Necessity of the Military and Moral Responsibility

Great Debates
21

[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
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.
[/QUOTE]

I agree with you (how about that, huh?) But the corollary is that if you do sign up, that means you’re willing to fight wherever the (sometimes idiot) civilian leadership tells you to fight. To say then that the soldier has no responsibility for whatever he’s asked to do isn’t quite exact. If he voluntarily puts his pecker in the pocket of the C-I-C (to use a Johnsonian expression), he has some share in the blame for whatever said C-I-C chooses to do with said pecker. That’s the fundamental difference between a volunteer military and a conscript one. It’s a pretty profound one.

22

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
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.
[/QUOTE]
So you will keep on funding the war, since some good may also come from your taxes. What of a soldier who continues being a soldier–despite Iraq–because he knows he can still do some good over there. Especially in future unforeseen operations. (Maybe get to go to Dufar, perhaps?)

23

[QUOTE=Bear_Nenno]
So you will keep on funding the war, since some good may also come from your taxes. What of a soldier who continues being a soldier–despite Iraq–because he knows he can still do some good over there. Especially in future unforeseen operations. (Maybe get to go to Dufar, perhaps?)
[/QUOTE]

Thinking about it, I realize the major difference is you’re worried about what sorts of things the government can do for you–and paying that financial debt via taxes–while a soldier is worried about the good he can do for others via selfless service.

24

[QUOTE=Bear_Nenno]
What of a soldier who continues being a soldier–despite Iraq–because he knows he can still do some good over there.
[/quote]
He’s still evil, because his job there is NOT to do good. It’s to do evil. And they are not doing good there, to put it mildly. Being there puts him in the wrong.

[QUOTE=Bear_Nenno]
Thinking about it, I realize the major difference is you’re worried about what sorts of things the government can do for you–and paying that financial debt via taxes–while a soldier is worried about the good he can do for others via selfless service.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, slaughtering people is so very selfless. And soldiers work for free, right ? Or it wouldn’t be selfless.

The major “sacrifice” our soldiers are making is sacrificing other people. Not that most of them think of Iraqis as people, I’m sure.

25

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
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.
[/QUOTE]

Well you could adopt the approach used by Joan Baez during the Vietnam conflict and withhold that portion of her taxes that would have gone to the defense department. I would like to know how that all worked out and how she stayed out of jail though.

26

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
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.
[/QUOTE]

In for a penny, in for a pound. You can’t butter your bread and eat it too, DT. By your logic, every single soldier, no matter how honorable his actions, his conduct, no matter how honorable his intentions, is an evil bastard, because he voluntarily enlisted with a pretty good notion that he’d wind up in Iraq, even if that’s not the reason he joined up for.

You’re paying taxes. You pay taxes because you receive certain benefits from your various levels of gov’t., and your money helps other people in need with assistance programs. But some of your tax money will go for things you not only don’t like, but actively despise.

You’ve stated some pretty outre thoughts regarding U.S. Service Members, and what you think they should do to protest Mr. Bush’s Folly, knowing full well that some of those actions, should they attempt them, would result in harsh repercussions.

It takes troops to fight a war, true; it also takes money. Lots.

So why don’t you finally man up, grab your nads, and burn your income tax return on the front steps of the I.R.S. building nearest you, in protest of Mr. Bush’s Folly, take your lumps, and accept a little bit more of the moral burden yourself?

You might even start a trend with your example, get a lot of people on board with your actions, and bring this misbegotten war to the early conclusion you so desire.

Or does the extent of your moral courage, and moral outrage, stop at your keyboard and internet connection?

27

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
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.
[/QUOTE]

If the US had no military, we’d be invaded in a nanosecond. Don’t kid yourself-- society would most definitely be harmed and endangered without a military.

28

[QUOTE=ExTank]
In for a penny, in for a pound. You can’t butter your bread and eat it too, DT. By your logic, every single soldier, no matter how honorable his actions, his conduct, no matter how honorable his intentions, is an evil bastard, because he voluntarily enlisted with a pretty good notion that he’d wind up in Iraq, even if that’s not the reason he joined up for.
[/quote]
Joining an army of conquest is not “honorable”, so he had no “honorable intentions”. And helping in such an organization means he isn’t acting honorably either.

[QUOTE=ExTank]
So why don’t you finally man up, grab your nads, and burn your income tax return on the front steps of the I.R.S. building nearest you, in protest of Mr. Bush’s Folly, take your lumps, and accept a little bit more of the moral burden yourself?
[/quote]
Because it would accomplish nothing, except make war supporters happy. And because by voting againt Bush, refusing to volunteer for the military, and speaking out against the war I already HAVE fulfilled my moral obligations.

29

[QUOTE=John Mace]
If the US had no military, we’d be invaded in a nanosecond. Don’t kid yourself-- society would most definitely be harmed and endangered without a military.
[/QUOTE]
And did I say we shouldn’t have one ? Of course not. But an army that can prevent an invasion of the US is far, far smaller than one that can conquer other countries. I want the military crippled and humiliated, not destroyed.

30

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
And did I say we shouldn’t have one ? Of course not. But an army that can prevent an invasion of the US is far, far smaller than one that can conquer other countries. I want the military crippled and humiliated, not destroyed.
[/QUOTE]

But Red and Black tells us that soldiers should be prosecuted for participating in an the wrong kind of war. As I said earlier, you’d have to be insane (or an idiot) to sign up under those conditions. Of course, a “crippled and humiliated” military might have a tad bit of a recruiting problem, too. Uncle Sam wants you [to join a crippled, humiliated military]!!

