NationStates Jolt Archive

I've been wondering about this for a few years now, but I just don't seem to get it, so I thought you lot might help explain it.

Are the soldiers responsible for carrying out their orders?

Should one always support soldiers, regardless of what orders they choose to carry out?

I'm of the opinion that the answers are yes & no, respectively, but an impressive number of people seems to disagree. Hence my confusion. I assume I've missed something.
Still, I can't stop thinking of mob hitmen.

Soldiers are absolutely responsible for their actions. This is what the Nuremberg trials were all about; that you can't just claim that you were following orders, thus excusing any kind of activity. This doesn't mean the world works in such stark, black and white terms. When under pressure soldiers (some, not all) will continue to do things that they know to be unethical.

Soldiers are absolutely responsible for their actions. This is what the Nuremberg trials were all about; that you can't just claim that you were following orders, thus excusing any kind of activity.I'm well aware of that.This doesn't mean the world works in such stark, black and white terms. When under pressure soldiers (some, not all) will continue to do things that they know to be unethical.I'm not trying to claim or insinuate otherwise. In my experience, there's rarely a crime without mitigating circumstances.

What I am getting at, though, is the "Support Our Troops" dogma. I don't understand it. My own nation's army is involved in the occupation of Iraq. An occupation that cannot be justified & almost certainly is illegal under international law, and most definitly is illegal under my nation's own laws.

Why should I respect people who get payed to inflict criminal and/or unneeded violence?
The only reason I've heard so far, is that they're people's family & friends. I'm not denying that, but your average mugger is also somebody's friend & have family.

I thought, if you join the army before the war, arn't a lot of those soildiers forced to go to war.

I thought, if you join the army before the war, arn't a lot of those soildiers forced to go to war.Depends on the nation in question. AFAIK, you'd get thrown in jail in the US. Unless it's national defense, soldiers are free to decline where I live.

Regardless, we're talking about getting payed to cause harm. Even if the alternative is jail, surely jail is the only valid option, right?

Or am I missing something?

What I am getting at, though, is the "Support Our Troops" dogma. I don't understand it. My own nation's army is involved in the occupation of Iraq. An occupation that cannot be justified & almost certainly is illegal under international law, and most definitly is illegal under my nation's own laws.

Why should I respect people who get payed to inflict criminal and/or unneeded violence?
The only reason I've heard so far, is that they're people's family & friends. I'm not denying that, but your average mugger is also somebody's friend & have family.
It's quite simple - wherever respect comes into play, it is down to individual choice. A lot of people have the mentality that their choice is "right" and should be everyone else's, hence the dogma. Actually, you are under no moral obligation to respect anyone.

I'm well aware of that.I'm not trying to claim or insinuate otherwise. In my experience, there's rarely a crime without mitigating circumstances.

What I am getting at, though, is the "Support Our Troops" dogma. I don't understand it. My own nation's army is involved in the occupation of Iraq. An occupation that cannot be justified & almost certainly is illegal under international law, and most definitly is illegal under my nation's own laws.

Why should I respect people who get payed to inflict criminal and/or unneeded violence?
The only reason I've heard so far, is that they're people's family & friends. I'm not denying that, but your average mugger is also somebody's friend & have family.

There's a fine line between International Law and Domestic Law. Domestic Law holds more authority, because it is backed up by force. International Law applies to the nations that can't back up their Domestic Laws through force of arms; a hard learned lesson to Nazi Germany. If this occupation is illegal in your Domestic Law, well... it's time to bring out the lawyers. ;)

You can definitely support your troops, while demonizing the administration. But it depends on the actions of the troops specifically.

I've been wondering about this for a few years now, but I just don't seem to get it, so I thought you lot might help explain it.

Are the soldiers responsible for carrying out their orders?

Should one always support soldiers, regardless of what orders they choose to carry out?

I'm of the opinion that the answers are yes & no, respectively, but an impressive number of people seems to disagree. Hence my confusion. I assume I've missed something.
Still, I can't stop thinking of mob hitmen.
I think your respective "yes" and "no" are absolutely correct.
In fact, I even remember Eutrusca saying once that it's a soldier's job to carry out orders, however this did *not* include orders which violate the rules of conduct, international agreements or the like (and you know how he is with stuff like this :p).

