If the Syrian Army tomorrow decides they will not follow the orders of the government they serve, are they still the Syrian Army? This might be an example of the extreme circumstances I mentioned early where an Army might not execute the orders they were given. Not for me to say, I’m not in the Syrian Army.
So you were just following orders. All the things you did, all the innocent people you hurt, are not your fault, because you were following someone else’s instructions. Other people gave the instructions and you’re just a tool with no will of your own. Seems to me I’ve heard that excuse before.
I don’t accept that as an excuse. You volunteered. You chose to make yourself into a knife. You chose to place yourself in the hands of Bush, and declared, “I’ll be your knife, use me to stab whoever you want”
What you did is your responsibility.
If they are a soldier worth anything, they do as they are told, barring obvious orders which violate Geneva Conventions, and leave accountability to those at home.
It is not for the Army or soldiers to question the orders of the civilian government. To go down that road invites eventual government clashes with the military. Do you want that?
Read my post again. If a soldier is ordered to attack A or defend B, he is performing the basic requirements of a soldier and ought to follow those orders to the letter without question.
If however, he receives orders saying ‘force march these people until they starve to death’ or ‘burn this house down with all these people inside as an example to our enemies’, these are clear breaches of Geneva Conventions and should be disobeyed. It’s a very well-established principle of military law.
Now, can you demonstrate where such an incidence has been carried out by the US Army in recent years?
I agree that it would take quite something to have The Army refusing to obey.
It usually takes something like a civil war to have militairy units stop and join the rebels.
Yet the militairy is made up of service members.
All ‘just following orders’ ?
And I know there are also very many good servicemen.
Well, that’s the debate.
Is the Military just a tool, a knife, or is that shrugging off responsibility.
Is ‘Just following orders’/ ‘Befehl ist Befehl’ a valid defense?
Thing is, the debate was quite open and intensely discussed before the Iraq War and also ratified by Congress, who represent the people. Whether the war was immoral or not is immaterial; it was consented to by Congress, and it is not the Army’s place to argue with the elected representatives of the people.
It is up to us, as the electors of our legislatures, to bring people to account for such actions.
So which actions of mine, specifically, were wrong? Was it a form I signed? Or an oath I took?
Is it moral to join a military force that you know has had a long history of helping its own citizens during natural disasters, helping impoverished third world nations decimated by earthquake, etc, etc …
Again the military acts because it is told to act. You’re beef isn’t with the individual that joins the military or even the military as a whole as I see it.
The military could tomorrow be asked to only engage in humanitarian missions and they would. They might not do it well but they would do it.
The military hasn’t ‘done’ anything they have however been told to do many, many things …
I dunno, and that’s an intersting question. I mean no snark or anything, I honestly think that’s an interesting question. Wouldn’t a military that somehow gets a vote in what orders it does or does not execute be much more problematic to the goverment as a whole than one that is simply a tool of the state?
What do you call a military that no longer answers to its government?
The new government.
We have a winner.
Yepper … spot on Waldo Pepper. 
No, that’s ass-backwards and a totaly America-centered view.
Do you think the rest of the world gives a rat’s ass whether your war of agression was ‘consented to by Congress’. It’s still a war of agression.
It was also consented to by my Parliament, for what it’s worth.
It doesn’t matter if you believe it to be a war of aggression. In a democracy, the will of the electorate is supreme. Can we agree on that?
Therefore, if the elected representatives of the people order a war (aggressive or otherwise) to take place, it is required that the military obey without question.
For the military to refuse is to undermine democracy.
This is a separate issue of whether the war is immoral, or wrong, or whatever; it is not the military’s place to decide that for the people. It is for the people, through their legislature, to determine.
I can fully agree with you that the Iraq War was a fraudulent, baseless and downright illegal war; but that cannot deny the reality that a country is accountable to nobody for its actions apart from its own people. That’s reality.
What you have a problem with is not the Army; it is with a very bad decision the American people (among others) made ten years ago. Put blame where it’s due - because it’s not with the army.
If invading another country is wrong you don’t get a pass for doing because some general or politician told you too. Wrong is wrong.
Malden continues to say what I mean only more eloquently … thanks Malden.
Robert, in a democracy the generals doesn’t decide to invade another country. Elected officials do.
As The Other Waldo Pepper pointed out, an Army that doesn’t obey the government it was created to serve becomes the government … If you can’t see that Robert, I’m sorry. It is however the fact.
mwellllyesssuposeso.
But is the will of the electorate supreme or that of the elected?
We touched upon this further up.
Maybe this is where our differences originate.
I don’t have your happy trust in Democracy-capitalD.
I don’t see us living in countries with ‘governments by the people for the people’.
Maybe I’m too cynical but I see us ruled by an elite that puts on a ‘democracy show’ for us to keep us quiet.
I see this in the USA as well as Britain and quite some European countries.
This might kind of undermine any desire of mine to die for ‘my country’, my flag or what have you.
Therefore I also don’t think the army ( or the men it is made out of) should have a blind trust of government.
Do you believe that military action in WWII and Afghanistan was justified? If you think it was justified, then it is clear that there can be “extenuating circumstances” that make it moral to join the military, or to invade smaller weaker nations.
Regards,
Shodan
Yes, but is that always a bad thing?
What when that goverment takes some quite nefarious decisions.
Like legalising torture (just doing hyperbole agai.. oh wait, no I’m not…)
Should the army allways just follow orders?
Don’t we laud those German officers in the Stauffenberg plot to kill Hitler?
1- and what if they order a soldier to do something immoral?
2- that soldier choose to join the military. I’m sorry, but it’s a fact.