Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

We are talking about the actual killing of people, REAL people, not numbers, not enemies... and making rules about it?! You didn't obey the correct rules, and he is dead. If only you had obeyed the rules it would have all been fine, right? Not if you ask his pissed off sons who ten years later will be planting roadside bombs. What rules.

Animal survival instinct is still an important, if not the most important defining thing when people are under threat of death. Nobody being shot at who is armed and in a foreign country would think twice about what laws there are about shooting back. Solution, don't shoot back? HA Yeah I'm sure plenty of adrenalined up nervous 18 yr olds who have been a gun and a good brainwashing for aggression will stop to think about that. The level of aggression I noticed in my brother when he returned from his 8 year tour has still not subsided 4 years after. He takes offense to EVERYTHING he can find. Nowadays its on a conversational level not a physically aggressive level... but he never used to be like that. I have talked to him about it many times, but that feeling of being threatened and not "allowed" to do anything about it contradicts everything in our nature. If I was in an immediate situation where I would have to break the legalities to save my own skin I would question the laws for a microsecond and then save my own skin. I'm pretty sure every human being would do the same. If you are firing an AK at me I'm not going to stop to check your papers, sorry.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
That wasn't live on TV watching smartbombs go off via satellite on the nightly news era though.

I'm pretty sure the rules of war need to be a bit brought up to speed with modern situations.

They cover the current given situation. Terrorism and Insurgency are not new concepts. You can find terrorism going all the way back to the 1st Century. Ancient jewish extremists did what Islamic extremists are doing now to the Romans. The Hashshashin engaged in terrorism in the 12th and 13th. Insurgency is just a form of rebellion.

When one team doesn't play by the rules, it kind of necessitates the rules being changed as far as what counts as a "combatant".

No. Noncombatant and Combatant are clearly defined and have existed since the dawn of warfare well before the 1800's. Just because we're using different terms to describe them doesn't make what they are new. What a combatant is is clearly defined; An individual who participates in combat. Noncombatant is clearly defined. It's the exact opposite. There's nothing to change.

Heck I'd be happy if being a combatant in the first place was considered "unlawful".

There is a thing called justifiable homicide, or killing in self defense. The concept of the modern lawful combatant was a extension of this to describe individuals engaged in violent action at their nations request and was agreed upon in international law to protect these individuals from reprisals due to matters beyond their control. Soldiers don't get to pick wars, they just get saddled with them. One is a lawful combatant so long as one engages in lawful conduct, lawful conduct again being something agreed upon in international law that governs war.

You're problem isn't with soldiers or combatants or how international law has classified them it's with war. News flash: Soldiers don't like it either. Nobody really does. Hence, the creation of international laws that govern its conduct.

Since that is quite unlikely and put a lot of gun-happy people out of a job,

Sweeping generalizations about soldiers being gun-happy doesn't help you. Most people don't join the army because they want to tot guns. In fact screening tests during recruitment are meant to phase out such people.

I'll settle for the next best thing: lax the rules enough for people to fight each other as viciously as they want so everyone can kill each other with impunity and feth the morality of who is or is not allowed to be killed, who is or is not allowed to call someone a sandnigger as they throw them out of their home at gunpoint, or feel free to speak their mind about feeling bad about doing so. YEEE HAAAW.

You watch too many action movies I think.

If you don't want to be called on being an donkey-cave don't do donkey-cave things.

Right...

I can't speak to the UK military, but I think in the case of the US military that most of the "darkness" originates not in the soldiers, but the citizenry. In regards to Iraq, we have a case of a bunch of chickenhawks supported by warmongers who willfully turn a blind eye to the immorality of the war. Do US soldiers engage in behavior that is despicable? Certainly, and its no surprise: the human mind isn't meant to engage in the long-term cognitive dissonance that immoral and unjust war creates, and the violence that soldiers must engage is corruptive. This is why those who really support our troops insist they not be used frivolously and to poor ends. Our soldiers volunteer out of idealism, and our leaders need to have that in the forefront of their mind when considering military action.

But I strongly suspect that most of the real horror stories coming out of Iraq have more to do with corruption in the Iraq Army and the legions of poorly-trained foreign mercenaries we have fighting under our flag.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Back to oversight, I get the impression that the reason such principles were created in the US was a profound belief that nothing good can come out of war, that militaries were dangerous and threatening toward democracy and needed to be kept out and controlled: I would take that as the primary reason that early American history does not see a strong military.

