Things Liberals Believe in

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I am going to completely disregard the moral compass pointing in the right direction argument. It's silly. Even your predecessors who fought in the world wars would recognize that for the delusion that it is.

Moving right along, so, you are suggesting that in the US military there is so much emphasis on the individual that it's not possible for foot soldiers to be persuaded by their officers that even a seemingly unpleasant course of action isn't in fact the right course of action, if for no other reason than the alternate would be far worse?

Where I completely agree, is that the officers have to be in collusion with the dictator for it to be successful. What is a highly dubious proposition is that the foot soldiers themselves would automatically reject their officers decision based on a 'moral' stand point. Killing people isn't moral, period.

I would say that the US military is not as "black and white" as it used to be, because blindly following orders just doesn't cut the mustard anymore.

If I were ordered to open fire on US civilians, I better know damn good and well that it is a "lawful" order, and there is justification for doing it... otherwise I am commiting murder, and I am NOT a murderer.

Now if I were being shot at, that would be a different matter. I think there are enough people in the military these days that have better educations than in the past, that would not want to be a part of killing fellow Americans, unless there was a very good reason for it.

Don't these very boards illustrate that in fact there are many, many varied and 'good' reasons for killing people? That killing your fellow American can be seen as a good thing, if your fellow American is not of the 'right sort'? Suppose the officers suggested that the people in front of you were 'illegal aliens' for example and that as such they were a threat to the security not only of you and your fellow soldiers, but to the legitimate populous. How would you check that in fact they were illegals before you opened fire?

These are just examples of how seemingly terrible actions can be justified at the time - and who is going to 'verify' anything once the deed is done? I am not laying blame on people for taking these types of actions. I don't 'blame' the german foot soldiers for their actions during the world wars. They were doing what they thought was just and right. I am merely saying simply that an army is incapable of making the kinds of moral determinations that you are claiming would 'naturally' occur simply because American's know right from wrong.

I think there's a lot of pride coming out of this - that its somehow unthinkable that the US armed forces could ever do anything unpatriotic or which would harm the founding values of the country.

[*Robert* 2]

So what's your take on this Charles, concerning being given an order to fire on civilians?

i think quite a few would refuse to do it and would regard it as an illegal order.

Thank you, and I feel the same.

We already had one civil war, I don't think we want to see another.

MC,

I think you are painting today's warfighters as mindless drones, who do what ever they are told to do. That is just not the case anymore, as our military has evolved and become much more technical, requiring much more educated people, that just don't blindly follow orders, especially if those orders are not sane.

Edited October 23, 2008 by roi_aggie

[nowhereman 1]

I am going to completely disregard the moral compass pointing in the right direction argument. It's silly. Even your predecessors who fought in the world wars would recognize that for the delusion that it is.

Moving right along, so, you are suggesting that in the US military there is so much emphasis on the individual that it's not possible for foot soldiers to be persuaded by their officers that even a seemingly unpleasant course of action isn't in fact the right course of action, if for no other reason than the alternate would be far worse?

Where I completely agree, is that the officers have to be in collusion with the dictator for it to be successful. What is a highly dubious proposition is that the foot soldiers themselves would automatically reject their officers decision based on a 'moral' stand point. Killing people isn't moral, period.

Cleo usually you are dead on, but you are off the mark on this one... way off. The moral compass I spoke of is absolutely legitimate. When someone is faced with a decision to do something morally wrong it is their beliefs & upbringing that guide their actions. For example do you honestly think that a one hour training session in sexual harassment prevents someone from sexually harassing another person? Of course it doesn't... it's their beliefs (good or bad) that guide them.

As for part two yes we encourage individual thinking in our military. Of course this individual thinking can't contradict following orders, but the catch is that there are lawful orders & unlawful orders. Some situations are black & white and some fall into a gray area, but the notion of lawful & unlawful orders is taught as early as basic training. Of course it's possible for soldiers to commit horrible acts & I gave two very clear examples of this.

As for killing people not being moral that is your viewpoint and I do not share it. Killing innocent civilians we can agree upon, but killing in self defense is justified & I believe in the death penalty as well. I'm also a soldier so I have to be willing to kill the enemy as well. Like any good soldier I'd rather have peace than war, but sometimes you have to fight for what's right.

[Peikko 1,575]

Yes, I do. I can imagine any number of scenarios where not only an American soldier could fire on American civilians, but would feel absolutely justified in doing so. What you seem to be struggling with, is the fact that the command structure could never be duped into persuing a political agenda. History is littered with examples that show us otherwise.

