Morality Issues and the Military

[Pusa]

Hey forumites,

Although I just signed up, I've been reading a bunch of topics and I've got to complement the community here. Being emigrated and still in high school, I don't directly know anyone in the CF (the closest instance is a classmate in the Cadets) so I never had a real good view of how the men and women in service were like. Compound that with the fact that I live in Vancouver, where one of the loudest voices is that of anti-war rally participants, and I come to shamefully admit that my previous view of the army was somewhat skewered. Reading through this forum, especially the Why Did/Are You Joining the Armed Forces?? topic, I found that I share a lot with those serving our country via the CF. I love camaraderie, the possibility of making a real and lasting difference, the country in which I live and the ideals and attitude it represents, and, of course, I have a perverse love of playing working with complicated toys mechanics. Especially expensive ones.

I've always considered a career in the armed forces a viable and honorable path. Here comes the wrench in the works: I am, by philosophy, nonviolent. Hell, I killed a mosquito a few days ago and felt terribly guilty about smooshing the tiny, non-sentient pest that was bound to cause me days of discomfort. Due to the aforementioned atmosphere I grew up in, I've come to believe that tenets of the Canadian identity which I value the most, such as acceptance and free exchange of opinion (among other things ), can't be promoted through the smoking barrel of a gun. I can't imagine seriously harming, much less killing, another person when there's even a hint of an alternative. Still, I'm sure I'm not the first to have a dilemna like this. What are your thoughts?

(PS I just imagined an official Canada Un-Armed Forces sitting in the sand, playing guitar and doing other typically Commercial Drive/Art Gallery stairwell activities in the desert.)

 

[McG]

http://www.opme.forces.gc.ca/engraph/courses/timetable/ps402_e.asp

 

[Roy Harding]

...  I can't imagine seriously harming, much less killing, another person when there's even a hint of an alternative.

...

Me either.

Unfortunately - many times there IS no alternative.  It may be alright to be non-violent in Vancouver - but believe it or not, most of the world isn't like Vancouver.

Good luck to you.

 

[Trooper Hale]

Good post buddy. Others here i'm sure will explain their views with far more experience then me but i just really want to take my hat off to you and your honesty in posting what you did.
Killing or hurting something is never something most of us would cold-bloodedly do. The forces teach us, i think more then any other occupation, that our actions can have shocking and terrible consequences. My dad is a buddhist and finds what i do to be a real challenge for him to accept, but he knows it isnt just violence we practice and we dont jump on a plane, fly around the world and kill people because we've got nothing else in our calender for 6 months. We mostly do it because we believe in helping others and in making the world a better place, as naive as that sounds.
Theres plenty of careers in any military that dont involve combat. I know plenty of guys who i'd call non violent types. If your into helping others express their opinion, become an engineer so you can build a school that will help them learn to read and write. Drive a truck so you can deliver them books, join ordinance and give them supplies.

I'm still a jube, a new guy, and i know two things, that i've been in long enough to know i don't know anything and what we do overseas is not all about violence and death, its about helping people and nations finally throw off weights of others and stand on their own two feet. Violence is not something Canadians or Australians seek out.
I'm looking forward to reading some of the other responses your post picks up.

 

[Deleted member 9665]

Basically I"m not violence, I think that there is always a way to avoid it. but If have to do it in a crisis situation, and I'm wearing my uniform, then I am no more a mere individual, Ill do what I have to do for the sake of my country.

The army members are not all blood thirsty psychopat torturer executioner. Allot have similar point of view as yours.

I honestly think that Philosophy  takes little space in you when its time to react under fire and you or your team are getting fired at. Hopefully I will never live it. but... When the going gets tough, the tough gets going 

 

[IN HOC SIGNO]

Hey forumites,

Although I just signed up, I've been reading a bunch of topics and I've got to complement the community here. Being emigrated and still in high school, I don't directly know anyone in the CF (the closest instance is a classmate in the Cadets) so I never had a real good view of how the men and women in service were like. Compound that with the fact that I live in Vancouver, where one of the loudest voices is that of anti-war rally participants, and I come to shamefully admit that my previous view of the army was somewhat skewered. Reading through this forum, especially the Why Did/Are You Joining the Armed Forces?? topic, I found that I share a lot with those serving our country via the CF. I love camaraderie, the possibility of making a real and lasting difference, the country in which I live and the ideals and attitude it represents, and, of course, I have a perverse love of playing working with complicated toys mechanics. Especially expensive ones.