No part of that paragraph actually represents how the world works or worked previously.

Really? The idea that a military need not be a standing force didn't "represent how the world worked previously"? You're saying this about an era where standing European armies were a relatively new phenomenon; armies were raised when they were needed (at a considerable cost) and disbanded when they weren't... The US operated on a similar principle after its birth.

LordofHats wrote:

Henners91 wrote:I'll grant you that the principles of civilian oversight are sound and quite respectable in the US, but I can't help but feel that there has been a militarisation of society in the latter half of the last century... I'm not necessarily talking about ol' Ike's Military-Industrial Complex but rather attitudes... that seeking service makes one respectable.

This is not unique to the last half century. It's true of civilizations throughout history. It isn't limited to military service. Many societies and groups have viewed public service as very respectable.

My opinions on the matter are likely influenced by my opposition to the Iraq War but I just couldn't help but feel that willingly surrendering your freedom to choose isn't something that should be unconditionally encouraged.

You don't lose any constitutionally protected rights in the US Military. You're rights may be restricted by the nature of military service but you don't lose them. This is a myth perpetuated by people who've never read the code of conduct.

What you say about Sassoon is the great example of this: Here was a man who saw the fighting of WWI for the slaughter it was, who believed the war was being waged incompetently, a view I'm sure that most modern observers with hindsight would support: And yet you say he should've swung from a gallows. I believe he was fully aware of the gravity of what he was doing but realised that the slaughter of WWI was a worthy cause to try stop.

Desertion is desertion. Good intentions don't factor into a matter of law. Either it was broken or it wasn't. When you start making exceptions because "he did it for a good reason" the entire concept of law and justice loses its purpose and system loses credibility.

Last term I had to study Hannah Arendt and she wrote of an interesting principle: She claimed that those who kill war criminals on behalf of government aren't worthy of praise because they are protected by said governments... there's no risk, however, a man who goes vigilante and kills said war criminals is a hero... Why does this relate to our discussion? Because her point was that when one takes personal risk to one's own safety then you are showing how worthy you hold your cause to be...

Yes. I can see how a soldier is not a risk at all. After all, President Obama WILL jump in front of poor Private Ricky and take that bullet for him. The Government doesn't protect soldiers in the way this statement seems to suggest. Quite the opposite actually.

the fact that Sassoon committed such heinous crimes as desertion and dereliction of duty just makes him more of a hero in my eyes because he was aware of the gravity of what he was doing:

I can understand where you're coming from. But most deserters don't desert because they think something horrible is happening. They desert to save their own butts.

Just as how I would consider a soldier who deserted from Iraq to be a bigger hero than a man in the same unit who persisted in his immoral actions.

Not every soldier commits war crimes. What immoral actions?

Back to oversight, I get the impression that the reason such principles were created in the US was a profound belief that nothing good can come out of war, that militaries were dangerous and threatening toward democracy and needed to be kept out and controlled:

Less to do with the threat of a military to democracy, which a military is not inherently threatening to a democracy, and more to do with fear of big government. The first 150 years of US history were heavily influenced by fears of the big mean government. Not the military in particular.

I would take that as the primary reason that early American history does not see a strong military.

Up until WWII-onwards, and after the Articles of Confederation, the US Military was about the same as any other. It was smaller than most but back then the US was somewhat isolationist and had little interest in events beyond it's boarders. So long as the world left American alone, America didn't really care. This changed with Manifest Destiny and post Civil War America. The US followed world suit in the rise of nationalism. Nothing really all that different about it.

About public service: You should've seen the looks I got down the pub from the older men when I said I wanted to be a civil servant

About rights: Does a serviceman have the right to refuse to allow himself to be deployed into a conflict? Of course I would say signing up whilst a conflict is raging is a conscious decision to enter it, but let's say you're in the army in peace time and you find a war morally reprehensible? An invasion of a sovereign country to replace a democratically-elected government for example... If you can tell me that a soldier can lay down his arms and not face prosecution then you'll sink my argument dead in the water.

