Personal Rationalization of Violence

[c_canuk]

Wow! That's a great question! And how long did it take you to come up with that hypothetical?

less than a second, your point? how do you carry out your orders without thinking about them yet determine their legality?

I mean, its real obvious to a good ol' Robot Boy like myself that I'm WAY outta ma league here!

why the hostility? did I call you a robot?

Working with NATO you could end up under the command of some really interesting "characters" (my word for describing the ever popular second ingredient to hotdogs and I'm not talking lips) from other countries, when I was in Bosnia I wasn't employed by a Canadian Brigade, I was under the Balkins Sig Squadron which was primarily a british formation... some of the officers expected me to Just do what they told me and not consider that 99% weren't even in my chain of command, and were simply empire building behind my COs back at his expense

I merely wondering where the previously mentioned scenario fit in with your "Good Soldiers don't think about their orders" statement, I admit it was a little over the top, but come on, so was your statment.

If I had a sockful of horse crap right now, I'd be electronically slapping you in the face with it.... Troops, Troops, Troops, if you're gonna try this on, make sure you know your size first! My God! NEXT

I don't know what to make of this...


I thought we were having a philosophical debate here

you made an absolute statement that a soldier never thinks about his orders, he just executes them... this is the first time I've EVER heard that statement made and not slapped down while in the forces...

I submit that a soldier has to consider the legality of the orders given to him to determine that they are infact legal orders, you can't define their legality without thinking about them before they are carried out correct?

The "I was just following orders" excuse doesn't hold water when you return from the battle field, and I've been told that it is lawful to refuse to carry out unlawful orders.

Is there an   QR & O that states that a soldier is not to consider the legality of his orders?

 

[Rick_Donald]

If they have a weapon in their hands and it is pointed downrange at you or your buddies shoot him or her. If they have pomegrants in their hands and are trying to sell you them ( or throw them at you) don't shoot at them. Sound all that difficult?

This isn't about deploying to a country you believe we shouldn't be in( I don't think a Canadian soldier has ever felt that anyways) or being prepared to die in battle. The original question was would one be able to look through their sights and shoot at another human being? Very rarely (if ever)  has a Canadian officer ordered his troops to send rounds downrange on innocent civilians so let's get real here. Our code of ethics, our values as Canadians and our altruistic motives in past missions prevent us from murdering innocents. If one does happen to kill a non combatant it is the individuals responsibility and not the CF's.

 

[c_canuk]

If they have a weapon in their hands and it is pointed downrange at you or your buddies shoot him or her. If they have pomegrants in their hands and are trying to sell you them ( or throw them at you) don't shoot at them. Sound all that difficult?

what does that have to do with not thinking about orders? that is an example of situation assesment and self defence. if your Section comander is mildly alergic to pomegrants and orders you to fire a few warning shots, do you do it?

As a siggy, if I caught a bunch of guys stealing my generator during an op, according to my ROEs while in Bosnia I was required to use up to and including deadly force to stop them from stealling the operational asset, I'd better be pretty sure that I can't stop them any other way, just opening up at them upon discovery would be a criminal act. At what point do I open fire? They are stealing my generator which could cause the loss of life of my comrades should they need support and can't reach HQ because I have no power. If there are no ops running should I still pursue the same result or can I follow them while calling the MPS on a Sat phone?

how does "A Good Soldier doesn't think about his orders" fit with that scenario?

 

[Mad Max]

Listen and learn, Siggy... First of all, I at no time said ANYTHING about soldiers following orders- that must have been someone else. Secondly, AGAIN, while it is true we all are entitled to our opinions, and can express them RELATIVELY freely on this forum, some of the opinions or comments- like yours- aren't pertinent or really meaningful. The scenario you painted, much to my amused contempt, was so ridiculous as to be discarded out of hand. I have participated in, lead, assessed, and observed more section attacks in more INFANTRY units and schools than I can count. Watching Saving Private Ryan 67 times doesn't qualify you to do anything more than to be voted "Best New Prospect" at your next Jenny Craig meeting. And BAV, for God's sake, take pbi's advice and stop attempting to put BOTH feet in your mouth at the same time. One at a time will do nicely. Lastly, would anyone out there like to loan Siggy and BAV a thesaurus and/or dictionary so they can compose some semi-literate counter-attacks for the next round? Thanks.

