Nowiser: My main interest is in trying to suck every last drop of heroic bullshit out of the act of shooting other people, or getting killed, in a war.

Again I say, very well said. I find your view about the soldier’s lives lost in this war reprehensible, but I am in complete and total agreement regarding the above.

Go ahead Consi.  Invite people to pile on.

I may have been invited, but I’m not going to RVSP.

You call the glorification of soldiers ‘reverence’.  I call it a scam to convince other gullible young men and women to sacrifice everything for what is usually some pretty pedestrian, slimy, money-driven, ego-driven bullshit.

One part of me agrees with you.
Gullible young men? Yes indeed.
Slimy commanders in chief. Definitely – you’ve got one; I’ve got one.
The other part of me says that it wasn’t always so.
Hitler (his people forced by the draconian articles of Versailles to accept him) and Tojo (his people forced by America’s arbitrary control of oil to accept him) were the slimy ego-trippers who put our way of life under threat and if it weren’t for gullible young men risking all, the entire world may indeed have been a different place.  For how long they may have ruled I don’t know but I know I would not have existed. This is a truth; ‘tis neither good nor bad.

Now if you were to hold your hand up as a Pacifist, standing with the Amish, the Quakers and the legacy of Ghandi and Martin Luther King, then it’s another story.
But you haven’t done that yet.

I think on balance there will always be times when men will have to fight to preserve some sort of freedom thingy.
I’ll admit that since Korea I’ve not seen any reason for men to have risked their lives, let alone given them, in any of the official wars. The last 50 years of wars were scams based in dick measuring competitions and of course Armament Manufacturers requiring the testing of the War Machine’s big boy’s toys which ned to be used otherwise they wouldn’t need to order replacements.

Actually it’s a shitty subject. I don’t like to think I was ripped off but I know I was.

I have no problems with Nowiser’s stance. He’s free to determine what level of reverence he’s willing to hold as he sees fit. It sounds to me like he feels he has very good reasons for his viewpoint and that’s good enough for me regardless of what my own viewpoint happens to be.

What bugs me is when people hold viewpoints simply because it’s the popular one to hold. So tell us, Consi, why do you feel the deification of soldiers via the American flag is appropriate?

I would guess that many of the people (not necessarily those here- the US in general) who are shouting for respect for the US flag etc, are the same who are insulting of a country because its democratically elected government took a position on Iraq of not to support the invasion, a position that was supported by a majority of the population.  The US is powerful enough to trample the rights of those that oppose it to ensure its profit.

Freedon Fry, anyone?

Les: So tell us, Consi, why do you feel the deification of soldiers via the American flag is appropriate?

If I had said that, I’m sure I could.  I have not said that though.  Reread my position on the flag entry.  My issue with nowiser stems from his position on honoring soldiers that has immediately recognizable, and does not involve a flag or flags. 

My position regarding the pledge and the flag is likely much more nuanced than you realize, and likely closer to you than you realize.

NW: Consi, if you’re trying to get people to pile on or shout me down, invite them to do so.

Don’t flatter yourself.  I left it to the reader, to flesh it out and that where it remains.

Reread my position on the flag entry.  My issue with nowiser stems from his position on honoring soldiers that has immediately recognizable, and does not involve a flag or flags.

Should read:

Reread my position on the flag entry.  My issue with nowiser stems from his position on honoring soldiers that was immediately recognizable, and does not involve a flag or flags.

Also omit the comma in the last sentence.

Now if you were to hold your hand up as a Pacifist, standing with the Amish, the Quakers and the legacy of Ghandi and Martin Luther King, then it’s another story

I reject pacifism when it will be ineffective.  I don’t think Pacifism would have prevented the extermination of the Jews.  It’s also a dismal failure on the personal level.  Sometimes the right answer is to beat the living daylights out of the person who won’t stop fucking with you.

But I’m not going to be locked into a binary that says you have to either support violence as a means to an end, or utterly reject it.

Sometimes violence is necessary, sometimes it’s not.  It’s never -good-, only -less bad-.

My issue with nowiser stems from his position on honoring soldiers that was immediately recognizable, and does not involve a flag or flags.