There's a fine line between International Law and Domestic Law. Domestic Law holds more authority, because it is backed up by force. International Law applies to the nations that can't back up their Domestic Laws through force of arms; a hard learned lesson to Nazi Germany. If this occupation is illegal in your Domestic Law, well... it's time to bring out the lawyers. ;)

You can definitely support your troops, while demonizing the administration. But it depends on the actions of the troops specifically.
Um... International law is more like laws between nations, and it applies to all nations.

It's quite simple - wherever respect comes into play, it is down to individual choice. A lot of people have the mentality that their choice is "right" and should be everyone else's, hence the dogma. Actually, you are under no moral obligation to respect anyone.Quite right. That's not what I was getting at though. I don't have any particular problem with people proclaiming what they think I should respect, but I do think they have an obligation to explain why. If they can't or won't do that, I think they should lower their voices.There's a fine line between International Law and Domestic Law. Domestic Law holds more authority, because it is backed up by force. International Law applies to the nations that can't back up their Domestic Laws through force of arms; a hard learned lesson to Nazi Germany.What are you getting at here?
Seems you're implying that soldiers fighting an unprovoked war of aggression against a largely defenseless nation, deserve respect if the UN is incapable of defending the victim. Is that what you meant?

If it is, I'd like you to explain to poor, daft me, why the ones who aren't above the law don't deserve respect.If this occupation is illegal in your Domestic Law, well... it's time to bring out the lawyers.Way ahead of you, but unless something major happens, the case will be stalled indefinetly. It's happened before with similar cases.You can definitely support your troops, while demonizing the administration. But it depends on the actions of the troops specifically.Let me get this straight:
I can demonize a government for asking the armed forces to do (whatever), but at the same time support the troops carrying out the actions?

Isn't that hypocrisy going on double-think?

Um... International law is more like laws between nations, and it applies to all nations.

Laws apply to those who can be held accountable by them. The world isn't a lawful place, just because we would like it to be.

Law is useless without enforcement, and without an international body to enforce International law, international law is essentially non-existant to those with the power to ignore it.

Seems you're implying that soldiers fighting an unprovoked war of aggression against a largely defenseless nation, deserve respect if the UN is incapable of defending the victim. Is that what you meant?

No, I'm not making value judgements here. I'm stating that if by the laws of your nation, the occupation of this defenseless nation are legal, then no international law is effective if the nation refuses to accept it's legitimacy and the international body can't enforce the law. Laws only apply if people agree to them, or if they can be enforced upon the people who refuse to abide by them.

The respect for individual soldiers can come if you feel that they are individually doing a service for your nation, and you feel that they are individually following the rules of war. Of course, there is no reason that you should have to show any respect to them, if you feel that the war is illegal, and the actions of the soldiers reprehensible.

No value judgements on my part.

I've been wondering about this for a few years now, but I just don't seem to get it, so I thought you lot might help explain it.

Are the soldiers responsible for carrying out their orders?

Should one always support soldiers, regardless of what orders they choose to carry out?

I'm of the opinion that the answers are yes & no, respectively, but an impressive number of people seems to disagree. Hence my confusion. I assume I've missed something.
Still, I can't stop thinking of mob hitmen.
You suffer from a lack of knowledge, something not uncommon on here.

American military personnel are required by the UCMJ to obey the lawful orders of all senior NCOs and Officers. The UCMJ also requires all military personnel to DISOBEY any order which they know to be unlawful. Anyone knowingly obeying an unlawful order can be prosecuted under the UCMJ.

Quite right. That's not what I was getting at though. I don't have any particular problem with people proclaiming what they think I should respect, but I do think they have an obligation to explain why. If they can't or won't do that, I think they should lower their voices.What are you getting at here?
Seems you're implying that soldiers fighting an unprovoked war of aggression against a largely defenseless nation, deserve respect if the UN is incapable of defending the victim. Is that what you meant?

