Jinksy

What are the details of that law? Why did it allow conscientious deserters (or whatever you'd call them) in Iraq to be prosecuted?

I wish more people could admit that they might be immoral. I think I'm horribly immoral (although I hate the word 'moral', with all the linguistic deadwood it carries), because I still eat meat... I plan to give it up in the future, but I don't have the willpower right now. But it makes it a lot easier to rationally discuss your position if you're not determined to defend it at all costs. And if you recognise your own failings, it's harder to get self-righteous about other people's.

Without denying it out of hand, I think that's a big assumption. What makes you so confident that we must besides a cynical view of human nature?

I don't really want to get too involved in this discussion, but a couple of things occurred to me in the other thread:

1. Everyone I noticed speaking out in favour of the military was either in it, or had close ties with someone who was. Many of their comments amounted to little more than accusations of naivete at anyone who hadn't been in it. While I'm sure some of those accusations were justified, they could just as easily be turned around by someone who'd studied a fair amount of history/politics... I can't think of any obvious reason to suppose that carrying a gun around hostile countries necessarily gives someone an insight into the intricacies of international relations.

2. I think a few people mentioned the way the military is often called upon to support the emergency services. The thing is, though, if a fraction of the military budget was diverted towards emergency services, they wouldn't need the support. For every $ that goes into, say, the fire service, it seems as though a much higher proportion of it goes into equipment and training that's specifically aimed at saving lives, rather than taking them. I don't mean to belittle military aid in eg. the Boxing Day tsunami, but relative to the costs of training the people there in the work they were performing, and providing them the equipment they used, I wonder how much was spent on weaponry that their transport was also carrying (and the related costs of transporting it), or weapons training the personnel there didn't use, and so on.

On a related note, the emergency services seem to have much less appealing employment packages than the military in pretty much every respect besides the bullets flying at them (and the fire service isn't without its own dangers). Is there a Thank a Firefighter Week?

Rayven_Alandria

I'm glad to hear that Ronin...I was told by the commander at the military shelter that even the police couldn't keep in contact with each other. He told me y'all's radios weren't working either. That's why he wouldn't let us go home for a few days. People were not supposed to be on the streets at all in the days right after... and those that were out on the streets were most likely up to no good. If people hadn't of been held in the shelters it would have been more than y'all could have kept a lid on.

I do know the local police were working their butts off (still are actually)...I saw you guys. You were the first heroes. I know many of you lost your homes but put aside your own needs to protect the rest of us. (You yourself did so.) I will never forget what the local guys did either. Without y'all doing what you did things would have been worse.

You were stretched too thin though... too many locals decided it was a great time to take advantage of the crisis and start acting like idiots. You kept total pandemonium from breaking loose but it was still bad. When I heard gunshots during the first night I was allowed back home I was planning to go back to the shelter on base...but when I started driving that way the next morning military vehicles were rolling into town so I went back home. I knew your reinforcements had arrived.

You have to admit it was great relief when the military and the other cop/rescue workers were able to get into town and help you guys...I know you local heroes went three and four days without sleep immediately following the hurricane. You were running on adrenaline and couldn't keep going like that forever. I saw your exhausted faces and I know what you were going through. If the backup hadn't of arrived who knows what would of happened. You guys couldn't work 24/7 forever.

Thank You just isn't enough.

This brings home the point that no one should make blanket statements and claim that military people, cops, FBI, CIA ...*fill in the blank*..are immoral...it's just a ludicrous claim. They do so much more than fight in wars.

diana

Hi, all.

First, thank you for your comments. There are many here I'll respond to in more detail in a minute. First, I'd like to clarify what I wanted to discuss in this thread.

I believe the point that the military does more than kill people has been made and conceded. I think the main point of discussion is whether it is moral to join a group whose raison d'etre is to show or use force, if necessary, to achieve political goals, regardless of how many do-gooder things we have the opportunity to support. Please keep future posts focused on this point.

As a matter of fact, let's assume for the sake of discussion that the military doesn't support hurricane/tsunami/earthquake/tornado/flood/etc relief. For the sake of this discussion, let's assume that the military's sole purpose is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies, foreign and domestic. (Let's just pretend for the moment that FEMA is fully competent and can be anywhere in the world in a matter of hours with supplies and a plan to help the devastated, ok? Work with me, people. )

The question on the table, with this assumption, is if it's moral to be in the military. There's also the question of how it should be run in such a way that it is both moral and effective--this, of course, assumes you find something immoral about it.

Now I'll respond to posts. Thanks, all.

d

diana

Hi, PLP. Always a pleasure.

You make a very good point. When I joined the military, I admittedly forfeited many rights I'd otherwise have as a citizen. Among them, the right to decide I will or will not do X, if I have been ordered to do so. If X is immoral or illegal, yes...the onus is mine to show I was given an unlawful order. While I acknowledge this is not a big selling point, I can't think of a better way to ensure the troops will do what they're told when they're told to do it, which in turn is something I understand to be necessary in an effective military.

I believe the argument that was being made about immorality was more broad, though. They were pointing out that, once you join, you get to go fight in conflicts you are morally opposed to, and no one asks you how you feel about it. This was more the point I was interested in pursuing, but you make good points, as well.

Ooooh. Very good point again. I would not be able to be a lawyer, I'm afraid, because I would be bound to provide clients I knew were guilty the best defense possible. I do not feel lawyering is an immoral career, per se, though. I understand they are absolutely necessary. Which puts lawyers in the same conundrum.