Sassoon violated the law, yes, he knew there were consequences... I haven't suggested that the military's laws can be conceivably changed, that's probably not possible... But I still think one can consider those that consider a situation grave enough to warrant "facing the music" heroes, no?

I wasn't talking about soldiers when I referred to Arendt: She made those remarks about Mossad going after Nazis and Nazi-sympathisers: Pretty minimal risk. It's an example.

What you say about deserters... granted, and I shan't respect a simple coward... if he makes a cock and bull story about war crimes I might fall for it, but I'm not going to blanketly suspect every conscientious soldier.

By men who persist in immoral actions, I refer to those who are aware of war crimes/are involved in them and do nothing, as opposed to a deserter.

In regards to Iraq, we have a case of a bunch of chickenhawks supported by warmongers who willfully turn a blind eye to the immorality of the war.

Immorality of the war is to blame? I suggest studying some more history. Whether or not a war is moral or immoral cannot be connected to whether or not "darkness" takes place. All wars are dark. It's in its very nature.

Do US soldiers engage in behavior that is despicable? Certainly, and its no surprise: the human mind isn't meant to engage in the long-term cognitive dissonance that war creates

Fixed that for you.

Gailbraithe wrote:the legions of poorly-trained foreign mercenaries we have fighting under our flag.

Where do people get this kind of information The US government doesn't hire mercenaries. Mercenaries in fact are not lawful combatants under International Law, hence why we don't hire them.

While similar, PMC's and Mercenaries are not the same thing despite all the talk that they are. Most PMC's are made up of ex-military. Most PMC's hired by the US, are Americans. They usually have more experience and better training than general troops. They DO NOT participate in combat operations. PMC's are a grey area in terms of what is and is not lawful, but there are things they just don't do.

Does a serviceman have the right to refuse to allow himself to be deployed into a conflict?

It's called not joining the Army. What did you think you were going to do? Party with ladies who love a man in uniform and sit on your butt for your entire service?

Of course I would say signing up whilst a conflict is raging is a conscious decision to enter it, but let's say you're in the army in peace time and you find a war morally reprehensible?

It's called don't join the army. Once you've joined you're held by contract. You can't lawfully breach a contract unless the contract itself is unlawful. The contracts that hold a soldier to service are not unlawful.

Why would you be a soldier in peace time and find a war morally reprehensible? It's peace time what war? The war of another nation? Nothing in the code of conduct says you can't protest another nations war, or even your own nation's war. Active duty personnel can legally protest the War in Iraq so long as they do not do so in uniform and do not act as an agent of the armed forces while doing it.

An invasion of a sovereign country to replace a democratically-elected government for example... If you can tell me that a soldier can lay down his arms and not face prosecution then you'll sink my argument dead in the water.

You sank your own argument because it makes no sense. A soldier cannot be a soldier and then when it suddenly becomes inconvenient to be one, decide not to be a soldier anymore. It doesn't work that way. You know what is expected going in. You can't sign a piece of paper saying you've been informed of what is expected and then decide that you don't like it anymore when it all goes south and cry "I object."

Sassoon violated the law, yes, he knew there were consequences... I haven't suggested that the military's laws can be conceivably changed, that's probably not possible... But I still think one can consider those that consider a situation grave enough to warrant "facing the music" heroes, no?

There's this thing called discipline. Without it an armed military cannot function effectively. The codes of conduct and the DoMJ exist to enforce discipline.

If you don't like war, DONT join the military. It's that simple. In any job, you don't get to choose in this capacity. You have a job and you are expected to do it. I don't get to refuse to do paper work because I find it morally reprehensible. If I don't do it, I get fired. Soldiers are held to the same standard. They have a job. They refuse and they get a court martial.

I wasn't talking about soldiers when I referred to Arendt: She made those remarks about Mossad going after Nazis and Nazi-sympathisers: Pretty minimal risk. It's an example.

There's a lot of risk. Arendt should read more about Operation Wrath of God, or covert operations n general, if she wants to comment on it. Any number of things can go wrong when handling bombs. I don't see the Israeli government stepping in to pull Agent Joseph out of the way when that bomb blows up in his face because he didn't put it together right.

LordofHats wrote:

In regards to Iraq, we have a case of a bunch of chickenhawks supported by warmongers who willfully turn a blind eye to the immorality of the war.

