The Military

[airfrogusmc]

I will agree that people have choices but political leaders are the ones that create policy and as you well know ours is not to reason why ours is just to do or die. I would have never have disobeyed an order. I love my country and would fight any enemy and not even think of whether I agreed with the mission or not. Its not relevant. Politics is for politicians. You have to remember the times. Those German solders loved their country. They believed that they were doing the right thing. Only history has shown the evil. Most German citizens (if not gay Jewish or a number of other reasons) didn't know about the death camps or the true evil that was the nazis. I'm not defending their actions just saying that soldiers obey orders and usually questioning those orders doesn't come into the thought process.

There were some horrible things done to native Americans at the hands of soldiers following orders. It happens no matter what side you're on. The real monsters are usually the ones making the policy.

 

[carebear]

The real monsters are usually the ones making the policy.

I agree airfrog, but they are monsters of our creation.

One of the things that has changed since the Vietnam era (due in large part to Lt. Calley) and the ending of the draft is a difference in how "obeying orders" is presented to the troops.

It is now emphasized that lawful orders must be obeyed but it is the duty of enlisted and officers to question and ultimately disobey criminal or otherwise unlawful ones.

Tell me to go to Iraq? It's definitely a lawful order, whether I think the war over there moral or not. If I choose to refuse I must be prepared to accept the legal consequences of that refusal. At best I can hope that public opinion swings enough my way that the leadership later determines I was correct and rescinds my punishment (as has often happened for those out in front on moral issues).

Tell me to kill civilians in deathcamps in Iraq? That is both an unlawful order (and immoral) and it is my duty to both refuse the order and in fact to actively resist it by reporting it up the chain of command. If necessary, to place those who are inciting or committing the crime of murder under arrest, stopping them with force if necessary.

"Following orders" doesn't give any soldier a pass.

 

[airfrogusmc]

Good point but remember the ones running and working in the death camps were the SS and the cream of the nazi party. I wasn't saying it should and most SS and those that were in the nazi party have been searched out and put on trail as war criminals which they are and should have been. Most of the Germans and those in the military if they were not in the SS didn't know. They might have had an idea but the nazi propaganda machine was very effective at keeping most Germans unaware. Most of the camps were outside Germany.

You're right about the monsters being their own creation. Be careful who you vote into office.

 

[carebear]

The German's who lived near the German camps knew. Anyone with a brain who watched their neighbors being loaded onto trains, their property disposed of as if they were dead, not to return had to suspect.

The camps as a whole were an open secret, everyone had plausible deniability. Today even that excuse is gone, information is too widespread.

I agree with you wholeheartedly on watching our leadership, especially those like you, and me, and Arrowcollar's friends and family who would willingly serve the policy makers for higher ideals than self.

 

[jazzbass]

.... I would have never have disobeyed an order. I love my country and would fight any enemy and not even think of whether I agreed with the mission or not. Its not relevant.....

And this pretty much sums up my problem with the military. How do you KNOW they are your enemy? George Bush saying Iraq or (fill in enemy du jour) is my enemy does not make it so.






jazzbass

 

[carebear]

And this pretty much sums up my problem with the military. How do you KNOW they are your enemy? George Bush saying Iraq or (fill in enemy du jour) is my enemy does not make it so.

jazzbass

You are aware that many of the most highly regarded historians and political scientists today and in the past are and have been in the military? That the same available information that convinces someone that a certain fight is wrong or unnecessary may provide the evidence to an equally capable thinker in the Service that such-and-such a fight is in fact reasonable and necessary?

That "being in the military" does not mean one is an idiot who blindly follows George Bush and lacks the ability for independent rational thought?

 

[ArrowCollarMan]

That "being in the military" does not mean one is an idiot who blindly follows George Bush and lacks the ability for independent rational thought?

No, but they have to follow orders anyway.

 

[Story]

The truth is there is no "bad guy".

Really? Would you like to see open source videos of assorted terrorists in Iraq beheading their prisoners in the name of their God?

Your perceptions about the war and the military are primarily based only on what you've read by a (biased) media, correct?

I don't know anything.

The path to enlightenment begins with the realization of how much you do not know.

 

[carebear]

No, but they have to follow orders anyway.

Did you just not read anything posted above, including by me? Or did you read it and ignore it?

You are asking questions in this thread but you ignore the answers from folks who have actual life experience in them. [huh]

I'll state it again, and leave out the nuances which may be confusing you. As a member of the US military you are not bound to follow unlawful orders. That's it, no discussion.