If it is, I'd like you to explain to poor, daft me, why the ones who aren't above the law don't deserve respect.Way ahead of you, but unless something major happens, the case will be stalled indefinetly. It's happened before with similar cases.Let me get this straight:
I can demonize a government for asking the armed forces to do (whatever), but at the same time support the troops carrying out the actions?

Isn't that hypocrisy going on double-think?
Not at all. What you advocate is called "shooting the messenger because you don't like the message."

(and you know how he is with stuff like this :p).
Oh? And just how is THAT? :p

It all highly depends on the legal system under which you operate.
( Responsibility is usually a result of the legal system under which you are, and there is no such thing as 'natural' responsibility.)

Meanwhile, I think you are a bit of a 10-a-penny demagogue.

What I am getting at, though, is the "Support Our Troops" dogma. I don't understand it. My own nation's army is involved in the occupation of Iraq. An occupation that cannot be justified & almost certainly is illegal under international law, and most definitly is illegal under my nation's own laws.

Why should I respect people who get payed to inflict criminal and/or unneeded violence?
The only reason I've heard so far, is that they're people's family & friends. I'm not denying that, but your average mugger is also somebody's friend & have family.
You're asking a good question. Proclaiming one's support for American troops in Iraq has almost become a Seinfeld joke -- kind of like the episode where anytime a person was noted to be homosexual, the statement "Not that there's anything wrong with that" always followed. Some people in the United States have adopted the same sort of method of arguing against the war. They state that they are opposed to the occupancy of Iraq, but that they support the troops. I'm not quite sure what kind of support they mean. Cher wants better helmets. I hear Alec Baldwin wants improved boots. Maybe we'll get Ted Nugent supporting better ammo. I don't know.

But the question remains about how much or what kind of support you owe men and women that choose to serve the nation. If, as you state, their only purpose is to kill and maim in unecessary conflict, then you probably don't owe them any support at all and you should probably do everything in your power to oppose them.

If, as some of us believe, that the purpose of these same soldiers and sailors is to provide a national defense, then I think our support and respect is deserved and even required. How they are deployed to project the policy of the United States is not their doing. Deployments are lawful orders that they must obey. Take that up with your politicians.

How they conduct themselves on the battlefield is another matter. I wouldn't be proud of killing civilians, but it happens. Battles are not nice neat affairs. When someone shoots at you, the only reaction possible may be to concentrate as much fire as you can on them -- even if you can't identify them or even if there are civilians present. When I was doing close air support in the Marine Corps, I didn't ask about where the nearest civilians were. I did whatever I could to put bombs on target. And I'm lucky. I never had to see the results.

Okay, that's enough seriousness for one day. It's getting close to Margarita time and I need to make a run to the liquor store.

It's quite simple - wherever respect comes into play, it is down to individual choice. A lot of people have the mentality that their choice is "right" and should be everyone else's, hence the dogma. Actually, you are under no moral obligation to respect anyone.
"Respect to whom respect is due. Honor to whom honor."

But you're right ... as individuals we don't have to pay respect to anyone, parents, teachers, administrators, elected officials, famous scientists, great moral teachers ... not anyone. Just don't be all shocked and dismayed when your lack of respect comes back to bite you in the ass.

I thought, if you join the army before the war, arn't a lot of those soildiers forced to go to war.
Well, DUH! If you like, join the arrrrmy, you agree to like, you know ... fight! :rolleyes:

Well, DUH! If you like, join the arrrrmy, you agree to like, you know ... fight! :rolleyes:
But the recruiter told me I'd be in the band ...

Not at all. What you advocate is called "shooting the messenger because you don't like the message."How exactly?

I'm a terribly bloodyminded individual, but this thread was created as an honest question. If I'm engaging in personal attacks (Ad hominem fallacy, for you non- plain english speaking NSGers), it isn't by design.

I'll simplify with a nice little example:

I'm payed to obey my boss. My boss orders me to do something unethical. I'm payed not to diobey, but it is never the less my choice.

Do I deserve popular support if I choose to obey?

Is there no contradiction between blaming my boss for giving me an unethical order, and supporting me for carrying it out?

Seriously Eut, I don't get it. My head don't have room for the cognitive dissonance.