 

[big bad john]

Mad Max what is with the personal slags.  It is not very nice or even a valid way to debate.  Please ease off, remember we have all ages, genders and types on the forum.  I personally don't want my fiancee seeing slags and insults when she comes on here.

 

[Mad Max]

Big Bad John: I do apologize to you if you find what I say or how I say it offensive. I have moderated my language, as I am interested in this forum- but I must tell you that the vast majority of serving soldiers like myself DO NOT find the things I am saying offensive by any means. I am saying things, and saying them in such a way, that polite society would definitely cringe at- BUT THAT DOES NOT MAKE WHAT I AM SAYING, OR HOW I SAY IT incorrect or unnecessary. To all of you out there who find my posts offensive I say this: I write about things I know- not about things I think I know. I AM aggressive in life, and in cyber-space. That's just the way it is. I am literate, opinionated, and, unfortunately, probably speaking on the wrong forum, to the wrong people. I was under the impression that this was a site for military- interested folks. I have never been to a garden party, I don't drink light beer, I don't like Communists or pseudo-intellectuals, and I am DEFINITELY a believer in the possibility of the rebirth of the Canadian Military. I speak as I speak, and I back up what I say. Have a good one, troops!

 

[c_canuk]

Listen and learn, Siggy... First of all, I at no time said ANYTHING about soldiers following orders- that must have been someone else.

looked back through and I can't even find the damned post so either I imagined it or someone edited it out, and since you don't have any edited posts, my apologies since I seem to have offended you. :-[

Secondly, AGAIN, while it is true we all are entitled to our opinions, and can express them RELATIVELY freely on this forum, some of the opinions or comments- like yours- aren't pertinent or really meaningful. The scenario you painted, much to my amused contempt, was so ridiculous as to be discarded out of hand. I have participated in, lead, assessed, and observed more section attacks in more INFANTRY units and schools than I can count.

uh huh, and how many times have you been under the command of a Romanian you know for a fact has personally executed his own troops over matters of discipline? How many times have you been directly attached to a NATO unit no where near any Canadian officer. I'm guessing as an Infanteer you never have, as a siggy this happens quite often to me and mine within NATO and the UN, so you can't assume that your officers have everything together. And as I mentioned earlier had you taken the trouble to read back a few posts you would have noticed a bracketed caveat saying that the chances of a criminal order like that comming from a Canadian officer is so remote it's not not worth thinking about.

Watching Saving Private Ryan 67 times doesn't qualify you to do anything more than to be voted "Best New Prospect" at your next Jenny Craig meeting.

:

I was asking philosophical question about when a soldier needs to think about his orders before executing them which I would have thought would have been old hat to someone with your experience... what of my question? do you agree or disagree that you can't go around blindly following orders, that you have to at least take a fraction of a second to make sure you aren't following an unlawful order? What of my second example of the generator, a handfull of locals in Bosnia would steal anything that wasn't nailed down repaint it and sell it back to NATO, you can't blame them, they gotta feed themselves some how, but what if I caught them stealling an operation asset? Even if I followed the ROEs to the letter and if they pulled a weapon on me after firing a warning shot, would I be successful in defending my actions? I would hope so but god knows if the media got a hold of the details (I can see the headlines now triggerhappy Canadian Cowboy kills father of three over misunderstanding to the ownership of a generator".

reading through this thread a new recruit or potential might get the impression that you are in favour of troops being mindless automatons. is this fact or not, please discuss rather than attempt to call my experience or lack of it into question which is completely transparent to me as not dealing with the issue at hand and has little bearing in any case.