Yes, if you refuse an order you will face consequences, but you will have a hearing and can request a court-martial. You will be able to present your reasons for disobeying. If your reasons for violating orders are not found to be valid then you will probably face punishment, just like in civilian society when you violate laws you find illegitimate or immoral.

I find it insulting that you seem to feel that members of the military are somehow automatons of less intelligence or moral sense than you. Have you made your feelings clear to your cousins yet? I'm sure they'd be intrigued by your lack of regard for their intelligence.

 

[Daisy Buchanan]

Did you just not read anything posted above, including by me? Or did you read it and ignore it?

You are asking questions in this thread but you ignore the answers from folks who have actual life experience in them. [huh]

I'll state it again, and leave out the nuances which may be confusing you. As a member of the US military you are not bound to follow unlawful orders. That's it, no discussion.

Yes, if you refuse an order you will face consequences, but you will have a hearing and can request a court-martial. You will be able to present your reasons for disobeying. If your reasons for violating orders are not found to be valid then you will probably face punishment, just like in civilian society when you violate laws you find illegitimate or immoral.

I find it insulting that you seem to feel that members of the military are somehow automatons of less intelligence or moral sense than you. Have you made your feelings clear to your cousins yet? I'm sure they'd be intrigued by your lack of regard for their intelligence.

I've been trying to stay quiet througout this thread, for I feel that the folks here are saying some of the things that I would want to say.

I just wanted to say to Carebear, Well Said. Your statements are clear and well thought out, and any lack of understanding them isn't due to you not being clear and very well thought out. They are simply not understood because the person/people not understanding them already has a certain mind-set, and I'm sorry if this comes across as rude, but simply cannot be reasoned with. It seems that ACM already know's about his feelings towards the military, he might just be looking for affirmation of said feelings.
CareBear, You seem quite knowledgeable on this topic and your thoughts and knowledge are very well protrayed. The argument can't be won if argued with a person who just won't listen.
Once again, ACM, I don't mean to be rude, and I'm not putting you down, you just don't seem to be reading or hearing all that has to be said. If your mind is already made up, which it apparantly is, why ask the question over and over again?

And yes, ACM, there is a "bad guy". Just talk to any number of the few surviving relatives I have that were in Concentration Camps. There is evil, it is inevitable. The people who are doing the evil have no justification for it, and often know that it is very wrong. They just don't care, for they have only there own hopes in mind. If we just sat back and let it happen, because we use the term "moral relativism", what kind of world would we live in? I can only see a world where it sane and just to shoot your neighbor for playing music too loud at 2 in the morning. Not the kind of world I want, so good men stand up and fight for the freedoms that you have enjoyed all of your life. You should feel proud for your family members, and thankful that someone is willing to put their life ahead of yours all for the sake of your freedom and safety.

 

[Section10]

Saddam Hussein killed the Kurds and Hitler killed the non-Germans and the communists were overrunning South Vietnam. Are we our brother's keeper? Do we have a moral responsibility to forcibly stop such activity in a foreign country? If we decide we do, then we must see it through or we are hypocrites. We must also stop injustice and murder wherever it occurs throughout the world. Can we do that? It is rampant in some oil poor countries and Africa yet we've never felt the pressure of our conscience for them like we have in Iraq.
No one went to war against Germany because of its genocide. If Germany had stayed behind its borders it could have killed every single non-German in its country and no on would have stopped it. The Allies wanted peace at all costs and German internal policy would not have mattered. The ending of genocide was simply a by-product of Allied victory.
If a German soldier had actively resisted the Nazi regime he would not have simply endangered his own life he would have threatened the lives of his spouse, his children, his parents, his brothers & sisters, etc. There are few men on this planet willing to make that kind of sacrifice.

 

[ArrowCollarMan]

Um, I was paying attention to what you were saying. If there is something unlawful ordered like: "Execute civillians" then a soldier can refuse those orders and make a case of it. Yes. But a solider can't just say "I don't agree with this war overall" and refuse to fight. Agree with the war or not they have to follow orders.

As for insurgents; they have plenty of their own reasons for being there but I feel they're mislead. It sounds like most of them want to die to achieve martyrdom. Alot of them are incredibly brutal to the civilian populace in Iraq, no doubt about that but it must be noted that alot of people also support the insurgency. The problem with the insurgency is that its not just one force, its made up of many, many different factions which often conflict with themselves. It is an all out civil war and occupation. This is why our military didn't take out Saddam in the first Gulf War.

Saddam was an awful leader, I'm not arguing that but the justifications often stated are very vauge and naive. Besides, Iraq is actually worse off then when Saddam was in power. Also, there are worse dictators on the planet which the United States doesn't even care about. Hell, we're buddy-buddy with Red China. Is anyone going to argue they're not horribly repressive? Do we do anything about it? No. Instead China owns us.