Well, DUH! If you like, join the arrrrmy, you agree to like, you know ... fight! :rolleyes:
I just noticed that you have been on this forum for two more months than I and you have six times the posts. I thought I spent too much time here. You need to take up fishing, or something.

"Respect to whom respect is due. Honor to whom honor."

But you're right ... as individuals we don't have to pay respect to anyone, parents, teachers, administrators, elected officials, famous scientists, great moral teachers ... not anyone. Just don't be all shocked and dismayed when your lack of respect comes back to bite you in the ass.

Most of us ( including you and me, Eut ) do live in burocratic states.
Within such States, there is no authority but authority due to Office.

We don't ( OK, I'm pretending to be American for this topic only. ) have to respect President Bush as an individual.
But we do have an obligation to obey him ex officio.

As such sages as Confucius and Mencius already pointed out, there is no way of having a decent society without strict, formalised and explicit hierarchical structures.
It never has been done without, and never will be done without.

How exactly?

I'm a terribly bloodyminded individual, but this thread was created as an honest question. If I'm engaging in personal attacks (Ad hominem fallacy, for you non- plain english speaking NSGers), it isn't by design.

I'll simplify with a nice little example:

I'm payed to obey my boss. My boss orders me to do something unethical. I'm payed not to diobey, but it is never the less my choice.

Do I deserve popular support if I choose to obey?

Is there no contradiction between blaming my boss for giving me an unethical order, and supporting me for carrying it out?

Seriously Eut, I don't get it. My head don't have room for the cognitive dissonance.
What's your answer? Let's say the order was to get coffee for him. Is the price of disobeying worth the penalty? Now let's say you were ordered to cook the books. What should you do? Now let's say you aren't an accountant anymore, but a policeman. The boss orders you to do something illegal that will save the lives of your colleagues and possibly your own. What's the answer?

And how should you be perceived? How about using Enron as an example. The whistleblowers were revered and the guilty were reviled. If you allow your comrades to be killed because you refused to do something illegal, what should we think of your character?

See there's a lot of variables that go into this problem. There may be a trivial answer, but that's not the one we care about.

How exactly?

I'm a terribly bloodyminded individual, but this thread was created as an honest question. If I'm engaging in personal attacks (Ad hominem fallacy, for you non- plain english speaking NSGers), it isn't by design.

I'll simplify with a nice little example:

I'm payed to obey my boss. My boss orders me to do something unethical. I'm payed not to diobey, but it is never the less my choice.

Do I deserve popular support if I choose to obey?

Is there no contradiction between blaming my boss for giving me an unethical order, and supporting me for carrying it out?

Seriously Eut, I don't get it. My head don't have room for the cognitive dissonance.

You have a choice.
You obey your orders, and get rewards. Monetary, mostly.

Or you can disobey.
And be punished by being paid off.

The choice is yours.
You may follow the dictates of your conscience.
Your conscience is subjective.
What you have no right to, is to expect to be rewarded both on the conscience and on the organisational level.

If following your conscience means getting killed by your superior, and you are dead serious about your conscience, than you simply accept the part where you get killed.

I've been wondering about this for a few years now, but I just don't seem to get it, so I thought you lot might help explain it.

Are the soldiers responsible for carrying out their orders?

Should one always support soldiers, regardless of what orders they choose to carry out?

I'm of the opinion that the answers are yes & no, respectively, but an impressive number of people seems to disagree. Hence my confusion. I assume I've missed something.
Still, I can't stop thinking of mob hitmen.
I think it depends on what is meant by "supporting the troops." When I say I support the troops, for instance, I mean that I want the government to follow through on the promises it made to the people who serve under arms for the US--the VA promises and the like. To add to that, I mean that I don't condemn the collective troops for the mission they've been asked to achieve--that's the responsibility of the civilian leadership. But there is room to condemn individual soldiers for atrocities they may or may not have been ordered to commit.

