Personal Rationalization of Violence

[Meridian]

Alright, had this discussion with a girl I was dating recently, we had both considered the military (and I had gone ahead whereas she hadn't) and her deciding factor had been "What do I do if Im ordered to shoot someone and I'm on a mission I completely don't agree with?"

IN this context Im speaking perhaps more towards an American-style sit such as Iraq currently where some pers do not want to be in theatre as they do not agree with their government's orders. Im not talking about illegal orders here.

Anyway, how did you personally rationalize the concept of going on a tour in which you may not agree with what you are doing? Discipline and training aside, have you ever seriously ever considered this.


[Side note: In a Military Ethics class back in St Jean (CMR) I came to realize that many of my colleagues had never considered what they would do in this situation, yet they were sitting next to me wearing a uniform with a gold bar on it.....]

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Meridian,

A good question and certainly one that deals with ethics and being a professional soldier.  One thing that is important to bring out is that there is a distinction between a "just war" and figting a war justly.  As a professional soldier my focus is on my conduct (over which I have control) and not so much on the cause.  If engaging is within my ROE then at that time and place I'm probably not going to be agonizing over the reasons that I am there.  This is not a rationalization of violence but rather a code of conduct.

That being said, morale will probably by higher if there is wide-spread acceptance of the mission, with this effect being magnififed if this support extends to the home front.  I've only been on one tour and I believed whole-heartedly in the mission. 

As a professional officer I must be prepared to go when and where I am told and buy into the mission.  This does not mean that I am unthinking, but rather that I have a duty that transcends picking and choosing.  Again, I emphasize that there is a difference between fighting in an "unjust war" and fighting unjustly.  I've heard the humourous expression of "illegal war."  War means that "law" has broken down.  As long as my own conduct is within the laws of armed conflict then I will be able to sleep at night. 

It would perhaps be a tougher decision for a commander to put troops in harm's way in a mission for which the goals are vague or non-existant.  I think that Canadian officers have faced this problem in the previous decade.

Cheers,

Iain

 

[PeterLT]

Meridian,

While it is a good question to be delving into here in this forum, it would definitely NOT be a good thing to dwell on while so engaged in a hostile theatre. In an Iraq type situation, the friendlies and the bad guys are hard to differentiate. Speaking for myself, while in the midst of hostiles, my pucker factor would be much better if I could be sure there was no great soul searching or morality plays going on at the moment. If there is a concern about violence then the military is not the place to be. Despite the current touchy feely politically correct stance on things, properly applied violence is what it's all about. Best to be sure about things before signing the dotted line.

Peter

 

[SigPigs]

Alright, had this discussion with a girl I was dating recently, we had both considered the military (and I had gone ahead whereas she hadn't) and her deciding factor had been "What do I do if Im ordered to shoot someone and I'm on a mission I completely don't agree with?"

IN this context Im speaking perhaps more towards an American-style sit such as Iraq currently where some pers do not want to be in theatre as they do not agree with their government's orders. Im not talking about illegal orders here.

Anyway, how did you personally rationalize the concept of going on a tour in which you may not agree with what you are doing? Discipline and training aside, have you ever seriously ever considered this.

Well the first thing is it's not like you are going to be hanging around and you will be ordered to shoot that man! Someone will be shooting at you and it won't be a difficult decision to defend yourself. Also when you volunteered to be in the CF you will have taken the oath of service before self. If you don't agree with a missions political ramifications that's fine but your job is to be done professionally, since you are a professional soldier. If you don't want to go badly, then put in your release and away you go, no more ethical dilemma.

Andrew

 

[jbeach95]

DAOD regarding Conscientious Objection:
http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/admfincs/subjects/daod/5049/2_e.asp

Basically, it says someone can ask for a release if they object to armed conflict in general, but not if they object to a specific theatre or policy.
My question is, if you are against armed conflict, what are you doing in the Canadian Forces? It should be apparent that when one joins the armed forces, he/she may have to go to war.

 

[Sailing Instructor]

Perhaps one ought not to rationalise violence but to see the ends of it (i.e. the war/battle) as undeniably good therefore justifying whatever violence you commit in order to get to the end.  Mind you, one can see that following only this can break ROE & Geneva conventions, but it's an alternate starting pt.