One has to realize that to alot of people around the world WE ARE THE BAD GUYS. They have reasons for it alot which we don't address. You can't fight ideology with weapons it just feeds more ideology. So the "we're right and they're wrong" mentality can become superficial at times. I'm still not saying there is no such thing as good and evil but I don't think the United States is this glowing, righteous nation who is out to spread peace and justice throughout the world. Just like every other power before us we're trying to make our own gains. Heck, the shoes we wear are pretty much made by slave labor. Its not the government that makes our shoes but its the government that makes that kind of thing legal because of businesses behind the government. Those businesses mean money and money means our nation survives. Arrg.

The point I was trying to make was whatever side you look at it its a different story and a different situation. Perhaps if people try to see through the eyes of another we can better understand each other, so there won't be any damn wars to fight?

Edit: In this discussion alot of us can't agree. I can see where arguments against my arguments are coming from but I'm finding it hard to make my own point or express what I'm actually thinking. I agree that fear, killing and repression cannot be tolerated, and is in fact evil, but unfortunatally it is.

 

[Daisy Buchanan]

Saddam was an awful leader, I'm not arguing that but the justifications often stated are very vauge and naive. Besides, Iraq is actually worse off then when Saddam was in power. Also, there are worse dictators on the planet which the United States doesn't even care about. Hell, we're buddy-buddy with Red China. Is anyone going to argue they're not horribly repressive? Do we do anything about it? No. Instead China owns us.

The point I was trying to make was whatever side you look at it its a different story and a different situation. Perhaps if people try to see through the eyes of another we can better understand each other, so there won't be any damn wars to fight?

Edit: In this discussion alot of us can't agree. I can see where arguments against my arguments are coming from but I'm finding it hard to make my own point or express what I'm actually thinking. I agree that fear, killing and repression cannot be tolerated, and is in fact evil, but unfortunatally it is.

OK, just a few points. You might be getting your information on the Iraq War from one biased area of the media. My suggestion to you is to do exactly what you are telling everybody else to do, see this from another angle. Saddam's torture chambers have been all shut down, Hundreds of thousands of innocent Kurds aren't being aimlessly killed. There are a lot of facts out there to the contrary of this statement, so you might want to do some research on that fact, and try to, as you have told us all to do, see it from another side.

I really don't want to start talking about a totally other animal in this thread, I'd like to stay on topic, but I must comment on your statements about China. We are not "friends" with nor "owned" by China. Another thing that should be researched before stated. We are "strategic competitors" with China. We are poised to do what we need to do in the event that this relationship turns. The situation in China was completely different than the situation in Afghanistan and Iraq and the two shouldn't even be compared. Was it not only 5 years ago that we were ready to have an international incident with them for the forcing down of one of our spy planes?
Once again, I'm just stressing your point of looking at everything from all sides. You are telling us all to do this, yet your statements are very one sided. The media is very biased, and I'm not sure what school curriculums are any longer. The only way you can form a good solid opinion of your own is to do your own research, whether it be on line or through books, and try to get the entire story. You also must read everything. Some people choose to listen to a certain station or read a certain paper because it is slanted in the direction of their likes. They hear only what they want to hear, even if it is not correct, and then they call it fact. Your friends, family members, noone can give you all the facts, because they will never be free of bias. Once again this is just some advice, and is in no way meant to put you down, and it is also just my opinion. Just make sure that before making claims and stating them as facts, that they are indeed the correct facts, not just something you heard through the grapevine or from a school friend who is passionate about one particular cause.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

there are an awful lot of compelling arguments for us not being in Iraq, and why we should never have gone into Iraq in the first place (and as i see it, an incredibly small number of rational arguments which actually condone our action). "Iraq is worse off with us than with Saddam" is not one of them.

bk

 

[Pilgrim]

It's important to me to distinguish between respect for the solders and those who plan their missions. I have great respect for the former, much less for the latter.

I have great respect for the servicemen and women who serve in the current conflict. Although I'm confident that many support the "war" (Dixon Cannon made a great point about whether it's a war or not), I know that many of them have minor or major reservations or disagreements with the conflict, but they are doing the very best they can to support their country and meet their personal commitment to serve. That displays personal integrity to follow through and meet their commitments, and I geratly respect the courage and conviction it takes to do that.

What I don't respect is the set of decisions that sent them in there (for reasons that have never IMO been justified), the lack of planning and foresight that created the current mess, or the "stay the course and don't consider or discuss alternatives" approach the administration is taking.