Brace yourselves, I’m about to break Godwin’s law-- my issue with -you- Consi (actually with probably most of the people on this board), is that your stance is the kind of thinking that allows regular old German citizens to strap on jackboots. 

I haven’t heard anyone -yet- explain to me why soldiers are absolved from the responsibility to think and act morally.  Or why, if soldiers make bad decisions, their belief in the rightness of their actions somehow absolves them of any guilt.

Why is it?  Why is it noble to die in the service of a bad cause?  Does a belief in the rightness of the cause -lend nobility- to dying in the service of a bad cause?  Does -loyalty- lend nobility to dying in the service of a bad cause?

My issue with nowiser. . . does not involve a flag or flags.

How could it -not involve- the damn flag?  The flag has become the most potent symbol of noble sacrifice that this country has ever seen.  Hell, it’s probably more potent than the cross, because you may have Baptists and Lutherans looking cross-eyed at each other, but -EVERYONE- supports the troops.  Because if you’re not with them . . .

I really feel this is like having an argument with the deeply religious.  I’d -like- to sow a seed here, but I believe the sentiment runs so deep that I’m not going to have even the slightest impact.

Since Consi dances his usually dance…

(Consi) When (nowiser) suggest(s), as (he does) above, that a soldier who lost his life in a war that (he doesn’t) support doesn’t deserve to be honored to the extent that those do who died in a conflict (he does) support, well, that is reprehensible to me.

Would you care to spell out why a soldier who dies in a war deserves to be honored? If you answer at all, kindly refrain from insinuating any motives for asking this question.

(Les) So tell us, Consi, why do you feel the deification of soldiers via the American flag is appropriate?

Les, carefully contrast Consi’s original statement with your question.

Would you care to spell out why a soldier who dies in a war deserves to be honored?

I’d actually like to extend this invitation to -anyone- who feels that they have a pretty solid reason for the affirmative.  I frequently resent Consi’s tone (being called a self flattering reprehensible asshole can create a palpitation or two), but I don’t doubt his sincerity or belief.

I would like to specify, though, that when I say -honored-, I mean that in terms of elevation.  We honor the dead at funerals, we honor years of service when people retire, we honor all sorts of things.

But I contend that the -honor- that we give to soldiers is a -very- different thing, and I would welcome an examination or justification of why that is the case.

nowiser: I’d actually like to extend this invitation to -anyone- who feels that they have a pretty solid reason for the affirmative.

Okay, I’ll step up to the plate on this one, briefly at least.

A soldier, by necessity, is trained to act without thinking. He obeys the orders of his commanding officer without question, because to question might take an extra second that could end up costing other soldiers their lives.

A soldier must take it on faith that the orders he receives are just and that he goes into battle for a good cause. His duty is to risk his life for the greater good, to protect his country and promote freedom.

The honor we give them is a generic one (as opposed to honors given for specific acts of heroism), the same as the honor we give to police and fire fighters. They risk their lives for the greater good and we should respect that.

The fault lies with those making the decisions, the politicians and such. We should not allow the mistakes that they make (and boy do they make mistakes) to lessen the respect we give to those who make the sacrifice in good faith.

(KPG) A soldier, by necessity, is trained to act without thinking. He obeys the orders of his commanding officer without question, because to question might take an extra second that could end up costing other soldiers their lives.

This is patently untrue in the military I served in (as a reminder, it wasn’t the American one). We were specifically instructed to stand firm and disobey orders if we couldn’t reconcile them with our conscience or if we felt that orders conflicted with the values our constitution guarantees. Our instructors were quite unambiguous—they’d rather if we were wrong and faced court-martial than obeyed an illegal order. In fact, the armed forces I served in took great pride in training thinking soldiers in a more general sense than the above.

What you are saying is that “I was just following orders” is a valid defense and lets everybody but a nation’s leader off the hook.

A soldier must take it on faith that the orders he receives are just and that he goes into battle for a good cause.

Why?

The fault lies with those making the decisions, the politicians and such.

So soldiers have no moral culpability?  How far are you willing to go with that, KPG?