I've always considered a career in the armed forces a viable and honorable path. Here comes the wrench in the works: I am, by philosophy, nonviolent. Hell, I killed a mosquito a few days ago and felt terribly guilty about smooshing the tiny, non-sentient pest that was bound to cause me days of discomfort. Due to the aforementioned atmosphere I grew up in, I've come to believe that tenets of the Canadian identity which I value the most, such as acceptance and free exchange of opinion (among other things ), can't be promoted through the smoking barrel of a gun. I can't imagine seriously harming, much less killing, another person when there's even a hint of an alternative. Still, I'm sure I'm not the first to have a dilemna like this. What are your thoughts?

(PS I just imagined an official Canada Un-Armed Forces sitting in the sand, playing guitar and doing other typically Commercial Drive/Art Gallery stairwell activities in the desert.)

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and believe that you are not trolling, although that was my first reaction when I read your post. I am a Christian priest (Anglican) in the military and as such a non-combatant, however, the people that I minister to in uniform all sign on for "unlimited liability." In other words, this is the ARMED FORCES not the peace corps, or DREE or a missionary outfit. All soveriegn nations have to have the ability to control/ enforce the rule of law and their way of life both internally and externally....we have a police force for internal and an armed forces for external. Those Forces must be capable of applying as much force as needed in order to gain the needed result....if nasty people threaten than an escalation of force is needed to make the bad people go away.
The way of life we enjoy in Canada and especially in Vancouver has been bought at a precious price...the blood of our soldiers. If you want to play guitar in the desert join a commune.
(BTW I was a serving Navy Officer before I took Chaplain training so I'm not speaking out of a position of safety....and if my comrades were wounded or dying on the field of battle I would be the first to leap over the berm.)

 

[Brockvegas]

Pusa, first of all, welcome. Second, thanks for plugging one of my first threads

Anyways, while I do not personally have an issue with resorting to forceful ways when required as you do, I do understand your situation. That being said, the CF still may not be out of the question for you. From your post you seem to be a well spoken individual, and I would venture to guess you do fairly well in school. There are many non-combat trades that require educated individuals, and ALL TRADES are a necessary contribution to the CF as a whole. You may even want to look at RMC as an option.

Just my .02,
Brockvegas

 

[Meridian]

However, my additional 0.02 is that every trade in the CF supports every other trade, and, particularly in the Army, Combat Arms.

The RMS Clerk in the rear not doing their job ultimately may mean that you don't have the Inf soldier up front using his/her weapon.  It's all interrelated... it's why they call the Forces one big family/team.

This means that if you are really having moral/philosophical issues, I don't think (IMO) that you would be able to sidestep them by pretending that being an RMS clerk in the army has any less involvement in violence than being an Infantry soldier.  You may not be firing the rifle (And even as an RMS clerk, you could be asked to at any time) but you are directly or indirectly supporting those who do.

This is actually something that I've been throwing around in my head for some time - actually what really started me thinking about it was a Leadership & Ethics workshop back at Prep Year where half of the class came up with some pretty crazy situational answers for what they would do in X scenario.  It clearly isn't an easy answer type thing.  On one side, it is clear that all war will not go away tomorrow, and no matter how much left-wing dreamers and schemers want to rant on about it, it will never force failed or failing states to put down their weapons and go to tea.  This doesn't mean the left shouldn't keep trying for their dream, or that diplomacy should never be attempted, or that some guy shouldn't sit with his guitar out in a field.  But it does mean we need to realize that that field may be covered in landmines, and the landmines don't give a crap about left-wing ideology, and they were certainly planted by someone who doesn't.

I have always relied back on the principles discussed in most Constitutional Law classes or in Poli Sci 101.   
Government exsits to hold the monopoly of force in any society; in doing so it ensures the safety, security and long-term viability of that society.
Everything else our Government does is secondary to that.  We are lucky to live in a country that by in large is territorially secure, at least with respect to current plausible external threats other than terrorism. This does not mean everyone should believe that no work has to be done to keep it that way.