Does a serviceman have the right to refuse to allow himself to be deployed into a conflict?

It's called not joining the Army. What did you think you were going to do? Party with ladies who love a man in uniform and sit on your butt for your entire service?

Literally defend freedom and country? There's no telling what you could be asked to do... the military literally asks you to suspend your choice to say no.

You need to understand that I'm not saying war is wrong by default, merely that soldiers aren't free to withdraw from wars that can't be justified to them.

LordofHats wrote:

Sassoon violated the law, yes, he knew there were consequences... I haven't suggested that the military's laws can be conceivably changed, that's probably not possible... But I still think one can consider those that consider a situation grave enough to warrant "facing the music" heroes, no?

There's this thing called discipline. Without it an armed military cannot function effectively. The codes of conduct and the DoMJ exist to enforce discipline.

If you don't like war, DONT join the military. It's that simple. In any job, you don't get to choose in this capacity. You have a job and you are expected to do it. I don't get to refuse to do paper work because I find it morally reprehensible. If I don't do it, I get fired. Soldiers are held to the same standard. They have a job. They refuse and they get a court martial.

Sassoon didn't "hate war"... he simply hated what he witnessed, a war being incompetently fought with hundreds of thousands of men dying as they were thrown against an impenetrable bulwark.

LordofHats wrote:

I wasn't talking about soldiers when I referred to Arendt: She made those remarks about Mossad going after Nazis and Nazi-sympathisers: Pretty minimal risk. It's an example.

There's a lot of risk. Arendt should read more about Operation Wrath of God, or covert operations n general, if she wants to comment on it. Any number of things can go wrong when handling bombs. I don't see the Israeli government stepping in to pull Agent Joseph out of the way when that bomb blows up in his face because he didn't put it together right.

In the case of Adolf Eichmann it was literally burst into an old man's house and drag him back to Israel...

LordofHats wrote:
Where do people get this kind of information The US government doesn't hire mercenaries. Mercenaries in fact are not lawful combatants under International Law, hence why we don't hire them.

While similar, PMC's and Mercenaries are not the same thing despite all the talk that they are. Most PMC's are made up of ex-military. Most PMC's hired by the US, are Americans. They usually have more experience and better training than general troops. They DO NOT participate in combat operations. PMC's are a grey area in terms of what is and is not lawful, but there are things they just don't do.

In order to be considered a mercenary a combatant must fulfill all the criteria that define combatants as mercenaries. This includes actually taking part in hostilities. As such, PMCs can be thought of as incipient mercenaries in that they would become them upon participation in combat operations.

Of course, many operations that are nominally considered to be noncombat are dubiously categorized, so there is a lot of controversy surrounding the legality of PMCs outside a purely logistical role.

I think I misread the bit with Arendt and how you were using it.

Henners91 wrote:Literally defend freedom and country? There's no telling what you could be asked to do... the military literally asks you to suspend your choice to say no.

Hyperbole isn't an argument. No where do you not have a choice. You CHOOSE to sign that document and join the military. You are not being conscripted. Once you're in, it's like any other job. When you are asked to do your job you can't refuse and expect your boss to say "oh, okay then." Refuse to do your job and there are consequences.

LordofHats wrote:Sassoon didn't "hate war"... he simply hated what he witnessed, a war being incompetently fought with hundreds of thousands of men dying as they were thrown against an impenetrable bulwark.

An improperly run war is not the same thing as an immoral war or action. Sassoon is a horrible example of what you're trying to express. What was he whistle blowing? By your description, he was whistle blowing soldiers dying and incompetence. Those aren't war crimes, nor are they unlawful. There was nothing to whistle blow. He simply refused to serve. That's not deserving of praise in my eyes. Plenty of men probably saw all the same thing he did. Some probably felt the same way. They still served.

LordofHats wrote:]Sassoon didn't "hate war"...

That's true, he didn't hate war, he just loved making people look good.

Monster Rain wrote:Having been to Iraq and knowing many others that have also gone I think people like this are full of gak and also cowards. Same old tired rhetoric from someone trying to justify his inability to fulfill his Oath.

My two cents.