However, feel free to believe that you have some 'moral' superiority that precludes you from being fooled into doing something illegal by your commanders who are freely lying to you in order to make that very thing happen.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

So what's your take on this Charles, concerning being given an order to fire on civilians?

i think quite a few would refuse to do it and would regard it as an illegal order.

Thank you, and I agree.

We already had one civil war, I don't think we want to see another.

MC,

I think you are painting today's warfighters as mindless drones, who do what ever they are told to do. That is just not the case anymore, as our military as evolved and become much more technical, requiring much more educated people, that just don't blindly follow orders, especially if those orders are not sane.

But how do you rationalise the historical examples where the armed forces of other countries have committed illegal acts against their country and constitutional values?

[Peikko 1,575]

In fact, I will go further and suggest that to deny that it is possible is a far more dangerous position to take, than to admit that given certain circumstances, it is all too possible.

[Peikko 1,575]

I am going to completely disregard the moral compass pointing in the right direction argument. It's silly. Even your predecessors who fought in the world wars would recognize that for the delusion that it is.

Moving right along, so, you are suggesting that in the US military there is so much emphasis on the individual that it's not possible for foot soldiers to be persuaded by their officers that even a seemingly unpleasant course of action isn't in fact the right course of action, if for no other reason than the alternate would be far worse?

Where I completely agree, is that the officers have to be in collusion with the dictator for it to be successful. What is a highly dubious proposition is that the foot soldiers themselves would automatically reject their officers decision based on a 'moral' stand point. Killing people isn't moral, period.

Cleo usually you are dead on, but you are off the mark on this one... way off. The moral compass I spoke of is absolutely legitimate. When someone is faced with a decision to do something morally wrong it is their beliefs & upbringing that guide their actions. For example do you honestly think that a one hour training session in sexual harassment prevents someone from sexually harassing another person? Of course it doesn't... it's their beliefs (good or bad) that guide them.

As for part two yes we encourage individual thinking in our military. Of course this individual thinking can't contradict following orders, but the catch is that there are lawful orders & unlawful orders. Some situations are black & white and some fall into a gray area, but the notion of lawful & unlawful orders is taught as early as basic training. Of course it's possible for soldiers to commit horrible acts & I gave two very clear examples of this.

As for killing people not being moral that is your viewpoint and I do not share it. Killing innocent civilians we can agree upon, but killing in self defense is justified & I believe in the death penalty as well. I'm also a soldier so I have to be willing to kill the enemy as well. Like any good soldier I'd rather have peace than war, but sometimes you have to fight for what's right.

Believe it or not, I understand why it is a very difficult step to admit that in the a certain set of circumstances we are all capable of committing acts that in normal circumstances would shock and horrify us. Perhaps the best example of how soldiers came face to face with the reality of what they were actually doing is during the first world war, when during the Christmas holidays, English and German soldiers laid down their arms for a day to engage in a football match. What does this say to you? I know what it says to me.

[*Robert* 2]

So what's your take on this Charles, concerning being given an order to fire on civilians?

i think quite a few would refuse to do it and would regard it as an illegal order.

Thank you, and I agree.

We already had one civil war, I don't think we want to see another.

MC,

I think you are painting today's warfighters as mindless drones, who do what ever they are told to do. That is just not the case anymore, as our military as evolved and become much more technical, requiring much more educated people, that just don't blindly follow orders, especially if those orders are not sane.

But how do you rationalise the historical examples where the armed forces of other countries have committed illegal acts against their country and constitutional values?

I would rationalise it by using education and economics as two major differences between other countries militarys and ours. Our warfighters are in a much better position than other countries, in both cases. They have unlimited educational opportunities, and their quality of life is much better, which makes them more of a commodity, than a disposable tool.

[nowhereman 1]

Aren't we talking about a situation in which such details are deemed irrelevant? Or at least very quickly ignored?

Not really. How many soldiers would obey an order to shoot their fellow citizens?

Its not unthinkable.

I'm curious... who actually thinks soldiers would obey, and who thinks they would not? And what about the situation? Would it not affect an individuals actions?

Sure - I'm only talking in generalities, but there certainly are historical precedents for it.

It depends on the commander and the command climate. If he's a strong commander & gives a ####### about doing what's morally right then it's highly unlikely that his troops will do something unethical or immoral. If he's a weak commander or has questionable ethics than yea it's totally plausible.

I'll ask you the same question. What is different in the command structure of the US military that would allow for mass disobediance of an officer by the foot soldiers? Are you suggesting that somehow they weigh up all the moral probabilities of their actions before they take them? I have to say, I find that dubious in the extreme - although of course we always like to think that these things would be true.