I just noticed that you have been on this forum for two more months than I and you have six times the posts. I thought I spent too much time here. You need to take up fishing, or something.
LOL! I have a hobby, but sometimes a dearth of partners to help me with it. :D

I think it depends on what is meant by "supporting the troops." When I say I support the troops, for instance, I mean that I want the government to follow through on the promises it made to the people who serve under arms for the US--the VA promises and the like. To add to that, I mean that I don't condemn the collective troops for the mission they've been asked to achieve--that's the responsibility of the civilian leadership. But there is room to condemn individual soldiers for atrocities they may or may not have been ordered to commit.
Precisely! And if they do such things, they should be prosecuted to the limit of the UCMJ.

If, as some of us believe, that the purpose of these same soldiers and sailors is to provide a national defense, then I think our support and respect is deserved and even required. How they are deployed to project the policy of the United States is not their doing. Deployments are lawful orders that they must obey. Take that up with your politicians.I both agree & disagree.

Armies are quite obviously needed. I don't like that they are, but that doesn't mean I'm not grateful for having one. My nation would likely be fucked if we didn't, and a lot of genuine peacekeeping missions wouldn't have been carried out.

I do blame my politicians for involving the army, but I don't see why I shouldn't blame the military personel involved as well. They had a choice, just like my politicians did. I'm actually quite proud of the soldiers that refused to go, but that's more to do with how others hail their brave armed forces for carrying out the unethical or outright criminal instructions of their politicians.

The primary focus of the armed forces is to cause damage. Ours are now engaged in an occupation following an invasion of a forign country that posed absolutely no threat to anyone but it's own population. A threat that could've been dealt with far more efficiently, by ending the food for oil policy.

I'm not criticising the performance of anyone's armed forces, least of all my own. I am, however, inclined to hold them responsible for accepting to take part in a conflict that cannot be justified.

I don't understand what they've done to deserve anyone's respect. Refusing to do a dirty job is far more praise worthy in my mind.

I think it depends on what is meant by "supporting the troops." When I say I support the troops, for instance, I mean that I want the government to follow through on the promises it made to the people who serve under arms for the US--the VA promises and the like. To add to that, I mean that I don't condemn the collective troops for the mission they've been asked to achieve--that's the responsibility of the civilian leadership. But there is room to condemn individual soldiers for atrocities they may or may not have been ordered to commit.

Hmm. The boldened bit is where I differ from you.
Inasmuch as most, and perhaps all, of those attrocities are the result of the original ( flawed ) decision to invade Iraq in the first place, the responsibility for such attrocities must be borne by the chaps at the top of the pyramid.

This is, of course, a far cry from this Administration's policy of blaming mistakes on subordinates, and never ever actually assuming responsibility for anything at all.

How exactly?

I'm a terribly bloodyminded individual, but this thread was created as an honest question. If I'm engaging in personal attacks (Ad hominem fallacy, for you non- plain english speaking NSGers), it isn't by design.

I'll simplify with a nice little example:

I'm payed to obey my boss. My boss orders me to do something unethical. I'm payed not to diobey, but it is never the less my choice.

Do I deserve popular support if I choose to obey?

Is there no contradiction between blaming my boss for giving me an unethical order, and supporting me for carrying it out?

Seriously Eut, I don't get it. My head don't have room for the cognitive dissonance.
Then may I humbly suggest that you're going to have a lot of problems in life? Cognitive dissonance is de regiure ( SP? ) for humans.

Look ... here's how I see it, and how the UCMJ sees it: If you don't obey the lawful orders of those who outrank you, you get dinged; if you DO obey the UNlawful orders of those who outrank you, you get dinged. Military personnel in a democracy are expected to have the capacity for reason and a degree of personal responsibility for their own actions.

I don't know about you, but I have tremedous respect for someone who is willing to put their life on the line for me ( even though we may disagree about whether that's necessary in any particular conflict or not ), and willing to take the hit when they make an error in judgment.

Hmm. The boldened bit is where I differ from you.
Inasmuch as most, and perhaps all, of those attrocities are the result of the original ( flawed ) decision to invade Iraq in the first place, the responsibility for such attrocities must be borne by the chaps at the top of the pyramid.

