IrishHand
01-13-2003, 01:50 PM
While I am completely oblivious to the mindless rantings of a select few (or one, as the case may be), it has come to my attention that some of you may have some misconceptions about either my view of this country, or at least of what it means to be a "patriot". As such, I shall offer a brief explanation...
Patriotism
Patriotism, to me, is a love and devotion to one's country. I made a decision to commit 10 years in the prime of my life (ages 26-36) to serve in our nation's military, and it ranks next to my decision to marry my wife as the best decision I've ever made. I didn't do it for money or because I had no other alternatives. I graduated near the top of my class from one of this nation's top law schools. I had a rewarding position working in a district attorney's office. However, I decided that it was more important to contribute myself to my country and my community than make a pile of money and lead a nice middle-class existence. I don't want praise for this, but insinuating that I'm lacking in "patriotism" kind of flies in the face of reality.
Opinions
As an educated and aware member of our society, it is certainly the case that I have some strong opinions on governments and their policies. My opinions are based far less on what the media spouts out than my own private readings and research. The end result, evidently, is that I've developed a number of opinions that conflict both with what the media tells you, and what the government tells you. Does this somehow compromise my position as an officer in the military? Of course not. The US officer corps wants (and is full of) intelligent, motivated extroverts. My most heated (and rewarding) arguments take place in the wardroom. However, we (and by we, I mean officers) understand that we're simply wheels in the massive US military machine.
The nature of the military - ours and any other - is that it operates under a chain of command. I might disagree entirely on a course of action, whether that be on a small scale (you will carry more AGMs than cruise missiles) or on a large one (we invade Iraq in one week), but that has no impact on the execution of my duties. I am a soldier - my job is to complete missions in the most effective manner possible. It is an insult to my honor to claim that, for example, because I disagreed with the reasons behind attacking Iraq that I would fly less effectively or be less vigorous about releasing ordinance on the proper target. At the Nuremberg Trials after WWII, those among the accused who were from the military generally repeated the same sentiment: "when you are an officer, and you are given orders, you can express your objections if you like but in the end you either click your heels and say 'yes sir' or take your pistol to your head." That didn't hold up well at Nuremberg for political reasons, but that's pretty much how I feel in the execution of my duties. When appropriate, I do not hesitate to offer my thoughts. Ultimately, I will do as ordered to the best of my ability. To do otherwise is both dishonorable and criminal.
Morals
Some people here toss about words like "disagree", "immoral", "wrong" as though they were synonymous. Of course, they aren't. 99% of what I post falls under the category of opinion - I agree or disagree with a policy, with another's post, etc. I rarely refer to morals or whether something is "right" or "wrong" because I don't think there's too much room for debate on those topics. Terrorism, defined narrowly and appropriately, is wrong. Hijacking planes and ramming them into buildings killing thousands and causing millions in damage in order to make a political point is wrong. There's no debate there, and that's why neither I, nor anyone else here that I've noticed, discusses that.
Are there occasions where morality might enter into my performance as an officer? I suppose. What would I do if I was given an order to do something "wrong" or "immoral"? Much like the generals at Nuremberg said - I would either say 'yes sir', or refuse and accept the consequences. Consequences, of course, would involve an investigation and potential punishment, ranging from capiltal punishment to extra watches. Of course, I am under an obligation to refuse to obey illegal orders. To be completely honest, there are very few things that I suspect I wouldn't do if ordered to do so. I have a disproportionate amount of faith in our military and my superior officers, and at least in times of conflict or war, I believe that unless it's a case where you would legitimately rather kill yourself than obey the order, you should do it and deal with the consequences later.
I am highly opinionated, and I am happy to discuss those opinions. I would just ask that the more reasonable among you try to understand there's a huge difference between someone discussing matters openly on a forum or in a wardroom, and someone acting in his/her military capacity and defending this country.
Regards,
Irish
Patriotism
Patriotism, to me, is a love and devotion to one's country. I made a decision to commit 10 years in the prime of my life (ages 26-36) to serve in our nation's military, and it ranks next to my decision to marry my wife as the best decision I've ever made. I didn't do it for money or because I had no other alternatives. I graduated near the top of my class from one of this nation's top law schools. I had a rewarding position working in a district attorney's office. However, I decided that it was more important to contribute myself to my country and my community than make a pile of money and lead a nice middle-class existence. I don't want praise for this, but insinuating that I'm lacking in "patriotism" kind of flies in the face of reality.
Opinions
As an educated and aware member of our society, it is certainly the case that I have some strong opinions on governments and their policies. My opinions are based far less on what the media spouts out than my own private readings and research. The end result, evidently, is that I've developed a number of opinions that conflict both with what the media tells you, and what the government tells you. Does this somehow compromise my position as an officer in the military? Of course not. The US officer corps wants (and is full of) intelligent, motivated extroverts. My most heated (and rewarding) arguments take place in the wardroom. However, we (and by we, I mean officers) understand that we're simply wheels in the massive US military machine.
The nature of the military - ours and any other - is that it operates under a chain of command. I might disagree entirely on a course of action, whether that be on a small scale (you will carry more AGMs than cruise missiles) or on a large one (we invade Iraq in one week), but that has no impact on the execution of my duties. I am a soldier - my job is to complete missions in the most effective manner possible. It is an insult to my honor to claim that, for example, because I disagreed with the reasons behind attacking Iraq that I would fly less effectively or be less vigorous about releasing ordinance on the proper target. At the Nuremberg Trials after WWII, those among the accused who were from the military generally repeated the same sentiment: "when you are an officer, and you are given orders, you can express your objections if you like but in the end you either click your heels and say 'yes sir' or take your pistol to your head." That didn't hold up well at Nuremberg for political reasons, but that's pretty much how I feel in the execution of my duties. When appropriate, I do not hesitate to offer my thoughts. Ultimately, I will do as ordered to the best of my ability. To do otherwise is both dishonorable and criminal.
Morals
Some people here toss about words like "disagree", "immoral", "wrong" as though they were synonymous. Of course, they aren't. 99% of what I post falls under the category of opinion - I agree or disagree with a policy, with another's post, etc. I rarely refer to morals or whether something is "right" or "wrong" because I don't think there's too much room for debate on those topics. Terrorism, defined narrowly and appropriately, is wrong. Hijacking planes and ramming them into buildings killing thousands and causing millions in damage in order to make a political point is wrong. There's no debate there, and that's why neither I, nor anyone else here that I've noticed, discusses that.
Are there occasions where morality might enter into my performance as an officer? I suppose. What would I do if I was given an order to do something "wrong" or "immoral"? Much like the generals at Nuremberg said - I would either say 'yes sir', or refuse and accept the consequences. Consequences, of course, would involve an investigation and potential punishment, ranging from capiltal punishment to extra watches. Of course, I am under an obligation to refuse to obey illegal orders. To be completely honest, there are very few things that I suspect I wouldn't do if ordered to do so. I have a disproportionate amount of faith in our military and my superior officers, and at least in times of conflict or war, I believe that unless it's a case where you would legitimately rather kill yourself than obey the order, you should do it and deal with the consequences later.
I am highly opinionated, and I am happy to discuss those opinions. I would just ask that the more reasonable among you try to understand there's a huge difference between someone discussing matters openly on a forum or in a wardroom, and someone acting in his/her military capacity and defending this country.
Regards,
Irish