GameBanshee Forums

Reading the remembrance thread I noticed some people expressed the idea that a soldier who served his country should be respected no matter what orders he followed. Since that to me seems quite absurd I suspect there are unspoken conditions.

So my question is: what requirements do you think a soldier should live up too to be respected? To what degree is he personally morally responsible for his actions? Wich orders can he follow with a clean conscience?

This a though question. I think a soldier should never stop thinking, he musen't become a machine that does everything. Like the thing that happened in the Abu-Graib (sp?) prison in Iraq. I think the soldiers who tortured the prisoners shouldn't be respected. Soldiers deserve respect when they follow normal orders and stop when they think it's not right what they are doing. Like killing inocent people, torture people without reason etc.

[QUOTE=Dottie]Reading the remembrance thread I noticed some people expressed the idea that a soldier who served his country should be respected no matter what orders he followed. Since that to me seems quite absurd I suspect there are unspoken conditions.

So my question is: what requirements do you think a soldier should live up too to be respected? To what degree is he personally morally responsible for his actions? Which orders can he follow with a clean conscience?[/QUOTE]
Well, not many people besides Rush Limbaugh respect Lynndie England, who has been charged with crimes for torturing prisoners under orders at Abu Ghraib. (He thinks she's cute.)

On the other hand, the man who wrote the memo for the Bush administration that explained how to circumvent the Geneva conventions to permit torture has just been nominated to be the new Attorney General of the United States. (Talk about mixed messages.) So I'm very, very confused by your question.

@VonDondu: What are you confused about? Perhaps I didnt express myself in a good way... Im asking to what extent you think a soldier should be held accountable. That people who are not you have stupid and imoral opinions have always been crystal clear.

I was being sarcastic when I said that I was confused.

I don't respect the Bush administration, who sent our soldiers into an unjustified war and gave the order to torture prisoners at Abu Ghraib; I don't respect the commanders who ordered the guards to perform the torture; I don't respect the guards who performed the torture; I don't respect members of the public who defend the use of torture or find it acceptable as a matter of U.S. policy; and I don't respect Rush Limbaugh or Lynndie England's other fans.

Frankly, I don't understand why "respect" is such a big issue. Even though I don't respect the leaders of our country, my fellow citizens, or the individual members of our military, that doesn't mean I don't "support" them. Of course I support our troops. Whether I like it or not, I realize that they're fighting for me (in an abstract sense) and I appreciate that. I care about their welfare, and I hate to see them being misused by our leaders. I just wish that more of them had the good sense not to serve in an unjustified war and not to commit atrocities in the name of democracy.

[QUOTE=Dottie]So my question is: what requirements do you think a soldier should live up too to be respected? To what degree is he personally morally responsible for his actions? Wich orders can he follow with a clean conscience?[/QUOTE]

IMO, in a certain way, soldiers are asked to think about two different (opposite) ideas without questioning, and must be sent to the front, to an office, to an humanitarian mission no matter what they think about it. And obey.

When a soldier leaves his uniform behind, and is at home, (read home as his world) his actions are in charge of his morals. (sorry for my crappy english).

In suma, a soldier is not meant to think when is on duty.

Well, as a serving Canadian soldier, I feel I am somewhat qualified to talk about this.
- A soldier has the right AND responsibility to deny any illegal/immoral order.

The three tenants that Canadian soldiers follow are
1) Respect all peoples
2) Obey lawful authority,
3) Defend Canada from enemies foreign and internal.

Note rule number one.
These are the first things taught to new recruits, as part of their opening lectures "Laws of the Military"

Now, my knowledge of American Military law is, well, none. Never seen it in action. But Canadian soldiers would be honour bound to oppose any orders passed down to torture/embarass enemy troops. It is disgraceful that anyone who calls themselves a soldier would treat their opponents with such disrespect.