As another vet, I cannot agree more. Deployment is part of the job. Reach down, grab hold and sack the hell up.
USMC= U signed the motherfarking contract

While I am sure that some conscientious objectors are just covering up cowardice, others are people who truly are standing behind what they believe in, which considering the crap they will take is far from cowardice. Look at Muhammad Ali during the Vietnam. My point being that it is not fair to paint them all with the same brush.

Nor is it fair to consider military service akin to any other job. Many vets are quick to point out that its a unique, and significant commitment to a difficult way of life. It only seems fair to extend that reasoning to the reason behind desertion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordofHats wrote: When you are asked to do your job you can't refuse and expect your boss to say "oh, okay then." Refuse to do your job and there are consequences.

However, in most cases, refusing to do your job simply results in being fired. That is not the case regarding military service. Following from that point, it seems disingenuous to suppose that military service features just as much choice as any other occupation. Choice, in the colloquial sense, is generally assumed to be unconstrained, and outside the colloquial sense choice cannot be constrained by anything other than physical properties. The military plainly constrains choice more than other occupations simply by penalizing those who refuse to do their jobs more than those who do the same in other lines of work.

Andrew1975 wrote:No we shouldn't just spray and pray, but its a warzone. You drive though a checkpoint or too close to a convoy you should not be surprised when you get shot. Were they civilians, who knows. There are going to be accidents, there are going to be innocents killed. It's a warzone.......get out of there. If a guy has a gun stay away from him. We are not fighting an army so technically the insurgents, or enemy combatants or whatever we are calling them this week are civilians.

I think in many ways by fighting too humanly the U.S. is increasing their exposure and time in country, which only increases casualties. Just do it and get it done. Tear the bandaid off don't pull it for ten years.

You've made the assumption that simply being more brutal would resolve the situation faster. Insurgencies do not work that way. You can't kill every insurgent, because in killing one you don't have one less insurgent, you end up creating two more when his brother, son, best friend or whoever else takes his place.

You defeat an insurgency by maintaining peace as effectively as possible, meanwhile defeating the insurgency by giving powerful stakeholders reasons to move to your side, and by de-legitimising the terrorists through infrastructure development and service provision.

This idea that you if we were willing to be brutal enough we can fix problems just doesn't work.

sebster wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:No we shouldn't just spray and pray, but its a warzone. You drive though a checkpoint or too close to a convoy you should not be surprised when you get shot. Were they civilians, who knows. There are going to be accidents, there are going to be innocents killed. It's a warzone.......get out of there. If a guy has a gun stay away from him. We are not fighting an army so technically the insurgents, or enemy combatants or whatever we are calling them this week are civilians.

I think in many ways by fighting too humanly the U.S. is increasing their exposure and time in country, which only increases casualties. Just do it and get it done. Tear the bandaid off don't pull it for ten years.

You've made the assumption that simply being more brutal would resolve the situation faster. Insurgencies do not work that way. You can't kill every insurgent, because in killing one you don't have one less insurgent, you end up creating two more when his brother, son, best friend or whoever else takes his place.

You defeat an insurgency by maintaining peace as effectively as possible, meanwhile defeating the insurgency by giving powerful stakeholders reasons to move to your side, and by de-legitimising the terrorists through infrastructure development and service provision.

This idea that you if we were willing to be brutal enough we can fix problems just doesn't work.

Exactly when facing insurgency you have to options kill everyone but you( which is is generally frowned upon) or convince the local populace that it is a better idea to side with you

Guitardian wrote:Animal survival instinct is still an important, if not the most important defining thing when people are under threat of death. Nobody being shot at who is armed and in a foreign country would think twice about what laws there are about shooting back.

The actual experiences of soldiers under fire is different to what you think it is. Look, a soldier has every right to defend himself, indeed it is part of his duty to protect himself and his brothers, but that doesn't mean the absolute use of any and all force.

We give guns to human beings and expect them to use a level of judgement when engaged in combat. It is an extremely difficult job and we cannot always expect them to get it right, but to abandon the ideas of rules of engagement entirely is ridiculous.

