There is a middle ground here. It is a well established middle ground, thousands of years old, if honored in the breach as much in the execution… pardon the horrible pun.
Blow the man’s head off in some cases, and do not blow it off in other cases. Specifically, when the order to blow the man’s head off was illegal, such as when he has surrendered and is now a prisoner in your custody.
I fail to see the difficulty in understanding that. War is not an especially moral state, but it certainly, in these United States, has a legal framework it exists within.
Well, I didn’t mean to completely hijack the thread out from under samclem, but GWVet’s accusation of a straw man, and his/her statement I quoted begged a reply. I do agree with what you say, in the framework of a war there might be a sliding scale. Having never served in a war, or in the armed forces during peacetime, I could not say at all if such a sliding scale exists.
It is for another thread entirely to debate such a thing.
Remind him that there are hard-chargers who start in Parris Island and have what it takes to be an officer. Prior-enlisteds, IMO, become the best COs.
Whenever he calls, tell him you’re proud of him, and be there for his graduation. In Quantico I was nut-to-butt with 50 men for 7 weeks at a time, but I’ve never felt so alone in my life.
…I very much believe that military service can be moral. I speak, as a Navy vet who has never fired a gun in my life in either the military or as a civilian. There is plenty of military duty that does not include killing other people.
…As far as your using the word murder, there is a world of difference between two sets of armed combatants shooting each other and taking aim at someone not involved in combat. I don’t consider combat murder though snipers even for our side are pushing the definition. It is hard to claim morals when assassinating someone but you can still claim service to your country.
…What did you mean by murder? This is a fairly serious charge to levy at the average grunt.
Jim
I am grateful this is something you articulated- for it is exactly what I was thinking of. Is it fair to say that you cannot know your enemy solely by looking through the sights of a rifle? This is true now, and I suspect it has been true ever since guerilla warfare became the norm and the two opposing armies stopped wearing uniforms 100% of the time. ( Well. 99%. I think there have always been under cover soldiers ).
If you cannot know your enemy solely by looking through a rifle sight, and your C.O. says, “blow his head off” or " take him out" or “do him” or whatever the phase du jour is, then as a sniper/member of the military, you are indeed facing exactly the issues I addressed by asking those direct questions of GWVet, although I was asking them of him/her and anyone else who has served. You should use your remarkable sniper skills to kill the target because you were told to. That’s answering a direct order, and fulfilling your duty. I get that.
That arena has no place for the word, or idea, of “morals”. It is morally repugnant to blow someone’s brains out from 300 yards ( or, 3,000 ) - in the framework of my moral code. YMMV, of course.
Are snipers and others even on our side pushing the definition, the line between duty and murder, between moral righteousness and moral turpitude?