I agree that fighting an invading enemy, on your own soil, as was the case for many willing and unwilling soldiers of WWI and WWII, was the right thing to do. I also appreciate that the armed forces must have a strict hierarchy that follows orders in order for the organization to function effectively.
I am worried though, that when an enemy is not so clear and obvious, this line of reasoning can be used by unscrupulous leaders to further their own goals. When the threat the "enemy" poses is so vague and unclear, as is the case for the conflicts that we (the US; I am an American and can only speak for the US), have been involved with since WWII, it becomes harder to swallow that all of the deaths our soldiers cause are anything but murder and volunteering to be placed in such a position is anything but honorable. Thus, the analogy of a mob boss and a thug.
I have never followed that logic. If a mob boss orders a henchman to kill a rival, who should be prosecuted for murder? I would feel that it should be both. I cannot see how it should be the mob boss and not the henchman. I also struggle to see how the henchman should be honored.
I am worried though, that when an enemy is not so clear and obvious, this line of reasoning can be used by unscrupulous leaders to further their own goals. When the threat the "enemy" poses is so vague and unclear, as is the case for the conflicts that we (the US; I am an American and can only speak for the US), have been involved with since WWII, it becomes harder to swallow that all of the deaths our soldiers cause are anything but murder and volunteering to be placed in such a position is anything but honorable. Thus, the analogy of a mob boss and a thug.