials become relevant.

Neither is relevant in a thread like this which is talking about a soldier’s moral responsibility to partake in a war already deemed legal. There is not going to be any mass war trials after this war where Bush and all the soldiers will be tried for their part in Operation Iraqi Freedom. It’s not going to happen, so quit withe the allussions to Nurnburg.

As for the OP:
If you accept that a standing Army is necessary, then it is necessary for the soldiers in that Army to go and do what they are legally asked. They can’t just refuse to do things based on their personal political beliefs.
And as far as Morals go. I don’t think it’s amoral for a soldier to go to Iraq with the altruistic intent to help the citizens of that country, to rid the country of insurgents and violence and to help them create a stable democracy. It may be highly wishful fantasy, but it’s not amoral.

So my answer to you would be that the soldier’s intent is what makes his actions morally straight or not. Each soldier doing small, but positive things in Iraq will make a difference. That’s about all each soldier can do. They can’t control whether an entire nation has clean, running water… but he might be able to help one family or one village dig a well.
So it might be morally wrong in the big picture. Maybe the entire invasion and operation is a disaster, and it’s Americas fault that so many citizens of Iraq live in fear and bath in filthy water, and have shitty infrastructure. But that doesn’t mean that the individual soldier is responsible for that. Especially not if he goes over there with the intent on doing everything he can within the limits of his rank and job to make things right.

The morallity of an individual soldier’s actions should be judged independantly from that of the military action itself.

Besides, if a soldier quit now, he might not get a chance to do something profoundly and unambiguously grand for the world (or at least some small village in some little country) in the future. They Army does humanitarian missions throughout the world as well. One can’t choose his missions, but he can choose is conduct and ambission while doing those operations.

7

Putting on a uniform changes your moral reponsibility not a whit.

Wait, there is one whit. You assume new reponsibilities…you have a moral responsibility to obey lawful (and moral) orders, because you promised to obey orders, you have a responsibility to obey military customs, and so forth.

Other than that, no difference. Anything that it would be malum in se for me to do as a civilian would also be wrong for a soldier, and vice versa. The only difference would be malum prohibitum issues, like whether I should wear a uniform, drive on the left or the right, and such.

So it would only be moral for a soldier to shoot at other human beings if it would also be moral for me to shoot at those same human beings. Now, it may be that for prudential reasons I should refrain from attempting to shoot those people…I’m not trained, I’m not part of a team that can help me, I don’t have the intelligence (in the military sense) about who are good people to shoot at and who aren’t, and so forth.

This is why we allow the government to imprison people, but disallow individuals from doing so. The prison guards, judges, and cops don’t have any more right to lock people up or shoot people than you or I. It’s just that you and I frequently make mistakes about whether such things are a good idea, and formal systems for dealing with violence have been shown to have very good results. So we sometimes refrain from exercizing such options because we know that other methods of justice exist that are just as good if not better. So I don’t shoot the murderer, I call the cops, the cops put the murderer in jail, the judge and jury try him, and the executioner shoots him. But if it wouldn’t be moral in an abstract way for me to shoot that murderer, it can’t be moral for the executioner as my agent to shoot him.

So, I don’t own a gun, I don’t care for violence, and my response to people shooting isn’t to shoot back but to hide and call the cops. And the cops will shoot back. That isn’t because I don’t have the right to shoot back, just that I’m not trained how to use weapons and I don’t like the idea of being killed or wounded, and if people will agree to act as my agents in this matter I’m happy to let them. And this has many other positive effects, for instance, not only is justice done, but it is seen to be done. When the murderer goes to trial we all agree with the result. The murderer’s family almost never vow to seek revenge on the cops or the judge or the jury, because even if they don’t agree with the result in this case, they agree with the concept of the rule of law. And you just have to go back to the middle ages and blood feuds to see what will result if I “took the law into my own hands”. I have the moral right in an abstract sense to take the law into my own hands, but it would be immoral for me to do so in many or most cases, because the positive effects of the rule of law are so great.

8

Thank you for writing this. I’ve been trying to get that point across but I just can never explain it. I enlisted to serve the people of my country. Where they send me, I will go. Period.

9

Of COURSE this is true. But it is seriously irrelevant.

How many German soldiers were prosecuted at Nuremberg for taking part in the invasion of France, or Poland, or Russia? How many were tried for shooting French, Polish, or Russian soldiers? How many were tried for dropping bombs on London?

Zero.

Zero.

Zero.

Why can’t people understand this simple idea?

Yes, “I was just following orders” is not an excuse. You can’t shoot prisoners, rape civilians, set up death camps, use torture, and on and on. Even if ordered to shoot prisoners, rape, commit genocide, use torture, those orders are not an excuse.

But if your orders are to shoot enemy soldiers who aren’t trying to surrender? Legal. To bomb enemy cities? Legal. To march into another country that never did you any harm? Legal. No soldier has ever been prosecuted for doing such things, and “I was just following orders” is nothing more than the simple truth.

10

I’ll contend that this should be an offense. Along with taking part in any war of aggression (such as this one in Iraq)

11

Then I contend that you don’t understand the military, don’t understand the military and its role in the US, and also don’t understand your responsibilities as a citizen (assuming you are an American). In short, your contention is from a lack of knowledge so its fairly easy to dismiss.

