Personal Rationalization of Violence

[pbi]

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.  

No-you are a person wearing a uniform. You are not a soldier.If your post is an accurate reflection of your beliefs, you are incapable of serving as a soldier, even as a medic. I really have to ask what you were thinking about when you joined, and what your understanding of the profession of arms actually is. Did you perhaps think it was just a "job"? I suggest that you be true to your personal beliefs and take your release before your beliefs put you in a situation in which you: a) endanger your own life through inability to act; or b) endanger the lives of your comrades who depend upon you. You are entitled to your beliefs, but they are the wrong ones for service in the military.

Cheers

 

[George Wallace]

Unfortunately, there are many in the Armed Forces today who hold similar values as Bav2002.  Many in our CS and GS Bns figure that they are safe from Cbt in those positions and their job is only 9 to 4, five days a week like any other job in this country.  I have seen Cbt Units in 2 CMBG have to send pers to 2 Svc Bn to fill up its ranks on Tour because too many of its' Truckers refused to go on Tour.  Remember back in 1995, when the Airborne were disbanded, and all the Support Trades who took release rather than get posted to Petawawa. 

It is unfortunate that these people have been allowed to infiltrate the military.  They are a serious problem.  As has been noted, they can cause the eventual death of their comrades or themselves if they can not perform their duties and use deadly force when required.  There are many who hold philosophies like this and in all trades.  We even have a WO in our regiment who ordered his crew not to load the 25 mm while on tour with SFOR.  The scary part is that many today have forgotten his deeds and he is away again.  I only hope that his actions do not cause the death of himself, his crew and perhaps his Troop.

As Pbi said: This is no job for a person who holds that philosophy.

GW

 

[BDTyre]

Your wise and sage RSM was simply quoting Tennyson (as am I in my sig).

Not to say he isn't wise or sage.  Just an FYI.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Bav2002,

A soldier does not kill another soldier over political differences.  Soldiers decide to kill or not kill for a wide variety of reasons (please read On Killing by Grossman).  Duty, comradeship, self-defence and other factors enter in but I'm fairly sure that the political backdrop of the war is fairly remote at that point.  I have joined a profession (a calling if you will) and am prepared to live with all that that entails, which includes the possibility of killing or being killed.  War is not some neat moral play.

Killing an enemy soldier who is trying to kill me is not "sinking to their level."  A potential enemy and myself are "peers".  He is not trying to kill me for personal gain but rather for the same reasons that I would be trying to kill him.  I might even have more in common with him than with some of my own countrymen (due to our mutual profession).  That's war for you.  

Nations must defend themselves against aggression and to do so they need armies composed of soldiers who are prepared to put everything on the line.  Perhaps this makes me one of those "Realists" that some of my textbook writers disliked.  I can live with it.

2B

 

[dutchie]

A very interesting topic, and one that I have a few ideas on. pbi, 2Bravo, and others have beaten me to the punch on a lot of my thoughts on this, so I won't say any more on those other than 'Here, here.'

One thing I have noticed here is the idea that soldiers kill enemy soldiers for self-defence. No-one has stated that this is the sole reason, but I feel that some have implied that. Generally, in our culture, we condone killing another person in self-defence, so I understand how someone uses self-defence to justify soldiers killing enemy soldiers, but it is wrong to do so. Soldiers in battle are not bound by the same rules that civilians are regarding use of force and killing. I feel it's dangerous, innaccurate, and completely ignorant of the most important function of soldiering to equate soldiers actions to a civilian defending himself. Sure, soldiers will defend their positions, their buddies, and themselves, but we shouldn't forget the concept of seeking out the enemy and destroying him.

Afterall, the role of the Infantry is to 'Close with and destroy the enemy' not 'allow the enemy to close with us, warn them, twice, fire warning shots, and if absolutely necessary, fire on them, but only as much as required to stop their attack.'

As mentioned by others, soldiers kill for a number of reasons, not the least of which is a genuine desire to destroy the forces that oppose them. Having NOT been in battle myself, I would imagine that the preferred way to destroy the enemy is on the attack, not the defensive.