On the CBC programme Ideas plays the 2003 Gifford Lectures by Michael Ignatieff in which he talks about the ethics of terrorism.  He manages to argue for the justification of terrorism so I think that there ought to be no problem arguing for killing a man in battle...or is there?  Ah ethics, with what would I struggle without you?

 

[Brad Sallows]

As per 2Bravo's comments, there is a hard line - a legal and philosophical one - between jus ad bellum and jus in bello.

It is the concern of the voters and government to worry about jus ad bellum (IOW, causes for war).

Your concern (as a member of the CF) is to worry about jus in bello (IOW, conduct of war).

Whether a war is started for just or unjust reasons is irrelevant to your responsibility to obey lawful orders and conduct yourself justly.

 

[O Meagher]

Sailing Instructor...

On the topic of philosophy....I should probably start a new post for this or something but I couldn't help but notice that you're a philosophy major.  I'm completely new to this forum and I'm not a CF member, though I'm interested in joining the infantry once I complete my Masters in Philosophy...I need something a little more visceral before Ph.D.  I'm wondering- do you know of many more like us?

THX!

 

[pbi]

My take on this is that we all have a moral "line in the sand". Those of us who have joined the military have shown that our line is drawn in a different place from those who do   not accept the use of violence at all, or those who can justify it only in self defence. Past that point it is not so clear, IMHO. Arguments such as "we are professional soldiers so we must do whatever we are told" or "as soldiers it is not our place to question orders" seem to tie a nice neat moral ribbon around it, but IMHO I doubt it is really quite as simple as all that.

Unless we resort to a Frederickean method of training soldiers consisting of close order drill and flogging,we are going to produce soldiers who can think, and will think. The types of operations we train for now, and the types of threats we are likely to confont, require this type of soldier. But, once the soldier is a thinker rather than an automaton, we risk disobedience.

IMHO although solid military discipline is absolutely necessary (and also IMHO in our Army today has been badly diluted...), it is not the sole answer. Equally important is how the soldier ( at all ranks) sees the operation, the issue we are fighting about, and the need for the use of violence. The soldier's understanding is to a great extent a product of the type of leadership he receives. At least as far as the Infantry soldier is concerned, the body of evidence appears to suggest that we fight and kill for the group around us and in response to local threats or to our immediate leaders. . History shows us that most of the time, most soldiers go along with violence willingly if not happily. Most armies do not fall apart in battle, and our Army in patricular has been relatively (not completely) free of mutinies in its history of combat operations. Where good leadership has been present, soldiers generally use violence far more willingly and accept greater risk. I believe that our soldiers today, while amenable to discipline intelligently applied, are probably far more questioning than earlier generations were, (and even they had their questions).

So where am I going with all this? To this: that each of us will decide when we have reached that line in the sand, but that where we draw that line will be influenced greatly by the quality of the leadership we receive. In the end, though, if you are not prepared to accept the use of deadly force you are in the wrong game. All soldiers kill, whether they pull the trigger, deliver the ammo, plan the operation, or patch up soldiers so that they can get back into combat and kill again. Anybody who wears a uniform and thinks that they have "clean hands" is a hypocrite.

Cheers

 

[Meridian]

Thanks for that PBI, I have come to look forward to your posts.

 

[O Meagher]

I think PBI answered MY question. 

 

[pbi]

Thanks for that PBI, I have come to look forward to your posts.

You're welcome. And I enjoy all the interesting discourse with people such as yourself.

Cheers.

 

[mainerjohnthomas]

When I was a boy, I asked my father that question.  He had served with RC57 in the Congo, and came back decorated and mentioned in dispatches for doing what you have to when things go horribly wrong, a long way from friendlies.  He told me that it didn't matter why you joined, it didn't matter why the politicians say you are there, its usually BS anyway, you fight for the same reasons in every war; the men (men and women when I served) to your left and right.  When you go into battle, you kill as quickly and efficiently as possible, because that is the best way to preserve your comrades lives.  You serve your country by wielding deadly force against her foes.  It is not necessary or productive to hate, you kill because it is necessary to achieve your objectives, and only if it is necessary.  Understand, that if you hesitate or shy from this necessity, you allow the enemy to kill your comrades who have placed their trust in your skill and dedication.  I expected a different answer from my Grandfather, who fought with the Grenadier Guards in WWII, but what I got was the same.  It doesn't matter where or why you are sent, you are a Canadian Soldier (Sailor, Airman), and it is your duty to wield the deadly force that the Canadian people have made your right, and yours alone, to employ in their defence.

