Is it Honorable to be in the Military?(steve-patterson.com)
steve-patterson.com
Is it Honorable to be in the Military?
http://steve-patterson.com/is-it-honorable-to-be-in-the-military/
9 comments
It was pretty frustrating to see the allusion to the German army of the second world war.
There was, if my understanding is correct, a large difference between the rank-and-file and officer corps of the Germany army, and the more political SS/SD personnel. Indeed, the former tended to have older aristocratic connections and didn't particularly care for the party.
Had the author made that distinction it would've been helpful, or had they perhaps instead used some of the Japanese or Soviet forces as an example it would've been better.
There was, if my understanding is correct, a large difference between the rank-and-file and officer corps of the Germany army, and the more political SS/SD personnel. Indeed, the former tended to have older aristocratic connections and didn't particularly care for the party.
Had the author made that distinction it would've been helpful, or had they perhaps instead used some of the Japanese or Soviet forces as an example it would've been better.
It's true that the original army command wasn't a big Hitler fan, but it was still an enabler. Like all the aristocracy who looked down on Hitler and thought they could use (and contain) him.
The thing with the German army ("Wehrmacht") is that for decades Germans told themselves that sure, SA/SS were evil and did horrible things, but the Wehrmacht was "clean", so granddaddy never did anything wrong, he was only defending his country.
Then in the nineties, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wehrmachtsausstellung came along, showing how the common Wehrmacht committed its share of atrocities.
When I went there with school I actually had my grandmother calling me on the phone, in tears, telling me that her husband was no murderer.
This exhibition ripped apart a few lies we Germans had told ourselves about our honorable Wehrmacht.
The thing with the German army ("Wehrmacht") is that for decades Germans told themselves that sure, SA/SS were evil and did horrible things, but the Wehrmacht was "clean", so granddaddy never did anything wrong, he was only defending his country.
Then in the nineties, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wehrmachtsausstellung came along, showing how the common Wehrmacht committed its share of atrocities.
When I went there with school I actually had my grandmother calling me on the phone, in tears, telling me that her husband was no murderer.
This exhibition ripped apart a few lies we Germans had told ourselves about our honorable Wehrmacht.
> Had the author made that distinction it would've been helpful, or had they perhaps instead used some of the Japanese or Soviet forces as an example it would've been better.
But even for these forces, I think the claim that they are all to be regarded as evil goes too far. Were there individual evil Japanese, Soviet, and German soldiers? To be sure—but there were also evil American ones. More importantly, does serving an evil government make you evil? Since 'evil' is determined, as history is written, by the winners, this would seem to amount to the claim that being honourable largely amounts to picking the winning side in advance. (I think positing instead an absolute definition of 'evil', as a disagree-r may be tempted initially to do, is probably untenable.)
But even for these forces, I think the claim that they are all to be regarded as evil goes too far. Were there individual evil Japanese, Soviet, and German soldiers? To be sure—but there were also evil American ones. More importantly, does serving an evil government make you evil? Since 'evil' is determined, as history is written, by the winners, this would seem to amount to the claim that being honourable largely amounts to picking the winning side in advance. (I think positing instead an absolute definition of 'evil', as a disagree-r may be tempted initially to do, is probably untenable.)
A soldier is honorable IF:
1. He fights for a cause which will not reward him personally. > For example, an ISIS fighter stands to gain more money, more fame, and more women than he could expect through any other means. Thus it is dis-honorable by modern standards.
2. The second is the means of accomplishing the mission. > The Iraq conflict has and remains a sectarian civil war. The war crimes of both Sunni and Shia outclass and outnumber any Coalition acts. Arough figure: 10-1 civilian casualty figures of internal violence vs American.
Would you hate Great Britain if she had sent troops to fight for the Union in the American Civil war? Even if it resulted in some civilian casualties?
1. He fights for a cause which will not reward him personally. > For example, an ISIS fighter stands to gain more money, more fame, and more women than he could expect through any other means. Thus it is dis-honorable by modern standards.
2. The second is the means of accomplishing the mission. > The Iraq conflict has and remains a sectarian civil war. The war crimes of both Sunni and Shia outclass and outnumber any Coalition acts. Arough figure: 10-1 civilian casualty figures of internal violence vs American.
Would you hate Great Britain if she had sent troops to fight for the Union in the American Civil war? Even if it resulted in some civilian casualties?
I find it interesting that he uses the sanctions against Iraq to build his case about the immorality of service members who fought in Iraq, as the sanctions predated the war and ended when the war did -- the war was the cause of the end of the sanctions he decries.