Our soldiers are being sadly let down by an administration that didn't plan before getting involved, never had an exit strategy, and isn't able to create one now. It reminds me of Pete Seeger's 1967 song "Waist Deep in the Big Muddy". here's the last verse of the song:

Waist deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool says to push on.
Waist deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool says to push on.
Waist deep! Neck deep! Soon even a
Tall man'll be over his head, we're
Waist deep in the Big Muddy!
And the big fool says to push on!

Unfortunately, it's hard for some folks to understand the distinction I try to make.

 

[carebear]

It's important to me to distinguish between respect for the solders and those who plan their missions. I have great respect for the former, much less for the latter.

I have great respect for the servicemen and women who serve in the current conflict. Although I'm confident that many support the "war" (Dixon Cannon made a great point about whether it's a war or not), I know that many of them have minor or major reservations or disagreements with the conflict, but they are doing the very best they can to support their country and meet their personal commitment to serve. That displays personal integrity to follow through and meet their commitments, and I geratly respect the courage and conviction it takes to do that.

What I don't respect is the set of decisions that sent them in there (for reasons that have never IMO been justified), the lack of planning and foresight that created the current mess, or the "stay the course and don't consider or discuss alternatives" approach the administration is taking.

Our soldiers are being sadly let down by an administration that didn't plan before getting involved, never had an exit strategy, and isn't able to create one now. It reminds me of Pete Seeger's 1967 song "Waist Deep in the Big Muddy". here's the last verse of the song:

Waist deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool says to push on.
Waist deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool says to push on.
Waist deep! Neck deep! Soon even a
Tall man'll be over his head, we're
Waist deep in the Big Muddy!
And the big fool says to push on!

Unfortunately, it's hard for some folks to understand the distinction I try to make.

I was just listening to the Big Muddy on NPR the other day.

And I agree with your take on the handling of the war (yes, not one by Constitutional definition, there have been too many cowardly Congressmen on both sides of the aisle since Korea).

As you say, the invasion, whether you agree with the justifications or not, went brilliantly as far as the military aspect was concerned, especially given the political circumstances with Turkey immediately prior (the 4th Div being barred from starting in the North, leaving room for the Rep. Guard remnants to disperse). The failure of yet another group of Macnamara-like technocrats to plan for the pretty much inevitable military victory was unconscionable, and that failure's fruits are what we are dealing with now.

We do need to try other options, fortunately that is being done. But those changes have to occur within the context of not abandoning Iraq back to horror until we've exhausted them. We owe it to the majority of Iraqis who thank us for freeing them from Saddam but would curse us for abandoning them to civil war. Right or wrong, we made the mess, we thus have an obligation to fix it if we can.

Arrow,

If a serviceman doesn't agree with the reasons for war they are in fact free to refuse, they just have to be willing to accept the consequences of that decision. That might mean time in the brig, oh well, they knew or should have known the risk when they signed the contract. It's part of being an adult.

I'm not sure where the idea that people should be free to violate contracts without being willing to accept the consequences came from, but it is fairly recent and seems endemic in the young today.

It's not even selfishness, it's "convenience". No one wants to accept that they might have to put themselves out a bit to get what they want. Even if you have a right to something, you don't have a right to have it handed to you on a silver platter.

 

[carebear]

Here's a young man who is actively trying to fulfill his responsibilities as an Army officer no matter his personal feelings on Iraq. Bully for him, that's the kind of King I could follow. Truly an heir to earlier Harry of England.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_page_id=1770&in_article_id=402329

Front line Iraq 'too dangerous' for Prince Harry
By REBECCA ENGLISH

Prince Harry faces the humiliation of being held back from frontline service in Iraq because his presence there could prove 'too dangerous' for both himself and his men.

Although discussions are underway to send soldiers from his Household Cavalry regiment to the war-torn region next May, senior officials have admitted they may be forced to stop the third-in-line-to-the-throne from going.

Their decision is likely to put the head-strong young prince on a collision course with his superiors. He has already threatened to quit the army if he is not sent to a war zone, saying he couldn't stomach being "wrapped up in cotton wool".

But senior Ministry of Defence sources have told the Mail this week that 21-year-old Harry may have no say in the matter.

"We always knew when Prince Harry joined us that deployment would be an issue. Both he and his brother have made clear they want to pursue their careers with us as fully as possible - which for any officer means serving alongside their men on the frontline," the source said.

"But we also have to accept that Harry's presence will attract attention which may, on occasions, increase the risk to his soldiers and himself. "If this happened a decision would be made about his deployment or continued presence."

