Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ilow
Actually they are not supporting the point of view, they are simply executing instructions. No one sits around and debates the relative merits of each engagement and then votes on it. When someone joins the military they voluntarily relinquish some of their autonomy and acknowledge that they may be asked to perform some unsavory tasks, within the rules outlined by the UCMJ and elsewhere. Furthermore, if a "morally sound" soldier refused to fight in a particular battle and placed his fellow soldiers who did their job at risk, it would seemingly raise other moral questions as well, I would think.
I don't like the U.S.'s activity in Iraq any more than you; however, I feel the responsibility lies at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. and not in the barracks in Iraq.
|
Executing instructions to implement a point of view that you do not agree with is analogous to supporting the point of view. They are human beings, not robots, so they have the ability to say yes or no to an order they are given. It is not enough to absolve oneself of responsibility simply because you were given an order.
Apply this to any of those written rules on how to wage war and you would agree, if a commanding officer orders a soldier to fire on children, the soldier is responsible to disobey the order. I simply apply this same principle to the entire Iraq war (in fact, most wars, maybe even all of them since WWII). The Iraq war is not morally ambiguous in my mind - it is categorically reprehensible.
And yes, I most certainly hold 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. responsible, as I have said. But it is the duty of a soldier, as a human being, to refuse orders which are wrong. I also find it to be a shame that instead of allowing our soldiers this necessary recourse, our society punishes them if they take it. The less human you are, the more you are able to either deny or ignore your humanity, the "better" a soldier you are.