Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Manx
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.
|
While I do agree with you on several points, and find your whole question intriguing, I must at least clarify a couple of your points. Soldiers have every right to disobey an order from a superior officer that violates the UCMJ, Geneva or whatever, as killing a child would, but I was not strictly speaking of illegal actions, only sanctioned actions, in which soldiers are expected to carry out their assignment.
I would also again state that I believe that carrying out orders is not the same as supporting them. Generally it is my understanding that except in extreme cases (again, we're talking about violations here, most likely) it is those who give the orders who are held most responsible. I don't necessarily like this idea, but frankly when given all of the variables of a combat arean, I can't think of a better solution.
Of course I wish that all soldiers could choose to accept or decline orders at their discretion, but I also know that that would result in utter chaos while the military ground to a halt.
I also would stop short of calling the entire Iraq war "catagorically reprehensible." I would say that it's not theoretically or morally wrong to remove a genocidal dictator from power, or to eliminate possible terrorists, but I would seriously question our motives for being there (nearly by ourselves). As I said, I believe that we should never have engaged in this war in this manner, but it is not really as cut and dried as saying that we have no business being there so everything we do there is morally bankrupt.