Despite what they do? Even if they are in unjust wars? Even if they are committing massacres?
We should always support them and they don't commit massacures.
We must support the troop, but mission is something else. I didn't support the mission in Iraq, but I pulled for the troops all the way Home.Despite what they do? Even if they are in unjust wars? Even if they are committing massacres?
Whether a war is just or unjust is not decided by the soldier, but by the government, the politicians. Therefore you should not hold individual soldiers accountable for fighting in a war you consider "unjust" (subjective judgement to some degree always); they are simply obeying orders and doing their jobs.
So under the scenario that troops are used against citizens, we should still support them and only hold the politicians accountable?
In other words, troops can judge the morality of their actions. If they are doing something immoral, I don't buy the argument that they are unaccountable because someone else told them to do it.
Whether a war is just or unjust is not decided by the soldier, but by the government, the politicians. Therefore you should not hold individual soldiers accountable for fighting in a war you consider "unjust" (subjective judgement to some degree always); they are simply obeying orders and doing their jobs.
Massacres are another matter... but then again one must understand the combat environment to realize that these things are not always as cut-and-dried as the media presents them. The "fog of war" often makes it hard to distinguish and protect civilians; doubly so when the enemy wears no uniform and deliberately hides among the civilian populace.
We should always support them and they don't commit massacures.
I concede that you have a point. Certainly "I was just obeying orders" was not considered an acceptible excuse for the Death Camp guards at the Nuremberg trials.
I was going off the term you used, "unjust war". Thing is, this term has been used and abused a lot over the past 40 years, and while there is a specific an enumerated definition it isn't one everyone necessarily agrees on.
Lots of people have called Iraq and/or Afganistan "unjust wars". Shall we let the troops themselves decide before every deployment whether a conflict is just or not, and decline to participate if they think the latter? How would you guard against those who might say they think the war unjust, when they are really motivated by a desire not to be deployed to a combat zone?
It gets complicated.
When the troops are obeying orders and performing their function WITHIN REASON, I tend to say "support them" even if you have disagreement with the current gov't policy on whatever conflict we're talking about. If it gets UNREASONABLE, like asking American soldiers to violate Posse Commitatus and fire on American civilians, we've moved to a very different level of argument here.
Whether a war is just or unjust is not decided by the soldier, but by the government, the politicians. Therefore you should not hold individual soldiers accountable for fighting in a war you consider "unjust" (subjective judgement to some degree always); they are simply obeying orders and doing their jobs.
Massacres are another matter... but then again one must understand the combat environment to realize that these things are not always as cut-and-dried as the media presents them. The "fog of war" often makes it hard to distinguish and protect civilians; doubly so when the enemy wears no uniform and deliberately hides among the civilian populace.
No Massacures? Are you sure? I look forward to a good massacure every now and again.
I believe this is one of the few instances when I have disagreed with you Goshin. Soldiers have the choice to fight and even join the military when motives are fuzzy or questionable. They may not like the consequences of that choice but that choice is there. Blindly following orders or even questioning the orders but choosing to follow those orders is still a choice of the individual and I do not give them a pass just for being patriotic. They can of course make whatever decision they feel is right but that does not mean I will support them in it. Myself I believe every major military campaign we have been in the last 60 has not been about protecting our nation but instead was politically driven by greed or lust for power. These I cannot support.
Can you accept that many (most?) of the soldiers who have served in those wars may disagree with your assessment of their status (just/unjust), and accept that IN THEIR VIEW they served their country honorably?
While I don't want to stir the pot overmuch here, what I'm kind of asking is whether you feel compelled to disrespect the individual soldiers who fought in those wars because you feel those wars were unjust, or do you respect them for their service in wars they may have believed were justified even if you disagree?
What I'm talking about here is respect for the individual GI you encounter in everyday life, even if he is an Iraq or Vietnam vet.
We should always support them and they don't commit massacures.
Very true, language has been abused for a long time.
It sounds perfectly reasonable to me. If people don't want to go to a combat zone, for any reason, then they should not be forced to go.
And when troops are invading sovereign countries that have done nothing to us, especially their citizens, then that's something that should be decried.
So you support allowing individual soldiers to choose whether to fight or not when their country has declared war?
Have you thought about what kind of discipline problems that could create? What the conseqences could be? Many WW2 vets didn't particularly want to be there you know...
Yes, but do you decry the government policy choice, or do you attach blame and shame to the individual soldier and disparage them personally? Me, I don't think you should.
You may feel differently, but I don't respect their service because they chose to serve in unjust wars. A maybe have more sympathy for those who were drafted into Vietnam, but even then there is always CO status.
Many rushed to sign up before they were even drafted. And I'm fine with the consequences. Soldiers are not slaves.
Ultimately it is the troops who carry out the actions.
You may feel differently, but I don't respect their service because they chose to serve in unjust wars. A maybe have more sympathy for those who were drafted into Vietnam, but even then there is always CO status.
Despite what they do? Even if they are in unjust wars? Even if they are committing massacres?
Yes, we should always support the individual troops, they signed up to protect our country with their life, their limbs, and their minds on the line. They should be treated with honor, and taken care of.
We must be critical of military command however, and we must be critical of the people who send them to war, and we must protest unjust wars. Though we must never blame the soldiers for fighting in unjust wars, because that was not their choice. In those cases, we must support them even more.