This is, of course, a far cry from this Administration's policy of blaming mistakes on subordinates, and never ever actually assuming responsibility for anything at all.
You'll find no greater advocate for going after the brass on things like Abu Ghraib than me--I've long said that it's disgraceful that no one responsible for the orders has even had their careers threatened for the shit that went on there. I was trying to make the distinction between the troops as a indistinct group of people and individuals who committed atrocities. It's unfair to label the troops as a whole for the actions of a few.

You'll find no greater advocate for going after the brass on things like Abu Ghraib than me--I've long said that it's disgraceful that no one responsible for the orders has even had their careers threatened for the shit that went on there. I was trying to make the distinction between the troops as a indistinct group of people and individuals who committed atrocities. It's unfair to label the troops as a whole for the actions of a few.
This is scary. I find myself agreeing with you on this! :eek:

"Respect to whom respect is due. Honor to whom honor."

But you're right ... as individuals we don't have to pay respect to anyone, parents, teachers, administrators, elected officials, famous scientists, great moral teachers ... not anyone. Just don't be all shocked and dismayed when your lack of respect comes back to bite you in the ass.
Respect is earned, never due.

Kids today seem to think respect is something they are owed by society, and so much street violence springs from a feeling that due 'respect' has not been shown. To see groups of adult professionals get indignant and defensive over a perceived lack of respect, is every bit as pathetic. Respect is not something to which one should feel entitled just because one has jumped through some hoops. It is about how much value an observer places on the act of jumping through those hoops. Respect is something one should be pleasantly surprised to have won, not something one can solicit, not something for which one competes, in the expectation that one will receive it.

Elected officials as a whole, cannot expect to win respect by the mere act of doing their jobs. But they will find that an individual will respect another for a particular act of public service, which they probably performed not realising that it is that act which will win them credit.

The same goes for administrators - as a group, no particular respect is due, but a skilled and understanding administrator may find himself or herself appreciated by his/her peers and/or subordinates. Sometimes respect from one group comes at the cost of respect from another. That is the way of the world.

And the same is true of the military. It enjoys no special status as far as this goes. It is due no universal respect, but it can win some at the expense of the mistrust of others. As is the case with everything in life, one cannot win a popularity contest unanimously, nor should one nurture bad feelings over the fact.

I think you misunderstand the nature of the act, perhaps viewing it as something so generic, that its real significance is cheapened, diluted and lost. It is an uncommon gift, not a benefit that comes with a salary.

Will my lack of respect bite me on the arse? Let it. The important thing is, that when I say I respect another, it will actually mean something.

Are the soldiers responsible for carrying out their orders?

Meaning: "Do they have an obligation to carry out their orders"? If that's what you're asking, then no, they do not. They have an obligation to act morally, and that may or may not involve carrying out their orders.

Should one always support soldiers, regardless of what orders they choose to carry out?

Absolutely not.

I think you misunderstand the nature of the act, perhaps viewing it as something so generic, that its real significance is cheapened, diluted and lost. It is an uncommon gift, not a benefit that comes with a salary.

Considering that while a soldier may sign up for military duty with patriotism as their primary reason, the true sacrifice that soldiers make in combat is rooted in small group dynamics. With the exception of events like the Holocaust, when men kill the enemy, or throw themselves on a grenade to save lives, they do so not for reasons of patriotism - they do it for their friends. This is also why soldiers in combat for extended periods of time commit atrocities - small group dynamics.

Most people seriously want to believe that soldiers are mindless automatons willingly following the orders of some evil, implacable leader - that atrocities happen only because the evil leader orders it or allows it. But atrocities have been part of nearly every army in nearly every war, despite centuries of strictures concerning atrocity.

When you're a soldier, your world in combat is reduced to the immediate group of men around you (8 to 10). The only events that really shape what you do from moment to moment are the events that affect you directly and that group directly - it doesn't matter who the General is, or who the President is, or what orders came from some vague place on high - what matters is where your group is going and what happens to them.

As you can see, if you bond people like this, then stress them with being shot at, and losing members to injury and death, some of the groups will decide to settle matters in their own way.

Not saying that's the right thing to do, but that's what happens, even if there are orders that you will be shot if you do so.

