I’m afraid there’s too many negatives in the third sentence for me to follow. Are you saying that if I believe all war is unjust, I CAN put myself in a position where I WILL follow orders? I’m not trying to be snarky; I just don’t get what you’re saying.
I chose my examples to include what I believe were legal orders: AFAIK, the bombing of Dresden was legal (at least it was to the extent that any pilot who refused to participate would’ve landed in a world of hurt), and certainly the patrols over Afghanistan that led to the inadvertent bombing of a marriage celebration were legal. I know you’re allowed to refuse illegal orders; that’s not what I’m talking about.
What I’m saying is, if you’re a CO, you have an obligation not to go to war. Because if you do, you may well find yourself unable to follow your orders, and put yourself and your comrades at arms at risk.
If you’re not a CO, and join up or are (God forbid) drafted, you have a duty to follow lawful orders to the fullest entent of your ability.
There is no middle ground here. The soldiers in the OP seem to think there is one, but there isn’t.
Ah–that makes sense, and on rereading, I can’t figure out how I was confused by your earlier post. Perhaps my morning coffee hadn’t kicked in yet.
I think I agree with you: under the current system, either you’re opposed to all war, in which case you’re obligated not to go; or you’re not opposed to all war, in which case you’re obligated to obey any legal order.
My question was whether one can be okay with some forms of violence, but opposed to war because you believe that a) war necessarily involves violence against innocents, and b) violence against innocents is never justified. If I were eligible for the draft still, that’d probably be my position. I know I would not fight, absolutely not; the only question would be whether I’d go to prison over it or not.
You don’t have to go to prison over it. These soldiers didn’t have to go to prison. If they were legitimate CO’s, the army wouldn’t have wanted them in the Middle East.
Mr. Moto:By definition, all members of the Armed Forces are combatants, even if they are in a “non-combat” job. All soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen learn in training that, whatever job they signed up for, the time may come when they might have to fight. If they can’t do that, they shouldn’t be in the Armed Forces.
I agree. My point is simply that you shouldn’t impugn the courage or dedication of a servicemember merely because s/he prefers or requests one of the so-called non-combat jobs, as the vast majority of enlisted people do.
Therefore, criticizing one of the defectors for having requested such a job in Afghanistan, as you did, is IMO unjustified and out of line. Criticize him all you like for running to Canada; I may not entirely agree with you but I’ll certainly see where you’re coming from. But please don’t cast aspersions on the morale and honor of the many, many servicepeople who choose non-combat jobs by suggesting that someone who does so is a “little twerp” who’s “missing the point”.
Kimstu, I would never cast such aspersions on anybody serving honorably. Indeed, I have been there myself. When I was in a front-line unit, we didn’t see combat. When I was in a support unit, there was an actual war going on. I am not, myself, a combat veteran.
My criticisms of the soldiers in the OP is of their honor, not their courage. They did not avail themselves of honorable means of establishing CO status. For this transgression of the law and their oath, they should be punished.
Mr. Moto:My criticisms of the soldiers in the OP is of their honor, not their courage.
I understand. Not to flog a dead horse or anything, but my point is that you have no grounds for criticizing the honor or the courage of the elder soldier during his service in Afghanistan merely because he requested a non-combat job from his superiors at that time. We have no reason to think that during that service he had any objections to his duties or to being potentially in a combat situation (which, as you correctly point out, all servicepeople on active duty always are).
Therefore, your referring to him as a “little twerp” who was “missing the point” by requesting a non-combat job while willingly serving in Afghanistan—even though there is nothing cowardly or dishonorable about requesting a non-combat assignment per se, and the vast majority of servicepeople routinely do so—was unjustified. Which is why I originally called you on it.
Slam this soldier all you like for what he’s done to avoid service in Iraq, but you are out of line in criticizing his behavior while serving in Afghanistan, which for all we know to the contrary was well and honorably done.