And for everyone's dignity please stop taking everything said as a personal attack on yourself, one acting so thin skinned is not becomming of someone of your experiance and stature, personally I think you are pretty amusing but try sprinkling a few smilies in there so others know you are joking maybe

this is a spirited debate, and you left mothers out of it so I'm assuming this is in the manner of two members having a louder discussion over a few wobbly pops at the mess.

 

[big bad john]

My problem is the personal insults.  You do have the right to believe what you will and to state it.  But it is how you state it that matters.  Remember that there are no age limits here.  You can knock an argument, but it is not right to knock the person that you are debating.

Enough said, my point has obviously been taken.  Thank you

 

[Infantryman]

I need to address two comments...

"locals in Bosnia would steal anything that wasn't nailed down repaint it and sell it back to NATO, you can't blame them, they gotta feed themselves some how,"

What do you mean, you can't blame them?  Can you blame someone who breaks into your house in Canada, maybe he's had a rough life growing up.  Can you blame a drunk driver for hitting you, maybe he's just an addict who has lost control of his impulses...  of course you can blame them.  There are rules, and when people break them, those charged with enforcing the rules have to, that's how the system keeps working.

Also,
" but what if I caught them stealling an operation asset? Even if I followed the ROEs to the letter and if they pulled a weapon on me after firing a warning shot, would I be successful in defending my actions? I would hope so but god knows if the media got a hold of the details (I can see the headlines now triggerhappy Canadian Cowboy kills father of three over misunderstanding to the ownership of a generator"."

Now, the reason for having ROEs is completely lost if soldiers don't believe they can enforce them.  We have ROEs not to protect the potential innocent victims, but so that the appropriate violence and force can be applied.  The ROEs are there to protect the soldiers not their potential victims.  They give soldiers legitimate orders to follow and if they are robust enough, soldiers should not have to hesitate.  I completely understand we do endless scenarios where we what if things to death before deployments, but that is not so that we can keep what if-ing when faced with the situation, it's so we can act without wasting precious time when the situation arises.

 

[Mad Max]

Big Bad John: No problem. Siggy: I will not engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man. As far as ROMANIAN OFFICERS SHOOTING PEOPLE??!! Give me a friggin' break man! Don't confuse your fevered wannabe soldiers imaginings with real life! You are a Reserve Siggy for God's sake! A Corporal! It's obviously way past your medication time, so, as Dennis Miller used to say: I AM OUTTA HERE!

 

[TCBF]

Pomegranates: is this one of those Monty Python Defending-yourself-against-someone-attacking-you-with-a-banana-skits?

As for taking your generator: you go over to stop them, even just stand in the way.  When they try to kill you: SELF DEFENCE, you slot them.  

Tom

 

[c_canuk]

What do you mean, you can't blame them?   Can you blame someone who breaks into your house in Canada, maybe he's had a rough life growing up.   Can you blame a drunk driver for hitting you, maybe he's just an addict who has lost control of his impulses...   of course you can blame them.   There are rules, and when people break them, those charged with enforcing the rules have to, that's how the system keeps working.

Well yes I'm going to stop them, but can you honestly say that you wouldn't steal something to feed your family if you knew not much was going to be done to stop you? especially when some of us support our families doing what we do?

Now, the reason for having ROEs is completely lost if soldiers don't believe they can enforce them.   We have ROEs not to protect the potential innocent victims, but so that the appropriate violence and force can be applied.   The ROEs are there to protect the soldiers not their potential victims.   They give soldiers legitimate orders to follow and if they are robust enough, soldiers should not have to hesitate.   I completely understand we do endless scenarios where we what if things to death before deployments, but that is not so that we can keep what if-ing when faced with the situation, it's so we can act without wasting precious time when the situation arises.