Yes, you can hold them responsible for such acts, and I believe that they are or will be.

I don't know about you, but I have tremedous respect for someone who is willing to put their life on the line for me ( even though we may disagree about whether that's necessary in any particular conflict or not ), and willing to take the hit when they make an error in judgment.As do I. I just don't see why I should respect someone for using force when it isn't in defence of human beings. I don't respect anyone else for such behaviour & I doubt you do either. Why should it make a difference they're getting payed for it?

I'm not actually trying to beat miliraty personel on the head here, I'm just at a loss over the Support Our Troops cries, because it shoulds like bullshit. In my usual arrgoant opinion, the troops shouldn't get support, they should be ordered back.

This romanticising of the armed forces seems both pointless & borderline. The military destroys. It's what it's for. People shouldn't kid themselves about it. There's nothing heroic about destruction or the threat of it, unless it's to discurage, prevent or stop even greater destruction.This is scary. I find myself agreeing with you on this!That makes two of us.

Look, I realise that an army has to do what its told. Individuals in it, however, don't. I read the example implying that refusing to carry out orders might endanger others, but then whose responsibility is that exactly? The people who engage in unethical or criminal behaviour despite knowing better, or the one who isn't there to protect them from the situation they walked into with open eyes?

I don't think you can protect everyone from themselves, against their own wishes. I seriously don't think you should try, when it puts others at risk - and face it, the deployment of soldiers always puts people at risk to some degree.

Oh well, never mind this thread. I think I've read what I needed.

This is scary. I find myself agreeing with you on this! :eek:
Nothing personal, Eutrusca, but the "OMG I agree with someone who constantly calls bullshit on me!!!" schtick is pretty old. If you were honest about it, youd recognize that I'm not nearly as extreme as you make me out to be most of the time. You prefer to try to marginalize me and others who I see eye-to-eye with most of the time because it's easier than addressing our substantive points, but the ugly fact is that we agree on probably 50-60% of all issues, perhaps more. It's just that when we disagree, we disagree vehemently.

Can't we all just, get along?

I had to train soldiers in this.

It breaks into two parts. Firstly, the soldier must assume that the actions that his nation are taking are just and correct otherwise he is in a world of brown fertiliser. It is up to international law, and inevitably the victors in any war, to decide wether his nations actions were legal. ;)

As to personal responsibility, this is where life gets tricky. You mustr obey any legal order that does not contravene the rules of war. Queens Regulations (the British equivelant to the United States' UCMJ) is clear on this. The reules of war are defined by the various legal international conventions to which the local Rules of Engagement (ROE) have been tailored. The ROE for Peacekeeping are different for war fighting which are again different for humanitarian aid etc etc. There are always several constants like not shooting POWs out of hand or not mistreating POWs or not refusing to treat enemy wounded.

Basically it is all down to judgement calls and having the balls to tell the person giving the order "no, because it contravenes the ROE/Geneva Convention/etc".

You'll find no greater advocate for going after the brass on things like Abu Ghraib than me--I've long said that it's disgraceful that no one responsible for the orders has even had their careers threatened for the shit that went on there. I was trying to make the distinction between the troops as a indistinct group of people and individuals who committed atrocities. It's unfair to label the troops as a whole for the actions of a few.

Well Eut, The Nazz has the both of us agreeing with him on this. Now, that is scary.

Well Eut, The Nazz has the both of us agreeing with him on this. Now, that is scary.
Hey, even a blind pig finds a truffle once in a while.

Can't we all just, get along?

Hace a cookie...oh, and some milk. :fluffle:

Hey, even a blind pig finds a truffle once in a while.

ROFLMAO :p :p

Fargozia']I had to train soldiers in this.
Let me stress the following question is purely hypothetical.

What do you do, when you're asked to do something you believe to be illegal, and your CO replies "Well, there's been no [ruling in an international court of law or equivalent], so it isn't illegal."?

I ask, because seeing some of the replies here, I have a hard time imagening something similars hasn't already happened.

I thought, if you join the army before the war, arn't a lot of those soildiers forced to go to war.

WTF? Anytime you join the army you can go to war, provided there is one.