 

[c_canuk]

A very interesting topic, and one that I have a few ideas on. pbi, 2Bravo, and others have beaten me to the punch on a lot of my thoughts on this, so I won't say any more on those other than 'Here, here.'

One thing I have noticed here is the idea that soldiers kill enemy soldiers for self-defence. No-one has stated that this is the sole reason, but I feel that some have implied that. Generally, in our culture, we condone killing another person in self-defence, so I understand how someone uses self-defence to justify soldiers killing enemy soldiers, but it is wrong to do so. Soldiers in battle are not bound by the same rules that civilians are regarding use of force and killing. I feel it's dangerous, innaccurate, and completely ignorant of the most important function of soldiering to equate soldiers actions to a civilian defending himself. Sure, soldiers will defend their positions, their buddies, and themselves, but we shouldn't forget the concept of seeking out the enemy and destroying him.

Afterall, the role of the Infantry is to 'Close with and destroy the enemy' not 'allow the enemy to close with us, warn them, twice, fire warning shots, and if absolutely necessary, fire on them, but only as much as required to stop their attack.'

As mentioned by others, soldiers kill for a number of reasons, not the least of which is a genuine desire to destroy the forces that oppose them. Having NOT been in battle myself, I would imagine that the preferred way to destroy the enemy is on the attack, not the defensive.

yes.... but other than for a select few in Afghanistan the gulf war was the last time Canadian troops had anything resembling your version of ROEs. That set of ROEs doesn't cover for whoever you've closed with surrendering and/or wounded enemy.

As a soldier if I'm sent to take and defend a position, anyone shooting at me while I'm following my orders is attacking me, I will return fire and decide if I will engage and destroy or withdraw, anyone who would attack me I will attack first if circumstances allow. My goal is not a body count, but an achieved objective.

Should the objective be to destroy a unit, so be it, and I will do what I have to to keep myself and my comrades alive while carrying out any and all objectives. I will not enjoy it nor will I hate it, I will do it because it has to be done. The enemy has the option to not engage me as much as I have as much option not to engage them, we are equally at risk and know the risk before entering the battle ground. This is a universal understanding of soldiers on the battle field.

 

[dutchie]

yes.... but other than for a select few in Afghanistan the gulf war was the last time Canadian troops had anything resembling your version of ROEs. That set of ROEs doesn't cover for whoever you've closed with surrendering and/or wounded enemy.

What ROEs are you talking about? I didn't mention ROEs.

Whether or not it has occurred in the last 15 years outside Afghanistan (and that is debatable), the fact remains it is the willingness, ability, and training to carryout the task that is important, not whether or not the opportunity has arisen.

Other than that, the only other problem I have with your post is this: 'The enemy has the option to not engage me as much as I have as much option not to engage them' - you actually don't have that option, unless I am seriously mistaken as to your rank, but I get your point (and agree more or less with it).

 

[c_canuk]

I didn't mean ROEs as such, just the general theme of what you said a soldier should be thinking on the battle field. ROEs was much shorter =)

you actually don't have that option

what I meant is this

If I don't engage the enemy I don't have to kill him, though there will be other repercussions down the line, if I am in a position where I truely believe that it would be wrong for me to kill a stranger who is trying to kill me or would if he had the chance(though the chances of me believeing this and it not being a severly criminal order are probably so remote it's not even worth thinking about), then I could refuse to attack... what happens after that would be out of my control... does the death penally still apply in this case or is it off the books totally now? This is why officers stil carry the browning 9mm right?

 

[dutchie]

Agreed: everyone has free will. You can't actually give up free will. You CAN choose to follow orders without examining them (what soldiers do), but in the end, we are not robots. Our bodies act on OUR orders, no-one elses. This is venturing into some murky and philosophical waters, however.

If you choose to not attack (or otherwise engage the enemy) when you should, you are disobeying a lawful command (assumed). I'm no Military legal expert, but I imagine a cowardice charge would also result.