I agree, but the issue is at what point can I apply shooting at them... say I fired a warning shot and they laughed at me knowing the ROEs I'm bound too normally but don't realize that the generator is an operational asset, and just keep loading the generator in the truck, do I shoot then, or wait till it's in the truck, or till they are moving the truck, or when they first lay hands on it... the ROEs don't specify that so I'm gonna have to make a judgment call on that at the time right?   which is my point, you do sometimes need to think about what your orders are.

Mad Max... I was hoping to hear what your position is on how much thought a Soldier has put into following orders involving potentially killing someone who is not an immediate threat to you, but if you're not interested in enlightening us so be it. *shrug* anyone else have an opinion?

 

[Franko]

My problem is the personal insults.  You do have the right to believe what you will and to state it.  But it is how you state it that matters.  Remember that there are no age limits here.  You can knock an argument, but it is not right to knock the person that you are debating.

Enough said, my point has obviously been taken.  Thank you

Well said BBJ....

MADMAX...couldn't agree more. If you have a job to do...do it to the letter. That's what ROEs are for.

C_Canuk,

I was asking philosophical question

Don't expect a philosophical answer out of troops that have been there and done that....over and over again! You obviously have never been in a situation like the one you pose.....so why ask it? To spark a debate?

I do see you point...to a degree. A soldier must be able to think on his feet quickly and interpret the ROEs for the situation he's facing, however....moral delemas and personal ethics have to be put aside during operations, especially if a mission objective is in peril.

Personally if I were faced with that situation....he'd be face first in the dirt with hand zap straped, slightly bruised to get the point across. Agression and demeanor is the tools by which a soldier gets the job done without shooting....not just asking people to stop what they are doing. If it escalates beyond that...again ROEs to the rescue.

TCBF,

As for taking your generator: you go over to stop them, even just stand in the way.  When they try to kill you: SELF DEFENCE, you slot them

Couldn't agree more.

Infantryman,

Now, the reason for having ROEs is completely lost if soldiers don't believe they can enforce them.  We have ROEs not to protect the potential innocent victims, but so that the appropriate violence and force can be applied.  The ROEs are there to protect the soldiers not their potential victims.  They give soldiers legitimate orders to follow and if they are robust enough, soldiers should not have to hesitate.

'nuff said.  

Regards

Who here takes poli sci?   :

 

[Chags]

I agree, but the issue is at what point can I apply shooting at them... say I fired a warning shot and they laughed at me knowing the ROEs I'm bound too normally but don't realize that the generator is an operational asset, and just keep loading the generator in the truck, do I shoot then, or wait till it's in the truck, or till they are moving the truck, or when they first lay hands on it... the ROEs don't specify that so I'm gonna have to make a judgment call on that at the time right?   which is my point, you do sometimes need to think about what your orders are.

Actually, your ROEs would specify exactly when you can increase the amount of force required.  You talk about soldiers having to think about a situation before they act..  this type of situation is completely black and white.  Either this person is violating the ROEs or they are not.  In this case, no thinking is required.  Follow the drills, and what you practiced during your TMST...  that's why you do it prior to going into a war zone.. or other.  :threat:

 

[c_canuk]

Don't expect a philosophical answer out of troops that have been there and done that....over and over again! You obviously have never been in a situation like the one you pose.....so why ask it? To spark a debate?

I suppose you are right, and no I've never had to point my weapon at anyone while on tour, however when you spend 16 hours a day staring at a ceiling waiting for a sat link to drop or something your mind wanders...

the scenario I had in mind was that I had no backup and there were a few of them against just me, I don't have any experiance hogtying combatants, so I'm obviously not gonna try it on possibly armed individules, I'm gonna try to avoid killing them but If I can't scare them off in the scenario I'm gonna have to open fire, when if comes down to some strangers I don't know and my comrades, even as disagreeable as some (mad Max), my comrades win hands down no contest.