Let me stress the following question is purely hypothetical.

What do you do, when you're asked to do something you believe to be illegal, and your CO replies "Well, there's been no [ruling in an international court of law or equivalent], so it isn't illegal."?

I ask, because seeing some of the replies here, I have a hard time imagening something similars hasn't already happened.

If you are in the US military, only US law applies. US military personnel receive training in Military Law (UCMJ) and the rules of engagement. Most of them are smart enough to realize when an order is not a lawful order. Officers and NCOs are also smart enough to not give un-lawful orders.

Hey, even a blind pig finds a truffle once in a while.
Keep looking--maybe you and Celtlund and Eutrusca can find another one with all three of you looking at once.

Hey, even a blind pig finds a truffle once in a while.
Actually, they sniff out truffles, which grow underground. Thus, Corneliu has no chance whatsoever of finding one. The truth, in an unknown domain forever out of reach.

But the recruiter told me I'd be in the band ...
No, he told you that you would be flying an airplane.

You can play the trumpet when your plane reaches the IP...

Regardless, we're talking about getting payed to cause harm. Even if the alternative is jail, surely jail is the only valid option, right?

That is horribly simplistic. First you assume that you can estimate the negative effect jail and the elimination of one's livelihood may have on someone, second you assume that you and those placed in the situation have a definitive idea of what harm is actually being done.

Let me stress the following question is purely hypothetical.

What do you do, when you're asked to do something you believe to be illegal, and your CO replies "Well, there's been no [ruling in an international court of law or equivalent], so it isn't illegal."?

I ask, because seeing some of the replies here, I have a hard time imagening something similars hasn't already happened.

If you are ordered to do an act that is clearly illegal and convenes the rules of war, and/or the ROE and/or the Geneva Convention and you refuse stating why you think it is wrong and the order is given to you again, you have the right to forcibly detain the superior and remove him from his command as until such time as their orders and the situation has been investigated.

In reality, if a suprior tells you to, just for example, castrate a civilian in revenge for one of your dead soldiers being found mutilated in this manner, then you MUST refuse the order as it is clearly illegal. If the order is repeated after refusal, arrest the superior and inform your chain of command, over the arrested superiors head, of the arrest and why. (This is actually a training example used to illustrate the rights and wrongs.)

Fargozia']If you are ordered to do an act that is clearly illegal and convenes the rules of war, and/or the ROE and/or the Geneva Convention and you refuse stating why you think it is wrong and the order is given to you again, you have the right to forcibly detain the superior and remove him from his command as until such time as their orders and the situation has been investigated.

In reality, if a suprior tells you to, just for example, castrate a civilian in revenge for one of your dead soldiers being found mutilated in this manner, then you MUST refuse the order as it is clearly illegal. If the order is repeated after refusal, arrest the superior and inform your chain of command, over the arrested superiors head, of the arrest and why. (This is actually a training example used to illustrate the rights and wrongs.)Much appreciated. You're very helpful.

But what if the situation is less obvious. Let's say you're ordered to carry out an air strike on a miliraty target sorrounded by civilian structures (and peoples). To the best of your knowledge, the target will result in considerably more collateral damage, than the target itself can justify. Are you still obligated to refuse?

What about a scenario where your nation's armed forces (and thus yourself) is ordered to attack or invade a soverign nation, even though that nation poses no direct threat to your own country or it's allies?

I imagine the former example would be very relevant for certain IDF personel, and the latter seems pretty relevant for all us coalition tag-alongs.That is horribly simplistic. First you assume that you can estimate the negative effect jail and the elimination of one's livelihood may have on someone, second you assume that you and those placed in the situation have a definitive idea of what harm is actually being done.If the second assumption is false, then clearly the soldier would have no reason for refusing to carry out an order.

About the first assumption though. Well.. It isn't guaranteed to be a safe job. Whether you're injured on the artillery range, crack because your mate got shot up, crack because you had to go to jail or die from a snakebite in the desert, it's part of the job. Hopefully you won't get hired if you can't accept that.
I'm just grateful people are free to decline joining attacks on forign nations that aren't attacking us.