I don’t think there are any easy lines to be drawn here.  Is it honorable to risk your life to kill others?  Depends.  Knee-jerk bestowal of honor on one’s soldiers, alive and dead, is congenial to patriotism of the worst sort.  Living in Austria, I’m constantly reminded of this in cemetaries, with their memorials to dead Nazis.  Of course, lots of these dead Nazis were probably good boys who were simply protecting their families from the Cossacks.  Impossible to untangle motivations enough to assign blame with confidence.  But that’s the human condition, isn’t it?

On the other hand, refusing to honor those who give and gave their all to make the world a better place is, at the very least, self-centered.  I do honor my father and uncle who served in WWII.  And while I admire the moral conviction of strict pacifists, with some enemies, pacifism simply does not work.  Of course, one could debate until the cows come home what “working” means here.  If we could get everyone to be pacifists, that would be great.  But it’s not going to happen soon.

Given the myriad ideas of what honor is, and what is deserving of honor, I don’t think there’s any one-size-fits-all philosophy that will get us a gold star, from whatever source of higher or inner or outer meaning one believes in, every time.  In any case, to get back to the original topic of coercion, I can’t see how honor, or allegiance, can be coerced.

(KPG) A soldier, by necessity, is trained to act without thinking. He obeys the orders of his commanding officer without question, because to question might take an extra second that could end up costing other soldiers their lives.

Even if I grant the necessity of this kind of obedience in immediate and present combat situations, how far should this -emptiness- extend?

Does a soldier sitting over his meal have an obligation not to question what he did on that particular day?  While he’s in his rack, is he to not think about the moral implications of the conflict that he is involved in?

There’s a certain nobility, I grant, in fighting just to take care of your brothers-in-arms, or preserve your own life, but I don’t personally believe that that nobility extends so far as to absolve the individual soldier of participating in a conflict that is not warranted.

What absolves him of a moral responsibility to make decisions about the larger picture?

elwed: This is patently untrue in the military I served in (as a reminder, it wasn’t the American one). We were specifically instructed to stand firm and disobey orders if we couldn’t reconcile them with our conscience or if we felt that orders conflicted with the values our constitution guarantees. Our instructors were quite unambiguous—they’d rather if we were wrong and faced court-martial than obeyed an illegal order. In fact, the armed forces I served in took great pride in training thinking soldiers in a more general sense than the above.

I have never served, so my information is second hand, but it comes form every US soldier I have known, some of whom have been very close friends. The US military doesn’t want you to waste time asking why.

It’s a situation I understand. It is just not possible to explain to each and every man why a particular mission is important. The time that would take could negate the mission. Sometimes security issues are involved as well.

Let me put it in an exagerrated, cartoonish manner (because that makes the point clearer). Let’s say that there is a man in a room full of people. This man is in front of a computer and about to push a button that will set off a nuclear explosion. A commander uncovers information that makes clear what is about to happen. He turns to the only man in the room with a gun, a private, and orders him to kill the guy in front of the computer, right now. The private turns to the commander and demands to know why. The bomb goes off and a million people die.

That said, I think there are limitations. If someone has clear reason to believe that their commanding officer is unstable, they can refuse to act and even relieve him of duty. But they damn well better be right.

A soldier, by necessity, is trained to act without thinking. He obeys the orders of his commanding officer without question, because to question might take an extra second that could end up costing other soldiers their lives.

A soldier must take it on faith that the orders he receives are just and that he goes into battle for a good cause. His duty is to risk his life for the greater good, to protect his country and promote freedom.

The honor we give them is a generic one (as opposed to honors given for specific acts of heroism), the same as the honor we give to police and fire fighters. They risk their lives for the greater good and we should respect that.

The fault lies with those making the decisions, the politicians and such. We should not allow the mistakes that they make (and boy do they make mistakes) to lessen the respect we give to those who make the sacrifice in good faith.

This may be an apples-and-oranges comparison that I’m about to put forward (eegad! shades of Andrew--whatever happened to him?). But if the above is accurate, why do you not extend the same honor and reverence to the multitudes of churchgoers (particularly those of a fundamentalist flavor) who “take it on faith” that their pastors and other perceived superiors are operating on just principles and toward good causes? If both the faithful and the military are taught to trust their superiors wihout thinking and behave rather like sheep, are both absolved of the sins of their superiors in a like manner? If not, why?

(And yes, in fairness to ***Dave and others, I am fully aware that not all churchgoers behave like sheep or are encouraged to.)