Although the MoD announced earlier this week that they hope to scale down the number of troops in Iraq over the coming months, it is understood that a new deployment is being prepared for next Spring.

Enemy positions

Sources say it is almost certain to include the Ist Mechanised Brigade which will take with it large numbers of men from the Household Cavalry Armoured Regiment (HCR).

The prince, who as a Second Lieutenant in The Blues and Royals is known as Cornet Wales, is currently on a troop commander's course at the Armour Centre in Bovington, Dorset, which is due to finish in October.

It is training him to become an armoured reconnaissance troop leader, scouting enemy positions in the heat of battle using a small Scimitar tank.

As the eyes and ears of the army, it will be Harry's job to find out where the enemy is, in what strength, where the obstacles are and where there are ways through the terrain ahead.

In Iraq 'recce' units are used to patrol the 620-mile border with Iran through which weapons, insurgents, drugs and money are all regularly smuggled by heavily-armed bandits.

It is a harsh, desert region where temperatures rise to 120F in the summer, although much of the soldier's work takes place after dark, using sophisticated night vision equipment to locate criminal and terrorist activity.

It is a duty that the 'gung-ho' young prince is desperate to take on, says one close friend. "Harry himself has said quite publicly that there is no way he would 'sit on his arse back home' while his men are off fighting for their country," they said.

"He loves the army and is proving to be courageous officer. It would be a tragedy for him not to go."

But MoD sources warn there is a ground-swell of opinion among top brass that it will be impossible for Harry to go.

"The truth is that if there is even the slightest chance of Harry's deployment in Iraq leading to an upturn in activity among insurgents looking to bag themselves some headlines by killing a prince, then we would have no option but to seriously re-consider putting him on the ground," said one.

"We sympathise with his frustration but he must understand that it is not only himself that would be at risk.

"The final decision on whether to send him will rest with the commander in charge of operations at the time and Harry will be officially told of it around Christmas.

"It is likely we will try to dress it up by saying we have only decided to send part of Harry's squadron - or even a completely different one - but the truth is that the army has enough on its plate out there and Harry's presence may prove too much of a risk, however disappointed he will be."

An MoD spokesman said no decision had yet been made to deploy the Household Cavalry Armoured Regiment to Iraq next year.

"A decision on the units that will be deployed in the Spring of 2007 will not be made until much closer to the time," he said.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Hmmm, holding back a serving Prince from a warzone would, i think, be unprecedented. Charles and his brother served in the Falklands. But, it's up to the army, i guess ...

bk

 

[airfrogusmc]

If you've read any of my past posts you would see that I don't agree with the way we went into Iraq or the way the war has been run. I gotta C note that says I'll bet the President right now wishes he would have listened a little more to Colin Powel and a little less to Rumsfeld. Go figure...
We should have finished the job in Afghanistan took all the billions we're spending in Iraq and made our country more secure.

The CIA field commander for the agency's Jawbreaker team at Tora Bora, Gary Berntsen, says he and other U.S. commanders did know that bin Laden was among the hundreds of fleeing Qaeda and Taliban members. Berntsen says he had definitive intelligence that bin Laden was holed up at Tora Bora—intelligence operatives had tracked him—and could have been caught.

In his book—titled "Jawbreaker"—the decorated career CIA officer criticizes Donald Rumsfeld's Defense Department for not providing enough support to the CIA and the Pentagon's own Special Forces teams in the final hours of Tora Bora, says Berntsen's lawyer, Roy Krieger. (Berntsen would not divulge the book's specifics, saying he's awaiting CIA clearance.) That backs up other recent accounts, including that of military author Sean Naylor, who calls Tora Bora a "strategic disaster" because the Pentagon refused to deploy a cordon of conventional forces to cut off escaping Qaeda and Taliban members.

They were to focused on Iraq. Because of that they allowed the real killer of our fellow Americans to get away.

As far as believing what the medias tell you the pentagon is saying things have gotten MUCH WORSE in Iraq.

Back to the real issue though I don't agree with the situation in Iraq doesn't mean I will not support the men and women doing a very difficult job in an impossible situation. We have to finish the job there. I don't want to even think of what will happen there if we don't.

My problem is with how this happened in the first place. With most of the military leaders advising waiting or send way more troops to keep the peace after the initial push to Baghdad.

 

[airfrogusmc]

And as far as targeting civilians if we hadn't of targeted civilians in WWII the war with Japan would have gone on for a very long time. I'm not saying that its the right thing to do but its been done and will continue to be done. I couldn't imagine any one of the crew mwmbers of the Enola Gay saying these are civilians I'm not going on the mission. War is hell...If your not willing to do what needs to be done to win don't go.