31

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
And did I say we shouldn’t have one ? Of course not. But an army that can prevent an invasion of the US is far, far smaller than one that can conquer other countries. I want the military crippled and humiliated, not destroyed.
[/QUOTE]

A crippled, humiliated military couldn’t stop a troop of lazy, indifferent Boy Scouts from taking over the country.

32

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Joining an army of conquest is not “honorable”, so he had no “honorable intentions”. And helping in such an organization means he isn’t acting honorably either.
[/quote]

How do you know they joined up to be a part of an “Army of Conquest?” That’s simply your value judgement, and not based in any sort of reality that the overwhelming vast majority of your fellow citizens live in.

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Because it would accomplish nothing, except make war supporters happy. And because by voting againt Bush, refusing to volunteer for the military, and speaking out against the war I already HAVE fulfilled my moral obligations.
[/QUOTE]

Tell that to the Iraqi dead.

33

[QUOTE=ExTank]
A crippled, humiliated military couldn’t stop a troop of lazy, indifferent Boy Scouts from taking over the country.
[/QUOTE]
Garbage. Given that we have nukes, no one is going to invade us no matter how dispirited our military is. Not that it would stay that way long if some was stupid enough to try, which is one reason why ino one will.

Only in the fever dreams of the Right has America been in danger of invasion since WWII, and even then anything other than Hawaii was unlikley to be invaded.

34

[QUOTE=ExTank]
How do you know they joined up to be a part of an “Army of Conquest?” That’s simply your value judgement, and not based in any sort of reality that the overwhelming vast majority of your fellow citizens live in.
[/quote]
They joined up with an army of conquest because that’s what the military is doing.

[QUOTE=ExTank]
Tell that to the Iraqi dead.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, spreeead that blame. Try to shut up people who oppose the war by pretending they are just as much to blame.

35

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Joining an army of conquest is not “honorable”, so he had no “honorable intentions”. And helping in such an organization means he isn’t acting honorably either.
[/QUOTE]

It is not an Army of Conquest, it is a tool of the state. As such, it follows the lawful orders of it’s duly elected Commander-in-Chief, with the due consent of Congress.

36

[QUOTE=ExTank]
It is not an Army of Conquest, it is a tool of the state. As such, it follows the lawful orders of it’s duly elected Commander-in-Chief, with the due consent of Congress.
[/QUOTE]
It’s an army of conquest if it goes around conquering people, regardless of whose orders it follows.

37

[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
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.
[/QUOTE]

thats the argument thats going on in the thread that was mentioned. I’m in the Army. I joined when we thought the russians were a threat. Got sent to Desert Storm, came back. Family was proud, you know the drill. I reupped, obviously, because I liked my job, I had a lot of friends and I was in europe where i wanted to be. Yeah, before the wall came down I knew I might be cannon fodder for the russskies, but I took the oath, as you say. Then I got married, I was working at the Pentagon and reupped again. I had passed the ten year mark so I was considered “career military”. Got sent to Europe again, got put on recruiting duty, which I hated. But I had no choice, really. those were my orders. (I could have refused recruiting, since its a “special assignment” like drill sergeant duty, but I don’t duck out on lawful orders, though I didn’t want to be a recruiter. It sucked.) Then this whole iraq thing came up. I thought it was a mistake but as the decision to go to war is NOT mine.

I’m not a recruiter anymore, and I would quit if they tried to assign me that job again. (lawfully since I can decline those orders…I would be barred from reenlistment, but I’m close to retirement so they’d have to pay me anyway. I don’t want to go to Iraq, but if I was sent there I’d go. Yes, I’d try to not go, lawfully, by requesting another assignment, but I lawfully cannot decline an order like that.

If I was ordered to torture or kill a non-combatant I’d refuse. I’d most likely be in a lot of trouble for it, but I’m a soldier, not a murderer. So yes, it bugs me that people equate soldier with mindless killer. If some people think we don’t need a military, fine. Its not realistic, but I’d like a world like that. We don’t have that kind of world, so we have the armed forces.

I don’t make the decision to go to war, and neither do any of you here. You may like or dislike the military, but when you want to blame someone for the war blame the people that made the decision to go to war. I didn’t vote for Bush, and following lawful orders is not a crime.

38

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
They joined up with an army of conquest because that’s what the military is doing.
[/quote]

So I guess the roads, schools, hospitals, sewers, police, etc. they’ve built don’t count.

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Yes, spreeead that blame. Try to shut up people who oppose the war by pretending they are just as much to blame.
[/QUOTE]

I’m not trying to shut you up. I’m trying to get you to think beyond the bounds of your narrow prejudice. Failing that, I’m trying to get you to see that, as a citizen, you cannot absolve yourself of moral responsibility with lame political slogans on placards and message board rants.

39

[QUOTE=ExTank]
So I guess the roads, schools, hospitals, sewers, police, etc. they’ve built don’t count.
[/quote]
You mean the ones that are falling down, prone to electrical fires, filled with toxic fumes, or have water spraying from plumbing in the ceiling ? No, they don’t count.

40

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Garbage. Given that we have nukes, no one is going to invade us no matter how dispirited our military is. Not that it would stay that way long if some was stupid enough to try, which is one reason why ino one will.

Only in the fever dreams of the Right has America been in danger of invasion since WWII, and even then anything other than Hawaii was unlikley to be invaded.
[/QUOTE]

Nukes? On our own soil? Against a land army? That’s your ideal deterrent?

Kind of a sledgehammer soultion to a flyswatter problem, dontcha think?