(I served two tours in Iraq, so I am not dispassionate about the rest of his argument.)
(I served two tours in Iraq, so I am not dispassionate about the rest of his argument.)
For what it's worth, the author discusses honour or dishonour, and seems mostly to shy away from morality and immorality (mentioning the words only in a context in which he intends to dismiss their fitness for argumentation).
"Yes, makin' mock o' uniforms that guard you while you sleep
Is cheaper than them uniforms, an' they're starvation cheap;"
Is cheaper than them uniforms, an' they're starvation cheap;"
I'm calling BS. I stopped reading after you wrote about Nazi Soldiers and Soviet Soldiers because that was the point I was sure you are a fool. Specifically gems like, "Nazi soldiers as not only dishonorable, but downright evil" and "unless we are willing to defend the Soviet soldier, who dutifully executed the orders of Stalin, we cannot pardon the American soldier" show how little you understand about the realities of life under Fascist/Despotic rule.
I certainly don't want to be an apologist for the terrible atrocities crafted and committed by the men on the ground of a war, but your stance is naive. You seem to have imagined-up to yourself Evil armies, populated solely by Evil men who could not wait to murder, rape, and torture. Then you conclude, "You are a soldier fighting for evil men, therefore you are evil". This is inaccurate.
The sad truth is a majority of Nazi and Soviet soldiers were average people and not that different from you or I. Almost none of these soldiers had any choice in the matter to fight for these Tyrannical Leaders. Both armies were populated mainly through conscriptions and drafts. In fact (and through my Russian family members, I know this to be true), you were guaranteed to be executed (and your family) if you did not join the army and serve obediently.
And you do not seem to understand the importance of Moral leadership, military and governmental, to the morality of the troops. What happens when you're ordered, under pain-of-death, to execute an evil order? You can resist, for which you are either executed immediately or more likely "disappeared" without the opportunity to be a martyr to inspire your comrades. Do not forget, your family will also meet the same fate: e.g. Stalin's Order 270. This environment eliminates the effect and actions of good men by killing them, corrupting them, or cowing them to the point of compliance.
Admittedly, I could only stomach the first few sections of your writing. But that was enough to offend me with your lack of understanding of history and humanity. It's easy sit in your comfy world, with freedom and a democratic government and call those poor souls "Evil", "Dishonorable", etc. You have these gifts out of dumb luck. If you were born in some other time or land without those gifts, you would likely find yourself walking in their shoes doing the things they did. That is sad and terrifying, but likely true.
There are bad men that serve in the American Military. But most of them are very normal people and a significant portion of them serve with honor. Our military is volunteer, which means the members had a choice to be there. In addition, our governmental and military leaders are moral for the most part. That makes it radically different from these Boogey-Man Armies you're equating them with.
You are comparing Apples to Oranges and doing a rather terrible job at it.
I certainly don't want to be an apologist for the terrible atrocities crafted and committed by the men on the ground of a war, but your stance is naive. You seem to have imagined-up to yourself Evil armies, populated solely by Evil men who could not wait to murder, rape, and torture. Then you conclude, "You are a soldier fighting for evil men, therefore you are evil". This is inaccurate.
The sad truth is a majority of Nazi and Soviet soldiers were average people and not that different from you or I. Almost none of these soldiers had any choice in the matter to fight for these Tyrannical Leaders. Both armies were populated mainly through conscriptions and drafts. In fact (and through my Russian family members, I know this to be true), you were guaranteed to be executed (and your family) if you did not join the army and serve obediently.
And you do not seem to understand the importance of Moral leadership, military and governmental, to the morality of the troops. What happens when you're ordered, under pain-of-death, to execute an evil order? You can resist, for which you are either executed immediately or more likely "disappeared" without the opportunity to be a martyr to inspire your comrades. Do not forget, your family will also meet the same fate: e.g. Stalin's Order 270. This environment eliminates the effect and actions of good men by killing them, corrupting them, or cowing them to the point of compliance.
Admittedly, I could only stomach the first few sections of your writing. But that was enough to offend me with your lack of understanding of history and humanity. It's easy sit in your comfy world, with freedom and a democratic government and call those poor souls "Evil", "Dishonorable", etc. You have these gifts out of dumb luck. If you were born in some other time or land without those gifts, you would likely find yourself walking in their shoes doing the things they did. That is sad and terrifying, but likely true.
