My brother the Solider

[MMMMMM]

Hi DVaut1,

What I feel or believe has nothing to do with it. At times it can be hard for anyone (myself included) to carry on a political debate without getting their hackles up. That is why it is a good guideline to attack the argument not the poster.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Although I think there's a legitimate case to be made for battles and maneuvers, as well; soldiers may find themselves volunteering for what they initially considered to be a just war, only to find they're called on to behave unjustly - in which case, I have no problem releasing soldiers from whatever obligation their original consent provided.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's a matter of degree (as in, OK to refuse true war crimes, but the idea having soldiers continually making determinations about which war, battle or maneuver they're willing to participate in = impossible to run a military in that fashion--I think morally speaking it could be an OK approach but it would just be impossible for a military to implement in a practical manner while retaining its effectiveness).

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it's a matter of degree (as in, OK to refuse true war crimes, but the idea having soldiers continually making determinations about which war, battle or maneuver they're willing to participate in = impossible to run a military in that fashion--I think morally speaking it could be an OK approach but it would just be impossible for a military to implement in a practical manner while retaining its effectiveness).

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we agree here; I'm not claiming soldiers ought to say "I'm fighting in Fallujah, but not in Tikrit", etc. particularly if the war is just one.

But I do think it's fair to say that wars are in constant flux; and what once may have been a just war could easily morph into something immoral; or that just wars could use unjust means to achieve what would otherwise be admirable goals.

For example, I think soldiers ought to legitimately be able opt-out if battles/maneuvers/strategies become demonstrably immoral. You may have enlisted to fight Enemy XYZ, but I don't think that commits you to raze orphanages full of children to the ground in Nation XYZ merely because you consented to fight in what (up until then, perhaps) had been a just war. I obviously don't think this is happening in Iraq, but I can envision scenarios in which it might (not in Iraq, but some hypothetically possible war).

I think we're probably in general agreement here, Mx6.

niss said: "So you think soldiers should form individual judgments on whether a particular war, or battle, or maneuver, etc., is right or wrong? And then make an individual decision as to whether to partake? Please."

...to which (I think both you and I are answering): "It depends."

[bobman0330]

Chris, your post is really offensive. I'll admit I have some respect for someone who stands up for their principles enough to spend a year in prison, but I have a hell of a lot more respect for someone who believes in their principles enough to go to Iraq and risk death for them.

Ironically, it's not acceptable, from your point of view, for the US, the most powerful form of democracy to decide that democracy is the best form of government for Iraq. However, it's perfectly acceptable for Chris Alger to decide that the Iraq War is unjustified and that everyone who fights in it should be ashamed of themselves.

Whatever your opinions, you have to recognize that this young man is taking on a huge commitment and huge risks motivated purely by love of his country and a belief that his actions will make our lives and the lives of others safer and more free. That takes a courage and selflessness that you, or I, or most of the people on this forum can only imagine and be grateful for. Whether he's correct or not in this case, you have no right to denigrate his sacrifice.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So you think soldiers should form individual judgments on whether a particular war, or battle, or maneuver, etc., is right or wrong? And then make an individual decision as to whether to partake? Please.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know about battles and maneuvers - but of course, individual soldiers ought to make moral decisions about whether or not to partake in wars.

I think Nuremberg rightly demonstrated why we hold underlings accountable for the decisions they make, even if they were merely following orders.

Although I think there's a legitimate case to be made for battles and maneuvers, as well; soldiers may find themselves volunteering for what they initially considered to be a just war, only to find they're called on to behave unjustly - in which case, I have no problem releasing soldiers from whatever obligation their original consent provided.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not correct. The problem with WW2 was not the Nazis fighting a war against other nations. The problem was THE EXTERMINATION OF JEWS, GYPSIES, HOMOSEXUALS, etc. Those were the war crimes.

Soldiers are allowed to refuse to participate in actions that amount to war crimes. Enlisted soldiers in particular, however, are not supposed to make individual determinations as to whether they do or do not like war X.

So I stand by the statement. A military cannot function effectively if each soldier is allowed to make individual judgments about whether a war should or should not be fought.