Precisely the problem, my good man.

Yes. I'm somewhat of the same opinion. I believe very strongly that we were wrong to invade, but I believe we would be wrong to withdraw without the permission of the Iraqi government now. We created a huge mess, and we have a responsibility to clean up after ourselves. I believe it's a catch 22 for us to stay or leave: if we stay, we arguably provoke far more violence than would be used otherwise; if we leave, the innocent people who are for the first time in their lives relatively free are left to the mercy of the warring factions. There are no easy answers at this point. However, I continue to do all I can to support my fellow servicemen who are there, in the line of fire. For me at this point, it isn't about the war; it's about doing all I can to ensure my comrades have everything they need so they can come back home in one piece.

I do appreciate your fairness on the issue.

d

diana

heh. Exactly.

I really think people who castigate the military don't think about the implications of what they're saying. I'm not sure who they expect to join the military, if they declare it immoral to be a part of it.

d

PoodleLovinPessimist

If this were the sole purpose of the military, and the only manner in which it were used, I don't think there would be much of an argument. If we're going to have national sovereignty, we have to have a military to protect it.

The whole issue arises because defense of our own (or our allies') national sovereignty is not the only actual use to which our military is or has been put. I do not believe that even if an order is not in fact pursuant to that goal that a soldier* would have the right to refuse the order on that basis.

If the nation actually needed defending, I would not worry overmuch about the moral messiness involved in doing so. But this is not actually the case. If I were to enlist, I would be promising not only to do what was necessary to defend the nation; I would be promising to be an instrument of the policy of the government, even if I found that policy entirely immoral. As a citizen of a democracy, I have little trust in the inherent goodness of our government.

I'll address the remainder of your points tomorrow.


*I know that some military personnel object to the term "soldier". But I need a good generic word so I don't have to keep typing "military personnel". I hope that airmen, marines and sailors and their officers will forgive this usage.

diana

Hi, Steve.

Good point. The highest honor code I can imagine is embodied in the AF core values: "integrity first, service before self, and excellence in all we do." I can think of no higher moral goal than to protect and serve society, which is the purpose of the military. There are a couple of problems with this, though; as you point out, morality is subjective. Also--as PLP pointed out--I forfeit my right to refuse to support national actions that I feel are wrong.

I feel the ultimate in moral acts is to sacrifice personal rights in order to assume a career in which dying may be required in the line of duty, in order to uphold and defend your country. Those who feel I've made a poor choice acknowledge these are noble aims, but that I should make a statement by refusing to go to Iraq (for example). Hell...not just "for example." I've run into this more times than I can count in the last 1.5 years. I've come to the conclusion that these people and I have different ideas of what is "moral."

d

diana

The LOAC outlines Geneva Convention rules for fair fighting. It tells you what sort of ammo you can and can't use, and who you can and can't shoot at, basically. It has nothing to do with concientious objectors. I believe they are covered under the UCMJ.

Yeah. As Ronin was quick to point out, "moral" is in the eye of the beholder. Depending on your definition of "moral," I may fall short; I doubt I'll leave the military because of it, though. I will, however, acknowledge that I am immoral for remaining in uniform. As I've stated, I believe very much that the military is a necessity in a country that would remain free (or, as PLP more properly stated, "sovereign"). I do understand that many people feel I was immoral for following orders and going to Iraq. If you slice it the right way, there's a case to be made that I was, in fact, immoral for following orders.

Let's just say that was my most politic way of saying that anyone who wishes to argue this point is invited to open his own thread to discuss it.

I've noticed the same divisions on this board, every time the discussion of the military comes up. To some degree--depending on the discussion--those who are not in and have not been in are unqualified to speak about "what the military is like."

Carrying a gun in foreign countries does not, in fact, make anyone more qualified to discuss international relations. Neither does not carrying a gun on domestic soil, for that matter.

The military trains to fill a number of functions. Taking lives is actually only a small part of what we do. Most of our work is a show of force; to make sure people know we can take lives if need be. I rather doubt there was much, if any, space wasted on weaponry transport when the US military brought aid to Thailand, etc.

But yes: our main goal is to train people to fight wars. It is the raison d'etre of the military. Aid work is incidental; we aren't trained to go to tsunami-striken islands and rebuild. However, we are the best organized and most mobile machine available to do so, every time. This is probably because we are required to follow orders.

The thing that makes us so morally questionable in the eyes of some is the exact same thing that gives us the efficiency to bring help when and where it is needed.

d

diana

It actually is the sole purpose of the military, to the best of my knowledge. The problem comes in when people who aren't our enemies are painted to be, so that Congress agrees we should invade.

No one is more aware of this problem than I am. We join knowing we are presumably only to be used to defend the country. However, unscrupulous leaders have the ability to use us for their own agendas. The country still needs a strong military, though.

Is there a reasonable way to handle this problem?

It isn't?

Oh. You mean, if we were actually under attack right now.

I believe the nation needs defending 24/7. Our show of force is (thankfully) adequate at the moment.

Yes. It may come as no surprise to you that I have a similar cynical attitude. But you very neatly describe the problem soldiers face.

Merry Christmas.

d

Liberty

There is nothing immoral about a knife it is just a piece of metal shaped in a particular way. Once someone uses it for immoral actions then I consider the act and the user immoral, but why blame the instrument?