Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ilow
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.
|
I am very specifically speaking about actions which would fall within the UCMJ, Geneva or whatever - i.e., commonly accepted actions. Most certainly, soldiers who break those rules would be even more responsible.
There are degrees of responsibility. First and foremost, I hold the people that have decided to take our military to war as the most responsible. And then down through the chain of command. I simply do not stop placing responsibility on someone simply because they have been given an order. Any soldier who has killed a foreigner in the past 2 years (atleast) shares a portion of the responsibility for the immoral process of this war. Even the soldier that strongly disagrees with the war, but convinces himself to stay in order to support his fellow soldiers shares responsibility - he is an enabler. In my mind, the only honorable soldier is one who refuses to fight or administer. And the medics, even though they are technically enabling.
Quote:
|
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.
|
I mentioned that it would be a seperate debate (one that has been repeated ad infinitum) to talk about the specifics of the morality of this war. But essentially I disagree - I fully believe there were avenues open to us which would have achieved our goal without the necessity of war. And instead it was decided that war was the path we would take, this is the definition of reprehensible.