 

[Kiwi99]

As far as I am concerned, there is no such thing as non-combat trades.  Soldier first, trades second. 

 

[Timmy!]

Drive a truck so you can deliver them books, join ordinance and give them supplies.

I'm guessing you never been in a CLP?  ;D

 

[IN HOC SIGNO]

As far as I am concerned, there is no such thing as non-combat trades.  Soldier first, trades second. 

You are correct...Army centric...but correct. The Navy always say Sailor first and tradesman second....All CF personnel except the Padres (Chaplains) are required to do weapons training each year and all trades are subject to posting into a theatre of operations where they would be expected to use their weapon if so ordered. Even medical personell carry weapons and would be expected to defend themselves or their patients. There is no such thing as a noncombatant trade. As I stated earlier this is the Canadian ARMED Forces.

 

[Greymatters]

I've come to believe that tenets of the Canadian identity which I value the most, such as acceptance and free exchange of opinion (among other things ), can't be promoted through the smoking barrel of a gun. I can't imagine seriously harming, much less killing, another person when there's even a hint of an alternative.

Interesting post.

While IHS will see you as a provoking troll, I'll take you at face value, a young kid whose been fed a lot of misinformation about the CF.

First, this is the type of comment that a lot of people living sheltered lives say.  However, one day, whether you are in the CF or not, you will face a decision.  Do I let myself be killed/seriously injured/mentally scarred for life, or do I do everything I can to avoid that?  This tends to remove a lot of timid 'deer in the headlight' people from the gene pool.  Its up to you whether to call it violence or strong self-preservation instincts.

Despite what people may have told you, being able and willing to kill others is not a prereqisite, nor is willingness to use a smoking gun.  Like police officers, a significant number of the CF has never fired a shot in anger, and some are hard put just to fire a weapon at all after basic training. 

Finally, I grew up in Victoria and Vancouver and Im back living here for the last two years.  There arent as many anti-war protestors around as you indicate, unless you are spending too much time at the universities. 

 

[IN HOC SIGNO]

Interesting post.

While IHS will see you as a provoking troll, I'll take you at face value, a young kid whose been fed a lot of misinformation about the CF.

First, this is the type of comment that a lot of people living sheltered lives say.  However, one day, whether you are in the CF or not, you will face a decision.  Do I let myself be killed/seriously injured/mentally scarred for life, or do I do everything I can to avoid that?  This tends to remove a lot of timid 'deer in the headlight' people from the gene pool.  Its up to you whether to call it violence or strong self-preservation instincts.

Despite what people may have told you, being able and willing to kill others is not a prereqisite, nor is willingness to use a smoking gun.  Like police officers, a significant number of the CF has never fired a shot in anger, and some are hard put just to fire a weapon at all after basic training. 

Finally, I grew up in Victoria and Vancouver and Im back living here for the last two years.  There arent as many anti-war protestors around as you indicate, unless you are spending too much time at the universities. 

I said I was giving benefit of the doubt that she wasn't a troll...that's why I answered. However since that time I notice that she hasn't bothered to participate in the topic she initiated so my first thought about her being a troll is probably correct.

 

[Greymatters]

IHS, I wasnt criticizing you, only taking a different approach.  But, yes, looks like you were right, it was a troll...

 

[Colin Parkinson]

My Grandfather was a conscientious objector in WWI, yet he served as a stretcherbearer in that conflict, carrying out one of the most dangerous tasks in that conflict and I am very proud of him for it. However in our modern very small military, the number of non-combat roles are few and far between.

You say you have difficulty killing, that is fine as one should never take a life needlessly or thoughtlessly. However how deep does your convictions go? Would you kill to stop someone from harming someone you love? It is easy having strong convictions will sipping a latte in Vancouver, not so easy when you are fighting for your life or someone else’s.

As it is, the one thing that gives the Military it’s power to achieve something is the willingness of it’s members to enter into combat and risk killing or being killed for a common purpose that has been given by the people of this country. Without that the military is meaningless. If you can not come to terms with the thought that you may have to harm someone or be harmed, then you have no business in the service.

Unless of course you wish to join as a doctor or a Priest. Both of those roles require their own sacrifices. If you wish to be a pacifist, then you must accept the consequences of that path, as one cannot be “sort of a pacifist” you either are one or a hypocrite. If you are trolling, then you should look at yourself and understand how pathetic that choice is.