@Dottie: This isn't too difficult a question for me. It goes without saying that a nation needs some form of military force. Most people I know who were in the military (at least those who volunteered, anyway; I know in some countries it's compulsory) joined for these reasons: to give a service to their country; to learn discipline; to get away from home; learn job skills; or gain benefits, like funding for college, after they got out. Very, very few go in for distasteful reasons...and usually people with odious motivations get weeded out during training. I know of one guy in my Basic Training platoon that was kicked out early on in training...he thought he was "Rambo." There's always one in every crowd.

Soldiers are like everyone else...they have opinions, lives, and things they care about. The soldier is an honorable and old profession. Unfortunately, the world still needs soldiers...how the unscrupulous and insane individuals in power use soldiers still does not tarnish what it means to be one. The ranks of a military force are a cross-section of the culture it is from...people from all walks of life can be found in those ranks. So, soldiers will have differing opinions on events like any civilian will. Yet, in executing their duties as a soldier, they must detach themselves from their opinions...and adhere to a particular code.

This code - the Soldier's Creed, if you will - is higher than a soldier's own opinions, moods, etc. I can summarize the heart of the soldier's creed for you in one sentence: I will obey the lawful orders of my superiors. A soldier can never go wrong by obeying the lawful orders of his or her superiors. If a soldier ever refuses to obey an unlawful order, this same code will exonerate them when he or she sits before a military Court Martial.

It takes something inside of a person to choose to sacrifice control over their own life in order to serve something greater than themselves. Not everyone is well-suited for this. Those who make that decision and serve in a military force honorably have earned my respect for that.

EDIT - Someone asked me one time: "What would you rather be, a sheep or a wolf?" I answered without thinking, "The dog that guards the sheep from the wolves." That pretty much sums up what motivated me to join the Army when I was 19.

Im glad I checked this thread out i was always wondering if that was true Chanak. My dad was military and i wasnt quite sure he was right. so thanks Chanak.

@Chanak: When you say lawful orders, do you mean aproximatly the same thing as Obsidian talks about? If so the question to below is directed towards you as well.

@Arno_v&ObsidianReturns: Correct me if I wrong, but you both seem to share the idea that soldiers should not torture, kill, or humiliate prisoners, innocent people etc. So far we agree, but what about orders that might lead to just as bad things, allthough they are not unlawful in the way Obsidian put it? Is it correct to follow orders to invade a nation (and behave properly) if the invasion will lead to great suffering for the civilian population, displaced people etc etc, if there is no better cause than the orders you recieve? Also, how do you think about, for example, the situation in Chechnya? If a soldier is ordered to fight rebels there, and does so according to your rules, is he then acting morally correct even though he knows abuse, black mail, rape, murder etc is a major part of the russian army's presence there?

@Luis Antonio: You mean there should be no other thing controling a soldiers behavior than the order he recieves? Do you realize the danger in this, and if so, what do you think the reason for that he should only obey orders is? How can it be important enough to sacrifice his moral independence?

What your talking about dottie goes beyond what the common soldier is resonsible for. We have sworn an oath to do what our government tells us to do. The choices they make are are no more in our hands than the common citizens. It is up to voters and civilians to keep us out of bad situations. It is up to a soldier to keep bad situations from getting worse.

The vast majority of troops are decent, hard working people, who truely believe in what they are doing. It's not fair to paint them as murderers, rapists and theives because a few people are. The atrocites committed by civilains against other civilians during the opportunites soldiers provide are not our problem.
How can we be held responsible for anyones actions but our own?
The great suffering that exists in times of war is proportional to how much of a war is fought around civilian populations.
In the old days, pre ww2, wars were limited, fought by professionals in big fields. Since ww2, we see total wars, were we fight in cities. If nations insist on fighting house to house in their own cities, there is a price to be paid.
It's not nice, it's not fair, but it's not by our choice we fight in urban environments.

Modern day soldiers are granted greater liberities than soldiers of yore. Soldiers today can disobey orders so long as those orders can be proven to be unlawful, hence criminal, hence war crime.

These come from several factors of the last century. But before I go into these, I feel that I should explain where I get my evidence. I am not in the military and I'm not close to anyone who is or was save for my grandfather and uncle. My grandfather was a medic and motorpool officer in World War II. He was distanst from combat, but not the enemy because he was in Japan cleaning up after atomic bombs were used. My uncle was in Vietnam, but he flat out refuses to talk about it for two reasons, (1) he was a SEAL and did very bad things to enemy troops AND non-combatents and (2) some of what he did is still labeled Top Secret.