I further contend that you only think this way because of your feelings toward Iraq. That if the situation were different you would be quite dismayed if the military decided to not heed the orders of their civilian superiors.

-XT

12

The only moral question a soldier gets to ask is the one BEFORE he signs up:

“Am I willing to kill people if they order me to?”

Once you say yes, then you are done. Yes, you must still act under the rules of war, but other than that you have stepped over the big moral line regarding killing people.

Heinlein had two interesting things in Starship Troopers:

  1. A soldier could quit at ANY time. Right before a drop, as they orbit an enemy planet, a soldier could quit.
  2. Only veterans could vote - but NOT CURRENT SOLDIERS. The second part is the interesting bit here, and makes me think of my Grandfather. He was career Army, and did not feel that he should exhibit ANY political bias during his career. He did not register with a party until he retired.

In our all-volunteer military, the time to make the moral decision was before you signed up (or re-upped). After that, you know what you are in for if you have half a brain.

13

Then you’d never have a military. You’d have to be insane to sign up under those circumstances. But you’ve already said that you don’t think a military is necessary, and although you said you don’t want to derail this thread with a discussion about that… well, that’s exactly what’s happening.

14

So what should have happened to all the German soldiers after WWII? Every single one of them had taken part in a war of aggression.

Line them all up and shoot them? Like we did for the Nazi leaders?

Of course, the Russians had similar notions. Surrendering to the Russians was equivalent to suicide. And of course, after the war all Russian POWs released from German prison camps went straight into Russian prison camps, since only traitors could surrender to the Germans and live.

15

Look, this really isn’t that hard.

There are certain people who follow a moral code that prohibits them from fighting in a war. Any war. Such people shouldn’t fight in our armed forces in normal circumstances.

Now, believing in this doctrine does not mean ceding your belief in the notion of self-defense. If the mainland of the United States were attacked, some people normally considered pacifists would fight back - and nobody should consider them hypocrites for doing so. But normally, a pacifist should refrain from enlisting or become a conscientious objector in a draft situation.

If opposition to war is situational, as it is for most of us, the situation is considerably tougher. The decision to go to war belongs to the nation, not the individual. I can’t declare a personal war against anything, can I?

Therefore, the decision is made by society - here by Congress and the President, both institutions democratically accountable for their actions. Now, a soldier having given his oath to defend the country must now obey the lawful orders of his chain of command when it sends him into battle.

These lawful orders extend to us as well - we are obligated to support everything from taxed to support this war, increased security for its duration, and even a draft. We have to do these things when elected branches pass them, when they are held lawful, and when they do not intrude on certain rights we have as individuals, a few of which I mentioned above.

So think of this moral responsibility in a few months, when you’re filling out your taxes. You’re shouldering some of it yourself.

16

This is a good point. If the soldiers are morally responsible, and should desert rather than fight in an “immoral” war, then taxpayers are morally responsible for not going to jail instead of supporting an “immoral” war.

And, of course, questions of morality are subjective in nature anyway.

17

IIRC this was only for the MI troopers…and only because if you couldn’t make yourself get into the suit for psychological reasons then you would be worthless in a drop. Heinlein wasn’t discussing the morality of making a drop with this plot point…I don’t think it ever crossed his mind. He was talking more to how people can crack under extreme pressure…and also how the concept of doing something extremely for the sake of your buddies is practically instinctive to humans, and how those two forces can balance each other.

Additionally, afaict reading the book, the OTHER branches in the military weren’t given the same leeway. For instance, the folks in the Navy who were dropping those troops couldn’t simply decide not to go, or decide on the spur of the moment to simply stop. No sane military could be run in that way because when things get dangerous there will always be a percentage of people who want to opt out if given the chance. You’d be trying to go into battle without a clear idea of exactly how many warm bodies you’d have on your own side…or if key personnel were actually going to be there to do the critical jobs that need doing.

-XT

18

What is the responsibility of a soldier drafted under an authoritarian regime (e.g. USSR in Afghanistan)? Under a hypothetically free state (e.g. United States in Vietnam)?

19

Not to continue the Heinlein hijack, but the novel states that anyone could quit, except in combat. I don’t know what constitutes “combat” for various branches. For an MI if you’re still onboard ship I suppose you aren’t “in combat”, while if you’re suited up on a planet’s surface you’re “in combat” regardless of whether people are shooting at you. I don’t know what that means for the navy, you could be considered “in combat” if you’re not in a friendly solar system. But the real point is that you wouldn’t face any punishment from the government other than not winning the franchise, and facing the contempt of your peers.

But the reality is that real-life soldiers can “quit” any time, as long as they’re willing to pay the price. Only in vanishingly rare conditions does quitting get you shot. In most cases here in the US the worst that will happen is that you’re kicked out with a dishonorable discharge after a few months in the stockade, perhaps with some debts for education that the military paid for.

So it’s not all that different. I suppose that dishonorable discharge is going to follow you around for life, but you’re not going to get shot or spend 20 years in Leavenworth.

20

Except that taxes keep all of the government running, including all sorts of things that I benefit from or have benefited from; I’d be skipping out on a debt I owe, harming society and myself, and accomplishing nothing.

On the other hand, if enough military people deserted/refused to fight/suicided/whatever, the military would be crippled for offensive acts without harming or endangering the country in general. And the military is a specialized thing, and the most direct instrument of the war, not the whole government. And it’s composed of volunteers. It’s not the same at all.