There are bad men that serve in the American Military. But most of them are very normal people and a significant portion of them serve with honor. Our military is volunteer, which means the members had a choice to be there. In addition, our governmental and military leaders are moral for the most part. That makes it radically different from these Boogey-Man Armies you're equating them with.
You are comparing Apples to Oranges and doing a rather terrible job at it.
Depends on what you are doing in the Military.
"German soldiers" is probably a better description than "Nazi soldiers", because they were serving the state, not the political party.
Honor is a personal thing, not something that you can slap on a large group of people once and for all just because they wear the same uniform.
It is honorable to save (relatively) innocent people, whether from natural disasters or from other people.
It is dishonorable to be someone from whom other people need to be saved.
Simply joining and remaining in the military may or may not have anything to do with the above. You stand on the honorable side when you rescue victims of a terrorist attack and kill, incapacitate, or otherwise restrain the perpetrators so that they cannot harm anyone else. You stand on the dishonorable side when you then go on to bomb a village full of civilians.
War sucks because once you get involved in one, it's hard to win without doing at least some dishonorable things, at least by mistake if not intentionally.
On the other hand, I think the armed forces of the world are at their best when they are mobilized for disaster relief. The manpower, order, and logistical competence of the military can make them extremely effective first responders when a hurricane or earthquake strikes, although NGOs are rapidly improving, too. In a world that is increasingly ravaged by an unstable climate, I see a an opportunity for militaries to do more honorable things than ever before.
It is honorable to save (relatively) innocent people, whether from natural disasters or from other people.
It is dishonorable to be someone from whom other people need to be saved.
Simply joining and remaining in the military may or may not have anything to do with the above. You stand on the honorable side when you rescue victims of a terrorist attack and kill, incapacitate, or otherwise restrain the perpetrators so that they cannot harm anyone else. You stand on the dishonorable side when you then go on to bomb a village full of civilians.
War sucks because once you get involved in one, it's hard to win without doing at least some dishonorable things, at least by mistake if not intentionally.
On the other hand, I think the armed forces of the world are at their best when they are mobilized for disaster relief. The manpower, order, and logistical competence of the military can make them extremely effective first responders when a hurricane or earthquake strikes, although NGOs are rapidly improving, too. In a world that is increasingly ravaged by an unstable climate, I see a an opportunity for militaries to do more honorable things than ever before.
I rather disagree with this, least of all the conclusion that there do not exist honorable soldiers. There are several other parts to this which, taken alone, also fail to ring true.
The blanket assertion that humans aren't meant to kill other humans is pretty well debunked by thousands of years of bloody history--our current trends and wants notwithstanding.
The characterization of people willingly submitting themselves into the hierarchy of the military as weak-willed is somewhat poor as well: that same critique basically is admissible against anyone serving in government or a corporation (indeed, the entire notion of a company derives from the compaignie of European history).
I think David Drake had perhaps the most useful thing to say about the men and women serving on the sharp end: basically, whenever you deploy a soldier with a weapon someplace, you create a policymaker--and if you are concerned about what sort of policies they'll be making, the time to do something about it is before you send them out.
The blanket assertion that humans aren't meant to kill other humans is pretty well debunked by thousands of years of bloody history--our current trends and wants notwithstanding.
The characterization of people willingly submitting themselves into the hierarchy of the military as weak-willed is somewhat poor as well: that same critique basically is admissible against anyone serving in government or a corporation (indeed, the entire notion of a company derives from the compaignie of European history).
I think David Drake had perhaps the most useful thing to say about the men and women serving on the sharp end: basically, whenever you deploy a soldier with a weapon someplace, you create a policymaker--and if you are concerned about what sort of policies they'll be making, the time to do something about it is before you send them out.
[deleted]
This seems to be a key idea in his argument, given that it is, as he says, the "simplest, most extreme case". However, I'm not so sure that this is true. Do most people view Nazi soldiers—that is, boots-on-the-ground troops, not leaders—as evil? I've always understood the historical consensus, to which I am sympathetic, to be that they were subject to a misguided ideology, but not evil.
Further, even this assumes that people are willingly fighting for the country in whose military they serve. This was not at all true in Germany, and has failed to be true in the US, as well. In fact, arguably, even when no-one has been drafted, many people have joined in the military under the assumption that they will never serve—in some cases, a factual error, but surely not one to which honour or dishonour can attach. Two non-rhetorical questions: is it dishonourable to serve in the military only to avoid legal repercussions? What about more severe repercussions—say, bodily harm? What if those repercussions are to be visited on others—say, one's family?