 

[IN HOC SIGNO]

IHS, I wasnt criticizing you, only taking a different approach.  But, yes, looks like you were right, it was a troll...

Seen....I didn't take it as criticism just wanted to make it clear that I suspected her but gave her benefit of doubt. no worries. 

 

[3rd Herd]

My Grandfather was a conscientious objector in WWI, yet he served as a stretcherbearer in that conflict, carrying out one of the most dangerous tasks in that conflict and I am very proud of him for it.

Colin,
just finished going through Tug of War, yet again(looking into Whitaker's "implied contract with the Government of Canada argument). There is a very nice descriptive of the stretcher bearers (RHLI) and the conscientious objector status. It seems several were awarded rather high decorations for gallantry despite being labelled as cowards or zombies. One in particular recounts his run in with a NCO who never went overseas upon arriving at the docks in Halifax without a rifle.

 

[Fusaki]

Col Grossman did a bit on "The Judeo/Christian view of killing" in On Combat. I just got through the book a little while back so maybe I can share a bit of what I was able to pick up.

Grossman starts by telling the story of Alvin York, a young Quaker in WW1. During his basic training, York passed it up his chain of command that he did not think he would be able to do what was asked of him due to the commandment "Thou Shalt Not Kill". One of his officers took him aside and explained the other side of the story.

"Well, York went on to receive the Medal of Honor by acting with great valour and killing many enemy soldiers. At a critical, crucial moment in our nation's history, when he was needed, Alvin York was on the battlefield with his heart and mind prepared for combat." (Grossman, p343)

Most modern translations and all the original Hebrew translations are not interpreted as "Thou Shalt Not Kill" but as "Thou Shalt Not Murder". This is a key distinction between the lawfull and unlawful use of lethal force. The Bible refers to King David as a man after God's own heart, despite the praise his people gave to him: "Saul hath slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands" (1 Samuel 18:7 King James Version). And David only got in God's bad books when he murdered Uriah (II Samuel Chapter 11). See the difference? When Jesus said "He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword" he was speaking to Peter who had drawn his sword (unlawful) against the Roman Guards (lawfull) who came to arrest Jesus (Matthew 26:52). A soldier does not "live by the sword" he lives by his duty to protect his home and Country.

"For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrathupon him that doeth evil." (Romans 13:4)

And Jesus said "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." (John 15:13)

Personally, I'm not a very religious guy, but I still think Grossman's research is pretty interesting. I'm sure that In Hoc Signo would have something to say on this subject as well.

And my own .02...

This is something you need to deal with before you join the army. Remember, its not just your *** on the line. A soldier's lethality on the battlefield can determine not only his own survival, but the survival of his buddies as well. While the thought of taking life may weigh heavily on your conscience, its better then the guilt of knowing you could have done more to prevent the death of a friend. You need to decide that if you're going to get all messed up, its going to be from dishing out the punishment - NOT taking it. Understand that one day you may need to look through your sight and squeeze the trigger as fast as you can locate the enemy - and do it again and again until the threat is gone. You won't have time to make spiritual peace with yourself right then and there, so you'd better do it beforehand.

The soldier's authority to bear arms is balanced by the responsibility of delivering lawfull, lethal force at crucial times. Its heavy crap, so don't take it for granted.

 

[IN HOC SIGNO]

Thanks wonderbread....yes I am aware of the Hebrew translation and of course the story of Sgt York....great film too. I once had a guy come to me for counselling on this subject...he was Baha'i but wasn't too sure about all this too. As he was an Aero engine tech i didn't think there was much chance that he would be called on to kill folks but as I stated in an earlier post we all sign for the "unlimited liability" and universality of service. He did get out a few years later but I'm not sure that it was due to religious conviction. It was around the time of the first Gulf War and the possibility of Tac Hel being deployed was on the table.
Heck we have clearance divers here in Halifax who are in the sandbox right now......who ever would have thought they'd be doing that stuff.....and before anyone asks me why they need divers there...think about what they do when they search the harbour floor and the bottom of ships. 

 

[Greymatters]

Edit to remove info for PERSEC reasons.

I think there's already a thread going on this... cant think of the title at the moment...