 

[Mad Max]

All right! Here we go again...There are some people on this site who just don't get it! If you are a soldier in the Canadian Army, then you have sworn an oath to defend the nation. Period. You can not, on the one hand, accept your soldier's pay, while on the other maintain that you would not kill in the performance of your duties. It may seem objectionable to some, but, ultimately, killing in the performance of one's duties is the ABSOLUTE raison d'etre for having an Armed Force in the pay of the nation's Government. There is no grey area here, there should be no moral dilemma- if you wear the uniform, you are obliged to be prepared to fulfill your part of the unlimited liability contract- to be prepared to kill or be killed, ultimately. This is not Rambonian Bullshit, this is the way it is. Bav 2002, whoever you are, do NOT say to yourself or to anyone else in MY sight picture that you are a soldier while speaking as you do. You are accepting your pay as a soldier under false pretences, and are, therefore, a disgrace to the uniform.

 

[TCBF]

We have people who don't believe they can defend Canada because they have been swallowing propaganda all of their lives to the effect that they cannot defend themselves or their infants.  They think they have to call the police and wait forty minutes.  This "Call 911 And Die" philosophy is just another indicator of the death by suicide of Western Civilization.  Ultimately, what people forget, is that the police exist to protect society, not the individuals in it.  Individual protection is an individual responsibility.  From this confusion "If I can't defend myself, how can I defend my country?"  arises a new generation of Canadians guided by an education system based on moral relativism.  How can you expect to enlist the masses in a fight of good versus evil, when all of their short, pathetic lives they have been taught that there is no good or evil?

"The old ways are dead, the old men are dying, and the young men do not know what it means to be free." - Gabriel Dumont, 1885

Tom

 

[mainerjohnthomas]

    The willingness to don our nations uniform and serve sets us apart from the sheep.  If most of them would rather die than defend themselves, well, that's their right, but certainly not our choice.  Those who have heeded the call to arms, have accepted their responsibility to place themselves in harms way, to take up the defence of this nation, and wield deadly force in that cause.  From the clerk to the infantryman, from the engine wiper to the ship Captain, all are part of the spear: to think that only those at the sharp end who actually pull the trigger (lanyard, button etc) are doing the killing is naive.  The Canadian Armed Forces is a weapon, its purpose is to kill, to destroy the forces that are arrayed against our nation and allies.  We do so only in accordance with the QR&O's, the laws of war, and in accordance with the needs/objectives set forth by our political leaders.  We do not make the decision to go to war, that is the will of the Canadian people as expressed by their elected representatives.  It is ours to employ the lethal force that has been placed in our hands by the will of our nation, and the training of our service, as directed by our commissioned officers.  If you cannot kill in accordance with the lawful orders of your superiors, you are endagering your comrades, and threatening the security of your nation.  The best service you can do your comrades and nation is to withdraw from the forces you cannot serve.  We do not kill sport, but for the defence of our nation, and at the direction of our lawful superiors.  There can be no nobler calling.

 

[dutchie]

Well said, mainerjohnthomas.

 

[PeterLT]

I'd like to add a bit of a twist to this discussion. All the talk here has been on the ability or willingmess to kill for whatever reason in whatever situation. Chew on this bone a bit. A Soldier is not a Soldier because of a willingness to kill. A soldier is a Soldier because of a willingness to die.

This is the "raison d'etre" of all Soldiers throughout history. Soldiers are those who offer themselves to be killed or wounded on behalf of their society so that their society may survive unscathed. Then it becomes society's responsibility to train and equip the Soldier in the hopes that this can be minimized. Troops who do not have the inner willingness to die defending what they hold dear, be it monarch, country, flag, Regiment or simply the fellow next to him are doomed to break and run. 

This a neglected aspect of Soldiering even though there are reminders all around in memorials and medals. IMHO, to be a Soldier, before one asks," Am I willing to kill?", one should first ask," Am I willing to die?"

