In more detail, my position is this: The basis of whether military action by one’s country should be considered should be based on the underlying risks, rewards, rationales, and causes of the possible military action. But IMO, if you support a military action, and you advocate that young people in your country be sent overseas and face unpleasant circumstances away from their families as well as risk of injury and death, and you have the relative youth and health that would enable you to join them, then if your proposed military action comes to pass and you choose not to join them, you are a gutless coward (even if the military action really is necessary!). If you are too old to serve, but you have children that have the youth and health appropriate for military service, and you advocate for military action while privately working to dissuade/prevent your children from participating in the military action (or use money/influence to get them into a non-combat unit or organization), then you are also a gutless coward.
Further, I believe such cowardice should lead to public shame and humiliation (by society, not law or government). I believe that this would be an effective societal deterrent against unnecessary wars, and thus would be greatly beneficial to society – especially a society, like American society, that often seems to lean towards unnecessary wars in recent years.
I believe such cowardice is pretty common, but that doesn’t make it any less cowardly.
I agree. However, nowadays there are numerous ways for people who cannot join the military to serve in the theater of operations, whether as a government civilian or a contractor. So, people should be doing that as well if they can.
Surely, if you’re a coward you shouldn’t be in the military anyway.
I can only remember supporting one war in my lifetime, and that was the war against Afghanistan right after 9/11. However horribly it was mishandled, there was no doubt in my mind that going in was the right decision. But there’s no way in hell I’d have ever joined the army, even though I was eligible at the time. I’d have made a terrible soldier! I don’t have the discipline, I doubt I could ever bring myself to shoot anyone, and I’d probably have just gotten my fellow soldiers killed. There’s better people for that job and there always will be. Does that mean I can’t speak out in favour of any war, no matter how justified?
There are practical reasons not to do so. If you are talking about a draft, and then someone supports a war but then dodges the draft for aforementioned war, then yes, that would be hypocrisy. But in general, the U.S. military does not have a personnel shortage, or at least, not one to the extent that someone who supports a war would have to volunteer for the military to fill all of its slots. The number of able-bodied people who supported the war in Iraq probably far exceeded the number of people the U.S. military needed in Iraq.
I’m talking about willingness. It’s mostly unverifiable, barring someone admitting to it or it being otherwise revealed. In that other thread, at least one poster outright admitted that they had no intention of serving in the military, even for an action they supported. But most people aren’t going to make outright admissions like that, in my expectation.
Well, yeah. That goes without saying. But should the fact that I’m neither physically or psychologically cut out to be a soldier mean I’m morally obligated to keep my mouth shut if the Nazis come back?
I’m not sure if I fully agree. The U.S. Armed Forces are a part of the government and I, citizen Max S., by virtue of the taxes I pay, have some say in what the government should and should not do. My influence is extremely small and indirect, through my representatives.
On the other hand I have no right to dodge the draft should I be called into service. Draft dodgers are gutless cowards. There is also a reasonable limit to hawkishness - after a certain point either you should shut up or sign up and shoot them yourself.
But I am young, and not a member of the military or part of a military family. My opinion is my own and it is not set in stone.
Well, my father tried to join the military the day after Pearl Harbor, but was rejected for medical reasons. By the time the Army had dropped its standards low enough to draft him, he was married with a child on the way. So there are pragmatic reasons.
His brother served in WW2, Korea, and Vietnam. In the final war he suffered an injury that sent him to a desk job for the rest of his life. I figure he had already done enough.
Norway mainly has a defense force. Service used to be compulsory, but now it’s downsized to the point that only those particularly fit for and motivated for service get to join.
Joining one of the units that can and are deployed in active operation abroad is an additional and voluntary option.
I don’t always agree with the judgement of the people deciding what operations to engage in, but if, for instance there was a joint UN operation to liberate a country invaded by a neighbor, I would support Norwegian participation, even if there is no way I would have followed the path that led me to take part.
If that makes me cowardly, so be it. Do you, OP, think I have an obligation to oppose the military action, or just to not actively support it?
What if the only political party I could vote for who were against were, say, seriously anti-choice?
My opinion is different for representatives. I have no problem with a representative acting hawkish so long as he or she represents a hawkish population. In fact it is their duty to do so. Then again, if war is the number one priority of the electorate, perhaps they would do better electing a veteran who shares their view, or at least not a chicken hawk…
I forgot to add an exception to my reasoning - if you are the sole caregiver (i.e. single parent) for a child, then that’s another reasonable justification for not serving/seriously contributing for a war you support.
So, let’s just separate two issues here: the character of the person making the case for war; versus the actual case for war.
What I suspect is that there is one of to things going on here. Either it’s a fixation on how bad some person is because of their cowardice, or it’s an ad hominem that purports to color the arguments for/against war by painting its proponents as bad people.
To the extent that someone advocates for an immoral war, I’ll generally have a bad opinion of that person whether they want to enlist or not. If someone supports a just war, the thing being advocated is so much more important than the personality of somebody supporting it, so I’m not likely to change my mind much on that count, either.
So I can’t see how the OP’s argument is going to color my opinion on anything under any circumstances.
I also want to point out that in the realm of debate, whether or not one is a gutless coward has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of their arguments. The exception would be if the debate was about that person’s character, or if that person’s character somehow is brought in as an argument in the debate.
Agreed - my OP is purely about the personal character of those who make certain arguments. It shouldn’t influence your opinion about any particular case for or against any given war.
What if the person in question makes other contributions to the nation? Are those also irrelevant, in your opinion, so that the measure of a man boils down to a binary distinction between military service or coward (with the exceptions of health or family responsibilities you noted)?
Does this view extend to other professions as well?
If I support the enforcement of laws but I don’t decide to be a police officer am I a coward? If I support the fighting of fires but don’t volunteer as a fire fighter am I a coward. If I support the fighting of disease and starvation in far off lands but don’t travel over seas to help the needy am I a coward?