To clarify:

If we invade France tomorrow because we are told that they have WMD’s and intend to use them on American soil, the soldier has no moral culpability in that decision. His commanders have access to information that he does not and he must trust to their abilities to decide based on that information.

However, if the same soldier is ordered to gun down a room full of little children, he has the moral imperative to question that order.

Everything else fall somewhere between. You want a dividing line? That’s not so easy to answer......

Sadie: But if the above is accurate, why do you not extend the same honor and reverence to the multitudes of churchgoers (particularly those of a fundamentalist flavor) who “take it on faith” that their pastors and other perceived superiors are operating on just principles and toward good causes?

Because the soldier has evidence that his Commander-In-Chief actually exists…

This is patently untrue in the military I served in (as a reminder, it wasn’t the American one). We were specifically instructed to stand firm and disobey orders if we couldn’t reconcile them with our conscience or if we felt that orders conflicted with the values our constitution guarantees. Our instructors were quite unambiguous—they’d rather if we were wrong and faced court-martial than obeyed an illegal order. In fact, the armed forces I served in took great pride in training thinking soldiers in a more general sense than the above.

Yes and no.  You almost certainly were conditioned to act in a programmed manner that a civilian wasn’t (assuming you were really being trained for combat, rather than just National Service), because if you don’t you are a liability.  Modern Western armies also want their soldiers to be able to break that conditioning to react to a situation where the conditioning is the wrong response.  KPG’s analogy- invasion vs killing children is correct.

Because the soldier has evidence that his Commander-In-Chief actually exists…

True. As far as analogies go, I suppose it was pretty blatantly apples and oranges. Thanks Andrew!

Sadie: True. As far as analogies go, I suppose it was pretty blatantly apples and oranges. Thanks Andrew!

Wait just damn minute, dear. Are you calling me Andrew? Them’s fightin’ words....

KPG, if I understand you correctly, it’s a virtue for soldiers to obey orders without question, except for the orders they should question and disobey.

Wait just damn minute, dear. Are you calling me Andrew?

Krishna forbid! 

Elwed: KPG, if I understand you correctly, it’s a virtue for soldiers to obey orders without question, except for the orders they should question and disobey.

Couldn’t have said it better myself…

Seriously, it’s too complicated an issue to be boiled down to a paragraph or two. I do believe that soldiers are only morally responsible for extreme, specific actions and that decisions like when and where we go to war are the sole responsibility of those higher up the chain of command.

As a former member of the US marine Corps I was never tought to be mindless. There are rules of war which are to be followed (ie the Geneva Convention and the Uniform Code of Military Justice) A Marine who does not follow these rules is responsible for his/her actions no matter who gave the order to commit such act. This is why soldiers from Abu Grabe were tried for their crimes.

There are causes worthy of war such as the plight of innocents in Darfor, combating the Nazi’s and their war of genocide among others. There are also wars which are not worthy such as non existant ties with terrorists, weapons of mass destruction, oil etc or to show Daddy “I can finish what you were not allowed to do.”

My philosophy while in the Marines was I will defend your right to your opinion but also my right to mine.

Elwed: We were specifically instructed to stand firm and disobey orders if we couldn’t reconcile them with our conscience or if we felt that orders conflicted with the values our constitution guarantees. Our instructors were quite unambiguous—they’d rather if we were wrong and faced court-martial than obeyed an illegal order. In fact, the armed forces I served in took great pride in training thinking soldiers in a more general sense than the above.

I was never given such an instruction at anytime. It was obey, obey, obey – don’t think, obey, obey, obey.
Having said that I doubt that even on my worst day that I woulda (coulda) taken part in a My Lai Massacre – I was a bit of an animal but I still had respect for women and children … well children anyway.
I know many of my compatriots had sucked in the training to hate and despise the race that spawned our ‘enemy’. How could you kill if you didn’t hate? It was almost mandatory to refer to all (whether from the North or South) Vietnamese as Slopes and Nogs … even I did it sometimes although I’d often get a prick in my conscience when I did.

it’s a virtue for soldiers to obey orders without question, except for the orders they should question and disobey.

A nice Catch22 and a fair amount of responsibility to place on the shoulders of something known in the military as a grunt.