To spark debate... not really, just wanted to hear a few things I think confirmed by those with much more experiance than I do... I suppose the question sounds pretty cherry of me, but hey, if I'm willing to look like a cherry and ask the question, the least someone I'm asking could take 30 seconds and give me a straight forward answer without bringing my lack of experiance in dealing with what the question was about, or demeaning those in other trades or time commitments.

 

[c_canuk]

Actually, your ROEs would specify exactly when you can increase the amount of force required.   You talk about soldiers having to think about a situation before they act..   this type of situation is completely black and white.   Either this person is violating the ROEs or they are not.   In this case, no thinking is required.   Follow the drills, and what you practiced during your TMST...   that's why you do it prior to going into a war zone.. or other.    :threat:

well yeah, but the ROEs say things like "once all other options are exhausted, use of deadly force is authorized" well who's interpritation is all other options? mine? ???

 

[Infantryman]

C_Canuk,
Alright,  this is exactly the mindless what if-ing I was talking about.   When do I shoot, once the center of mass of the generator is on the truck, or once the he puts it in gear.  These questions have no value as you'd have to define all the parameteres before judgement on that particular situation can be made.  That being said, let me humour you:

Your ROEs automatically include self defence, so if, as in your first situation, a beligerant pulls a weapon on you, then BANG!  No questions.  If you hesitate while wondering whether he will fire a warning shot or if he has loaded, readied, or aimed the weapon, then you're too late, and you'll feel like a pretty big failure if he shoots the guy next to you.

Your ROEs may or may not state that mission essential kit can be defended with deadly force.  If it does, it has to state what the mission essential kit is.  Assuming that the generator is mission-essential, and that you have been given permission to use deadly force to protect it, then, as long as it's the only option open to you (since we're in the make believe world, we'll say that you can't intervene in any other way than with small arms fire) then shoot as soon as the generator is threatened.  It's as simple as that.

I do not imply that soldiers can't think, but I do imply that hesitation behind the trigger is no good.  The calculation should be, do ROEs give me permission to do this, yes-> fire, no-> don't fire.  Done!

And as to whether I'd steal if I was hungry and poor.  Maybe I would, but I would expect to be shot if I decided to steal from armed soldiers...  If the locals don't have that common sense, maybe it's because our posture is not aggressive enough.

Finally, going back to your example, if you have ever held approved ROEs in your hands, you should know that warning shots are considered one of the steps of escalation towards deadly force, so you should never fire one unless you know you are allowed to follow it with a round in the center of mass.

 

[big bad john]

well yeah, but the ROEs say things like "once all other options are exhausted, use of deadly force is authorized" well who's interpretation is all other options? mine? ???

ROE Rule 1) If they are trying to kill me or mine or those I am defending RETURN FIRE!  If you have to think about it, please have the courtesy to ensure that your will is made out and that your affairs are in order.

I really wouldn't want to serve with you, I would never know if my back was covered.

 

[TCBF]

Hints:

1. it is better to be tried by twelve than carried by eight.

2. i would rather go to my court martial than your funeral.

Tom

 

[Franko]

Everyone thinks they know the right thing to do in a given situation.....

You don't know what you'll do until you're in it....up to your neck at that.

The troops here on this site are members who have been in that situation or something very similar. They have served through some of the most stressful missions that have occured in the past 15 years....I'm talking UNPROFOR, Somolia, Rwanda etc.

They did what they had to do and people who come on here and basically chastize their decisions because it's not the "ethical" thing to do usually get pounced on....quick.

Next time it may be worthwhile to pose a question and listen to the responses and try to see it from their point of view. Remember....they have probably done exactly what you posed.

As for the rest of the troops who think that the thought police are watching....that is far from the truth. We only step in when it gets out of hand.

I personnaly hate what the CF has turned into over the past 16 years...we've lost our warfighting spirit.

It's going to take a long time to get it back....whether the PC granola eaters like it or not...it will come back, it has to.

Regards