Well, you’re right. It would have been a legal order and I had decided that if/when the time came I WOULD obey it and launch on those people. My point was that after the dust settles, SOMEONE is going to get tried for “War crimes” or “crimes against humanity.” The guys on the boats and in the silos out in Montana or wherever are told that they have to launch if ordered to do so, that’s why they’re there. They would still get tried after the war though.
Regards.
Testy.
Hey everybody, been reading for a while now and registrered just for this thread. Please be patient.
I am a career soldier (12 years in now) and have even been a Drill Sergeant and thus responsible for explaining some of these things to new recruits.
I believe that the key point that the original poster made was the following:
So at what point is a soldier responsible for his actions under order? At what point is a soldier justified in rejecting an order? This seems to be an important question because during an action, no footsoldier knows more about the operation than his particular role in it.
While it’s true that information about the grand scheme of things is kept to a minimum, (after all, how much strategic info does a mechanic or a grunt out on the front line acutally need to fix a truck, pull guard duty, etc.), part of any Operations Order in the modern military includes a ton of information. Actually, it includes more info then the average soldier needs, just to avoid the kind of “I was just following orders” situations that everyone imagines when this issue is discussed.
Oporders these days include not only your mission, but the missions of your HQ units, at least two levels above. Also, before deploying into a potentially hostile situation, all soldiers are given briefings by Commanders and JAG lawyers as to the Rules of Engagement (ROE), meaning what constitutes self-defense, what level of force is authorized for any given situation, etc.
Truth be told those ROE’s are often so restrictive or confusing that soldiers act indecisive when confronted with a dangerous situation and are placed in harm’s way needlessly. In the minds of many soldiers, politics and public relations often take a back seat to safety.
But more to the point, the military these days stresses ethics and values more than you can imagine.
Yes, basic training and Drill Sergeants do stress the “Shut up and do as you’re told” facet of being a soldier. But this is due to the fact that in our world today we are not taught to shup up and do what we’re told. Children from the earliest stages are taught to question authority, do what feels right for you and that everyone is to be treated equally (read: no respect for elders, etc. they’re all the same as you and me.)
But in the real Army indidual initiative is valued and expected.
Soldiers on the line are expected to do the morally right thing as well as doing what they’re told. The problem is, soldiers are placed into situations that often have extremely unclear moral path.
Wow, been rambling for a while and mentioned a few different things. Sorry if I went long.