I am a student of histroy and I proposed a paper for my future doctoral classes concerning the historical and working definitions of Prisoner of War. This lead me down many dark roads of inhuman actions from around the world and throughout time. I how I do not offend anyone with this post.

(1) The Nazi War Crimes Trials post World War II has set the precident that no soldier is "just following orders" when they preform their duties. Top leaders of the Nazi Party and German military claimed that they were just following Hitler's orders when they killed, burned and tortured millions. Because of that, they are innocent of any and all crimes.

The conclusion of those trails states that individual soldiers are in control of themselves. They have the ability to NOT follow orders because they disagree with them or for religious/moral reasons. Soldiers can claim that certain orders from command are against their beliefs (mostly religious) and are free and clear to not follow them. They may not have much of a career after that, but they don't have to do them.

(2) Commanders are now able to be questioned by those below them. The various branches of the military keep watch over the other branches in a "checks and balances" system designed to stop abuses and corruptions before they get out of hand. It is hard to do, but enlisted men can go to someone and report behaviors/orders by their leaders to their leader's leaders. These are mostly for internal abuses and problems between individual soldiers, but it gets people out of tough spots. Again, he who sheds light on the issue may not have a career after blowing the whistle, but they can take others with them.

(3) While the United States completely negeleted to sign the Guineva Convention, we are held to very high standards as the prodominate nation of the world. By not signing, the US military can use outlawed technologies such as chemical gases and shotguns, but we simply cannot without pissing off everyone that looks to the US as a leading nation. Amazing restraint has been shown time and again throughout the last century by a nation that is not legally held to the same codes and ethics as other Westernized nations.

The issues of abuses and war crimes coming out of Vietnam are true and unforgiviable. Yet, those cases are connedted to individual soldiers who paid the prices of their inhuman actions. They were held responcible and so were those who assisted them. Those who could have stopped them suffered as well, unfortuniately, because they do nothing to stop such crimes.

The common soldier trusts their commanders to make the right choices for them so they can merely carry them out and not have to think about the legality of their actions while underfire! Mistakes are made and they can be costly. Individual soldiers have done terrible things in our current "war" yet I would say that our soldiers today are fighting for their survival first, then mom pop and apple pie.

In war, everyone's a casualty......

[QUOTE=Dottie]@Luis Antonio: You mean there should be no other thing controling a soldiers behavior than the order he recieves? Do you realize the danger in this, and if so, what do you think the reason for that he should only obey orders is? How can it be important enough to sacrifice his moral independence?[/QUOTE]

This is what the military wants not what it receives, Dottie, cause people have feelings. But if something is passed on your eyes every five minutes, and you're forced to accept it, even feelings are surpassed, left behind.
Yes, I realize the danger, thats why I did all I could to do not enter the military, and keep having my civilian life.
It is not important enough, you're imposed that... The army is one kind of faith, just like the church, the only problem is that the faith is forced up on your head.

I hate military, sorry if someone is a soldier here... I dont mean to offend anyone but the military corrupts people, and these corrupted people will only see their mistakes when they leave the corp. Well, thats my opinion...

Battle is the most magnificent competition in which a human being can indulge. It brings out all that is best; it removes all that is base. All men are afraid in battle. The coward is the one who lets his fear overcome his sense of duty. Duty is the essence of manhood.
George S. Patton

I know that does not apply but it is a good cursor for those who read the following, I believe in that quote.

Chanak said it best and most likely will continue to say it better...

If you dont know I enlisted in the airforce... signed up... was in line to swear in... (Did all the blood tests all the blahtity blah) in 2000. Well they found out I had asthma... one thing to another and I have a pretty framed piece of paper that says "Medically discharged from all Military enlistment"

That was crushing... of course life works out funny. I couldn't be happier now, married and not in iraq

...
... this is hard to put into words without just repeating CHanak so I'll just be quick about it... I believe the Soldier is the most Honorable position. The sacrafice, the devotion and the bravery all form the best of what a man can be (or woman). Never was I more proud of my Brother and his Service... my best friend and his wife over in Japan serving... my friend Joey who I worry about constantly... still in Bahgdad. That soldier who shot the downed soldier... I am proud of him as well as the others.