Do you think they grow soldiers in a test tube????? Before we were soldiers we were Americans & most Americans have a moral compass pointing in the right direction. In other militarys soldiers are discouraged from thinking for themselves, but in our military we encourage creativity & doing the right thing (google "Army Values" and you will see what I mean). Of course there are exceptions to this & yea there have been some inexcusable incidents, but in almost every case you will see that a weak leadership was the root cause.

Two examples: Mei Li Massacre in Vietnam & more recently Abu Ghraib in Iraq. The common theme in both is weak leadership... LT Calley in the first case & an absent chain of command in the second case (most of the soldiers committing the acts in Abu Ghraib were E-4 and below). You want to know who finally stopped the killing at Mei Li? A Warrant Officer/ helicopter pilot named Hugh Thompson placed his helicopter between the Vietnamese civilians and the Army soldiers & he trained his guns on the American troops. Thompson & his crew received the Soldier's Medal for their actions, and rightfully so.

Well at the risk of bringing up cliches - why did the SS operate the Death Camps? Wouldn't they, as supposedly patriotic German citizens not also have a right-pointing moral compass that would tell them that what they were doing wasn't exactly "good".

And this wasn't weak leadership either - it was handed down from the highest level as a matter of government policy.

Which is why I say that if the right conditions prevail - people can be persuaded to do anything. You might not be able to imagine such an event taking place in the current climate - but if that climate were sufficiently altered perceptions of morality can become fluid. In uncertain, desperate times a person (a soldier) might cling to the only ordered system they know - even if that involves doing immoral, unethical or illegal things.

It was strong leadership... but remember my other qualifier was that the leader was ethical as well. The situation with the Nazis actually proves my point... they didn't have the concept of lawful & unlawful orders & the climate was one of following orders without question. Yea there are some buttheads in our military today but the majority of leaders & soldiers are decent people.

[HAL 9000 96]

Gonna have to agree... some of the enlisted would likely fire while others would not. Usually, and ironically just like in the movies, that kind of behavior would affect some of those willing to follow orders- as outlandishly as could be.

[Peikko 1,575]

Again, historical examples proove that to be false.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

So what's your take on this Charles, concerning being given an order to fire on civilians?

i think quite a few would refuse to do it and would regard it as an illegal order.

Thank you, and I agree.

We already had one civil war, I don't think we want to see another.

MC,

I think you are painting today's warfighters as mindless drones, who do what ever they are told to do. That is just not the case anymore, as our military as evolved and become much more technical, requiring much more educated people, that just don't blindly follow orders, especially if those orders are not sane.

But how do you rationalise the historical examples where the armed forces of other countries have committed illegal acts against their country and constitutional values?

I would rationalise it by using education and economics as two major differences between other countries militarys and ours. Our warfighters are in a much better position than other countries, in both cases. They have unlimited educational opportunities, and their quality of life is much better, which makes them more of a commodity, than a disposable tool.

Other 1st world countries have pretty much the same economic and educational opportunities that are available in the US. The ever present media has also had an impact in how wars are managed from a strategic and public relations POV.

I guess my question here is whether you honestly think that we have moved beyond fringe politics, that its totally incomprehensible that a situation could arise (given the right circumstances) for a dictatorship to arise even in this country and for the military to be sucked into it.

[Peikko 1,575]

You forget that most of the armies you are citing were in fact conscripted armies - education levels ranged from profesorial to farm labourer. Very few objected.

Again, I will re iterate, I am not casting a net of blame, or suggesting more inferiority on those who succumb to the system. The system demands that this is what happens, that is all there is.

[nowhereman 1]

I am going to completely disregard the moral compass pointing in the right direction argument. It's silly. Even your predecessors who fought in the world wars would recognize that for the delusion that it is.

Moving right along, so, you are suggesting that in the US military there is so much emphasis on the individual that it's not possible for foot soldiers to be persuaded by their officers that even a seemingly unpleasant course of action isn't in fact the right course of action, if for no other reason than the alternate would be far worse?

Where I completely agree, is that the officers have to be in collusion with the dictator for it to be successful. What is a highly dubious proposition is that the foot soldiers themselves would automatically reject their officers decision based on a 'moral' stand point. Killing people isn't moral, period.

Cleo usually you are dead on, but you are off the mark on this one... way off. The moral compass I spoke of is absolutely legitimate. When someone is faced with a decision to do something morally wrong it is their beliefs & upbringing that guide their actions. For example do you honestly think that a one hour training session in sexual harassment prevents someone from sexually harassing another person? Of course it doesn't... it's their beliefs (good or bad) that guide them.