[bobman0330]

I'm somewhat curious whether people on the left here are deliberately conflating Nuremberg-type crimes with what's going on in Iraq or are just ignorant of the truth. No one was executed or imprisoned at Nuremberg for participating in an illegal war (which WWII was, for the Germans). Top Nazi leaders were punished for planning and conspiring to start a war, but private soldiers were never tried or punished for being part of one. I would have to check to be sure, but I don't think any Germans were punished for executing deserters, either. The conclusion is pretty clear: yes, Iraqis SHOULD have participated in the invasion of Kuwait, even though it was illegal.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So you think soldiers should form individual judgments on whether a particular war, or battle, or maneuver, etc., is right or wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]
Particular wars, of course, and I suspect you and almost everyone else does also. Or are you suggesting that Iraqi soldiers should have participated in the invasion of Kuwait, and those that refused should have been punished? Battles and maneuvers within wars are different; again it depends on the justifiability of the war.

[/ QUOTE ]

You cannot compare the ex-Iraqi military to the American military. I doubt that many of the men in the Iraqi military were there voluntarily, and that if they were "drafted", the "draft" was carried out in a fair and reasonable manner.

But let's assume that either one of these (or both) was the case. Then yes, that's exactly what I am saying. Iraq decided that it needed to invade Kuwait. It was not the place for the soldiers to decide if the invasion was right or wrong.

My understanding is that this is a basic military principle. I am surprised that it's even subject to discussion.

[mackthefork]

"Chris, your post is really offensive. I'll admit I have some respect for someone who stands up for their principles enough to spend a year in prison, but I have a hell of a lot more respect for someone who believes in their principles enough to go to Iraq and risk death for them."

It seems normal he should be proud of his brother to me. I don't think there is much of the nobility to going to Iraq that people suggest though, it doesn't have a jot to do with protecting your way of life and you know it.

"Ironically, it's not acceptable, from your point of view, for the US, the most powerful form of democracy to decide that democracy is the best form of government for Iraq. However, it's perfectly acceptable for Chris Alger to decide that the Iraq War is unjustified and that everyone who fights in it should be ashamed of themselves."

I always said that good things were being acheived although at a massive cost, and I don't mean the endless buckets of cash they are pissing away either. Hopefully some day there will be peace for Iraq as a consequence of all the horror that is going on now.

"Whatever your opinions, you have to recognize that this young man is taking on a huge commitment and huge risks motivated purely by love of his country and a belief that his actions will make our lives and the lives of others safer and more free. That takes a courage and selflessness that you, or I, or most of the people on this forum can only imagine and be grateful for. Whether he's correct or not in this case, you have no right to denigrate his sacrifice."

I'll drink to his brother coming back to him in 12 months time in one piece, hopefully as the same decent well meaning guy who left.

Regards Mack

[ QUOTE ]
I'm somewhat curious whether people on the left here are deliberately conflating Nuremberg-type crimes with what's going on in Iraq or are just ignorant of the truth. No one was executed or imprisoned at Nuremberg for participating in an illegal war (which WWII was, for the Germans). Top Nazi leaders were punished for planning and conspiring to start a war, but private soldiers were never tried or punished for being part of one. I would have to check to be sure, but I don't think any Germans were punished for executing deserters, either. The conclusion is pretty clear: yes, Iraqis SHOULD have participated in the invasion of Kuwait, even though it was illegal.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's just funny how you are criticizing those on the "left" while agreeing with me. It was just a few days ago, I think, that the "right wing" brigade, led by President of the Key Club (Fishhooks), was calling me a "lefty". When are people going to realize that these titles are stupid? And that not everyone is to the "left" or the "right" on every issue?

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
It's just funny how you are criticizing those on the "left" while agreeing with me. It was just a few days ago, I think, that the "right wing" brigade, led by President of the Key Club (Fishhooks), was calling me a "lefty". When are people going to realize that these titles are stupid? And that not everyone is to the "left" or the "right" on every issue?

[/ QUOTE ]

This thread pretty clearly has a left side and a right side, and I did say "people on the left here." That phrase is a lot shorter than "people who feel that soldiers ought, in many situations, refuse to follow orders when they believe those orders to be immoral or in furtherance of an illegal war and also people who feel that soldiers ought to follow all orders once in a war, but ought to exercise considerable judgment before entering a war that is unjust or illegal."