Peter 

 

[Mad Max]

Listen, man. Of course, as per my post, everyone wearing the uniform must be "willing to die".But don't confuse the basic concept of soldiering with the Canadian Version of events. Let's not be melodramatic about this, but the role of the infantry is "To close with and destroy the enemy, in all terrain, all weather, night or day". It is NOT "To move towards in a threatening manner and then, when they don't run away, to die bravely for all the folks back home". Wake up, son. Nobody joins up to die for his country, although,as per my post, that's part of the deal when push comes to shove.

 

[mainerjohnthomas]

The physical courage to face death is important for a soldier, the moral courage to kill is also important.  It is your job, often, to kill.  It is your job to attempt to stay alive to achieve your objectives, a dead soldier is of no further use.  There are occasions, rarely, where it is necessary  to die to achieve your mission, and then the soldier must face the question of his willingness to die.  In most situations, it is your duty to live.  A dead man calls no contact report, directs no fire, illuminates no targets, kills no foes, and saves no comrades.  On my basic infantry course, our course WO told us that it was our duty to help the other fellow die for his country.  It is an honour to serve, it is an honour to die in the service of your country, but by far the preferable option is to survive your service and return home.

 

[George Wallace]

PeterLT

We don't train our soldiers to die.  We go through great expense to train them to live.

GW

 

[dutchie]

Exactly johnmainer.

To expand on that:

Is it really courage that allows a soldier to act effectively under fire? Or is it successful training? Again, having not been in battle, I can only imagine and speculate. It SEEMS to me that it is partly courage, but also a good portion of it is training. How often have you heard vets, both old and not-so-old, say something like, 'once the firing starts, it's pure adrenaline and training' or 'it was the training that got me through, I didn't think about anything.'

I don't have Webster's in front of me, but my definition of courage is something like this: Putting oneself in harms way to achieve a result, knowing fully the risks of serious injury or death. If a soldier acts without thinking, without assessing the risks, are they courageous or well trained? Same thing goes for cowardice. If a soldier does something to minimize the risk of personal injury/death without thinking, instinctively, are they a coward or poorly trained?

 

[PeterLT]

We don't train our soldiers to die.  We go through great expense to train them to live.

Well, did I ever stir up a hornets nest there!

My point stands. And for those who missed it. To be a Soldier, one must first be willing to be killed in battle. This does not imply in any way that we send untrained folks out there as cannon fodder simply because they are suicidal. It is society's responsibility to train and equip the Soldier to do his job. But an individual must undergo training and be possibly be deployed with the full knowledge that he may die and accept that before proceeding to be effective.

During the first Gulf War I was instructed to brief my section on the importance of having things in place as we were on 3 hours notice to move. Wills, family arrangements, etc all had to be looked after as we were in Lahr and family matters could be a concern. One of my Corporals approached me immediately after the O-Gp and submitted his release. I asked why and he said that nobody told him he'd have to go to war and possibly be killed. It was a shock to him. Hence my point, if you don't accept that very important point before getting involved in soldiering, you will not be effective when the time comes no matter what the training. I believe that we neglect that.

Peter

 

[mainerjohnthomas]

    I remember when we were put on 24hr notice to deploy to the gulf, and filled out our wills and said our goodbyes.  I made my peace with my gods (I'm one of those annoying non christian types), and prepared myself to do my duty.  I won't say I was thrilled with the prospect of getting killed, but in all honesty, after years of training, the urge to test yourself in the fire, to face the ultimate test was strong.  It's not like I was burning with the desire to kill people, actually, that wasn't really in my thoughts.  I wanted to face the test my father faced in the Congo, my Granfather faced at Normandy, his father at Ypres.  I wanted to know if I was equal to the task.  I had the training, I had the knowledge, I had the desire; but did I have what it took for real.  Saddam collapsed before our deployment overseas, we were all worked up for a war that was over.  I do regret not having the chance to fight.  Civilians who hear this paint me as some sort of psycho, but that is civvy BS.  All of us who served prepared ourselves for war in the service to our country, how many of us who never had to do our duty in the face of enemy fire, day after day, week after week, will always wonder if we would have passed that test?