As for part two yes we encourage individual thinking in our military. Of course this individual thinking can't contradict following orders, but the catch is that there are lawful orders & unlawful orders. Some situations are black & white and some fall into a gray area, but the notion of lawful & unlawful orders is taught as early as basic training. Of course it's possible for soldiers to commit horrible acts & I gave two very clear examples of this.

As for killing people not being moral that is your viewpoint and I do not share it. Killing innocent civilians we can agree upon, but killing in self defense is justified & I believe in the death penalty as well. I'm also a soldier so I have to be willing to kill the enemy as well. Like any good soldier I'd rather have peace than war, but sometimes you have to fight for what's right.

Believe it or not, I understand why it is a very difficult step to admit that in the a certain set of circumstances we are all capable of committing acts that in normal circumstances would shock and horrify us. Perhaps the best example of how soldiers came face to face with the reality of what they were actually doing is during the first world war, when during the Christmas holidays, English and German soldiers laid down their arms for a day to engage in a football match. What does this say to you? I know what it says to me. Well you have to take a very important factor into consideration... Germans & English come from a similar culture. Yea they were at war but there wasn't a deeply engrained hatred. Today you have two very different cultures at war... western culture & extremists from the muslim culture. We have much less in common than the English & Germans and therefore it is much easier for both sides to demonize the other. There is a deeply engrained hatred & distrust between western culture and the extreme muslims (not all muslims mind you... many are peaceful). My point is that I doubt you will see a situation like you described happening today.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Aren't we talking about a situation in which such details are deemed irrelevant? Or at least very quickly ignored?

Not really. How many soldiers would obey an order to shoot their fellow citizens?

Its not unthinkable.

I'm curious... who actually thinks soldiers would obey, and who thinks they would not? And what about the situation? Would it not affect an individuals actions?

Sure - I'm only talking in generalities, but there certainly are historical precedents for it.

It depends on the commander and the command climate. If he's a strong commander & gives a ####### about doing what's morally right then it's highly unlikely that his troops will do something unethical or immoral. If he's a weak commander or has questionable ethics than yea it's totally plausible.

I'll ask you the same question. What is different in the command structure of the US military that would allow for mass disobediance of an officer by the foot soldiers? Are you suggesting that somehow they weigh up all the moral probabilities of their actions before they take them? I have to say, I find that dubious in the extreme - although of course we always like to think that these things would be true.

Do you think they grow soldiers in a test tube????? Before we were soldiers we were Americans & most Americans have a moral compass pointing in the right direction. In other militarys soldiers are discouraged from thinking for themselves, but in our military we encourage creativity & doing the right thing (google "Army Values" and you will see what I mean). Of course there are exceptions to this & yea there have been some inexcusable incidents, but in almost every case you will see that a weak leadership was the root cause.

Two examples: Mei Li Massacre in Vietnam & more recently Abu Ghraib in Iraq. The common theme in both is weak leadership... LT Calley in the first case & an absent chain of command in the second case (most of the soldiers committing the acts in Abu Ghraib were E-4 and below). You want to know who finally stopped the killing at Mei Li? A Warrant Officer/ helicopter pilot named Hugh Thompson placed his helicopter between the Vietnamese civilians and the Army soldiers & he trained his guns on the American troops. Thompson & his crew received the Soldier's Medal for their actions, and rightfully so.

Well at the risk of bringing up cliches - why did the SS operate the Death Camps? Wouldn't they, as supposedly patriotic German citizens not also have a right-pointing moral compass that would tell them that what they were doing wasn't exactly "good".

And this wasn't weak leadership either - it was handed down from the highest level as a matter of government policy.

Which is why I say that if the right conditions prevail - people can be persuaded to do anything. You might not be able to imagine such an event taking place in the current climate - but if that climate were sufficiently altered perceptions of morality can become fluid. In uncertain, desperate times a person (a soldier) might cling to the only ordered system they know - even if that involves doing immoral, unethical or illegal things.

It was strong leadership... but remember my other qualifier was that the leader was ethical as well. The situation with the Nazis actually proves my point... they didn't have the concept of lawful & unlawful orders & the climate was one of following orders without question. Yea there are some buttheads in our military today but the majority of leaders & soldiers are decent people.

Well I tend to think it had more to do with bureaucracy and a military chain of command superseding individual morality and ethics. Its easy to sit here and say that moral and ethical values are absolute- but I really don't think they are. They can be distorted.

Again - I don't think there's any reason to suppose that the US military (or at least elements of it) could not be duped into harming US citizens on the basis that doing so is deemed in the national interest.