@Luis - I could not completely disagree with anyone else in my entire life.

Like anything the Military just provides a place for you to become.. some people turn out better because of the military others dont. I know many who have benifited from the Military in many ways.

Life isn't pretty. Man is an animal, just a beast with a better grasp of what is going on... we want, we desire, we need... we take.

I can ramble on for days so I'll just stop...

@RT, you are right about the exceptions thing, but I guess we have very different views of the world, aye?

Life isnt pretty, but it dont need to be ugly, dont you agree?

To be honest I live in Southern California. For the past 22 years I have lived in a small paradise..

My life is a blessed one. Because of those who fought before me, for those who traveled this land and settled where they did. My life is great. There are a lot, a LOT of places on this earth bigger than my little socal town in which Life is rather horrible. People dyingevery day... just a couple towns away there is such violence...

Life isn't pretty or ugly, its just life. We can try all we want to be passive and as peacefull as possible. The need for good men to be strong enough to defeat bad men will never be relenquished.

@Dottie: Good question. Obsidian has a great point, and it does factor in. There are consequences to every action...and the consequences of the actions of a military force are invariably death and destruction on a variable scale. Whether it's the "carpet bombing" of the Vietnam era we're thinking about here or the precision strikes of Desert Shield/Storm, suffering is going to result somehow. This is not a justification, just the factual side of the issue. The last "justifiable" war I can think of was World War II, and even that conflict had gray areas - and some not so gray at all after Germany and Japan surrendered (but that's another issue for a different thread).

Although I'm thinking of American military, the following pretty much applies universally to most national armed forces. A soldier takes an oath to defend the US Constitution, and to defend the US from all enemies foreign and domestic. This, of course, is subject to the interpretation of those who control the military force. If a foreign country is perceived to be a threat, the soldier is duty-bound to carry out his orders as he or she was trained and instructed to do.

A day in the life of a soldier would be a good illustration of how it works, so you can see how a soldier doesn't have much time, nor the opportunity, to ponder whether a military action itself is "right" as it's taking place. I'm drawing this from my own experience in late 1989 and early 1990, when units began to deploy to Saudi Arabia for Desert Shield:

1. You're at home sleeping in bed. The phone rings, and it's your immediate supervisor telling you that you have to gather your gear and report to the unit on base by 0300 hours. Don't bother asking why - he doesn't have a clue. He was woken up just like you have been by the First Sergeant. A rude awakening from your dreams, but that's the life of a soldier.

2. By 0500 hours you are assembled for inspection with the rest of your unit. The commanding officer and his staff are making sure that everyone has the required issue items that were assigned to them. Your Humvee is loaded up and ready for deployment; your M-16 has been checked out from the Arms room. Everyone is murmuring and asking what the hell is going on, but no one has any answers - not even the commanding officer (CO), who happens to be a nice guy (he doesn't have to be) and stops by each section to see how everyone is doing. He holds up his hand at all the questions, and replies that all he knows is that the entire Battalion is on alert for deployment.

3. At 0700 hours, orders are passed down from the CO for each section of the unit to proceed in a convoy to the railhead facility some miles away. There, vehicles will be loaded on to railcars according to standard operating procedure (SOP) and personnel will then load on to buses that will be waiting at the railhead...

I could go on and on with that, but hopefully you can see that a soldier basically lives from order to order, never being informed of the "big picture" as it were. The soldier doesn't have a chance to sit down and think about the ramifications of what he or she is doing, only that there is a job to do, and they are expected to do it as they have been trained long hours for. The only ones who really know what's going on are those at the very top...the officials in the federal government buildings who call the shots. I hope this answers your question, Dottie. It might not seem like an answer at all, but it is: a soldier never gets the chance to see the big picture.