 

[Highland Lad]

Hmmm... I remember, on the first crse I ever taught on, one young lady had an issue that came up during a lesson I was delivering. I was floored when she stuck her hand up and said: "What if someone sets off a trip flare on our wire and we don't want to shoot at him?"

As a young cpl fresh off ISCC, I was quite full of myself, and heavily stressed on hormones (Wainwright does that to a bod...), and my response earned me a lecture (and a threat of a charge) from the CSM along the lines of 'the use of sarcasm as a teaching tool is outdated and improper'.

 

[CH1]

A very wise & sage RSM once told me that my role was not to question why, It is to do or die.  That thought has taken me through a few cess pools, & brought me home again.

After the first couple of cess pools, I finally got past the obvious, & realised that you rely on your trg & the rest of your section, platoon, etc, to make difficult situations easier to deal with.  It will also increase your chances of coming back intact.

 

[Bav2002]

I have a hard time understanding how a soldier could kill another soldier due to political reasons.  No matter how hard it boils down to, reasons for war are allways a political matter.  Sure you hear how it is ones duty and what not, protecting canada.  But really, It feels as a soldier myself, were all pupets.  There is no way possible to rationalize the right to kill another person, maybe its LAWFUL - but not RIGHT.  Self-defence I believe is a mans right, no matter the circumstances...  however i belive to kill one for trying to kill you, its simply sinking to their level.  This may sound absoloutly absurd to all of you but i belive this is true, and I am a soldier. 

 

[Kat Stevens]

Awful glad all those lads who hit the beaches in Normandy didn't feel this way.

CHIMO,  Kat

 

[Bav2002]

Im sure for evey man they killed it only killed themselves, and for every man that was killed, well theyre dead period. 
I think the problem lies in the way we think, theres nothing really we can do about that, perhaps too deep of a subject.

I have a hard time continuing to serve in the armed forces when i see or hear of people being killed because "he said so"  or "for the country"  "freedom".  I love my country, we are our own identity, but like most places on earth we breed our killers, soldiers, for self-defence.  Does anyone belive in an Ideal world we would have no Borders?  Weve got enough land in canada for millions of starving people to live off, can someone please justify this?  when WE die at war or sacrifice ourselves many excuse it as a DEED to our country...  our own rock. 

:-X

 

[Kat Stevens]

We are each entitled to our opinions.  I am an immigrant to this country, and I thank whoever watches out for us every day that my parents came here.  It is my personal belief that anyone unwilling to take up arms to defend this land, should not expect to reap the benefits of living here.  Again, just one old soldiers opinion.

CHIMO,  Kat

 

[Spr.Earl]

Im sure for evey man they killed it only killed themselves, and for every man that was killed, well theyre dead period.  
I think the problem lies in the way we think, theres nothing really we can do about that, perhaps too deep of a subject.

I have a hard time continuing to serve in the armed forces when i see or hear of people being killed because "he said so"   or "for the country"   "freedom".   I love my country, we are our own identity, but like most places on earth we breed our killers, soldiers, for self-defence.   Does anyone belive in an Ideal world we would have no Borders?   Weve got enough land in canada for millions of starving people to live off, can someone please justify this?   when WE die at war or sacrifice ourselves many excuse it as a DEED to our country...   our own rock.  
:-X

In the Military when are trained   you bond as a Team weather Eng.,Inf.,Arty.,Navy or Air Force.
You do your Job!

You are trained to stay alive to the best of your abilty while denying the enemies best chance's of killing you.

Your training kick's in and you react no if's and or but's against a Formal Enemy.

I can guarntee guarantee our R.O.E.'s are so stringent that we do have 99.99% control over our own actions.

I can't speak of late but heres a real conumdrum going back in 95   doing work up training for a U.N. Op. all Peace,Goody,Goody Soldier no sweat.
Next year in 96 was for IFOR Total NATO training !!
Total differant scene!
Team attack's,section attack's,all live fire with grenades.
I ended up in Bosnia that year loaded for Bear but under control.
If you are not wiiling or can not be ready for quick change's I guess the Military is not for you