The text-book example being the success of the Harkis in the war of Algerian independence when compared to the failure of the rest of the heavy-handed French response.

dogma wrote:However, in most cases, refusing to do your job simply results in being fired. That is not the case regarding military service. Following from that point, it seems disingenuous to suppose that military service features just as much choice as any other occupation. Choice, in the colloquial sense, is generally assumed to be unconstrained, and outside the colloquial sense choice cannot be constrained by anything other than physical properties. The military plainly constrains choice more than other occupations simply by penalizing those who refuse to do their jobs more than those who do the same in other lines of work.

Those who refuse would face court martial. While the official punishment for desertion/dereliction of duty at war time is death, the Military rarely kills it's own troops for desertion today. Usually they just get discharged and forfeit all benefits and lose veteran status. It's the same thing as being fired and losing your pension. Sometimes you can be confined if the case was sever, but this would be a necessity of maintaining discipline given the unique task of a military force.

Choices and freedoms are restricted daily in everyone's life. The military certainly restricts choice by more than a bit, it by no means removes choice. It's plainly stated in enlistment papers. Anyone joining the army has signed a paper to the effect they are aware of certain restrictions on what they can and can't do under military regulation. I don't intend to say its the exact same thing as any other job, but in respect to actually doing your job it is the same. You either do it or you don't. If you don't there are consequences. It's foolish to sign the paper saying you'll do the job and then complain about it once it's become inconvenient and refuse to work while expecting there to be no negative repercussions.

dogma wrote:The text-book example being the success of the Harkis in the war of Algerian independence when compared to the failure of the rest of the heavy-handed French response.

Could you post a link for this? This is genuinely the first time I have heard of the Harkis.

LordofHats wrote:Usually they just get discharged and forfeit all benefits and lose veteran status. It's the same thing as being fired and losing your pension. Sometimes you can be confined if the case was sever, but this would be a necessity of maintaining discipline given the unique task of a military force.

Dishonorable discharges stick with a man, far more than being fired might. Also, the the threat of death changes the game significantly, as you admitted with the word 'unique'.

LordofHats wrote:
...but in respect to actually doing your job it is the same. You either do it or you don't. If you don't there are consequences.

That might include death. I don't know of many Walmarts that threaten their folk with death.

LordofHats wrote:
It's foolish to sign the paper saying you'll do the job and then complain about it once it's become inconvenient and refuse to work while expecting there to be no negative repercussions.

I wouldn't call it foolish. Naive, perhaps, but not foolish.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Emperors Faithful wrote:
Could you post a link for this? This is genuinely the first time I have heard of the Harkis.

Wikipedia is your friend.

Their citations are decent, so you should be able to follow off that.

dogma wrote:Dishonorable discharges stick with a man, far more than being fired might. Also, the the threat of death changes the game significantly, as you admitted with the word 'unique'.

Being fired sticks pretty hard too. It sucks when you're fired for sleeping on the job, stealing merchandise, and harassing female coworkers, and then a new potential employer calls your last one to ask how good an employee you were

Granted, a Dishonorable discharge is often treated the same as a criminal record. Again, I'm not saying they're exactly the same. I'm merely pointing out a broad principle that can be applied to any job. Any job holds you to a contract. I've always had to fill one out and there are always restrictions. Military service is simply more restrictive than most jobs, and the contract plainly states that you are expected to serve for a period of time. I honestly don't see the problem. You signed the piece of paper of your own will.

LordofHats wrote:That might include death. I don't know of many Walmarts that threaten their folk with death.

Anyone in the military knows that they don't issue death sentences for desertion anymore. The last time the capital punishment of the US Military was applied was in 2008 when Bush signed off on the execution of a soldier who committed several murders and rape.

Henners91 wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Back to oversight, I get the impression that the reason such principles were created in the US was a profound belief that nothing good can come out of war, that militaries were dangerous and threatening toward democracy and needed to be kept out and controlled: I would take that as the primary reason that early American history does not see a strong military.

No part of that paragraph actually represents how the world works or worked previously.

Really? The idea that a military need not be a standing force didn't "represent how the world worked previously"? You're saying this about an era where standing European armies were a relatively new phenomenon; armies were raised when they were needed (at a considerable cost) and disbanded when they weren't... The US operated on a similar principle after its birth.

Standing armies have been standard in most European states since the mid 1600s. Britain had a small army because we needed a large navy instead.

Conscription was a phenomenon of the 19th century, begun by the French Revolution and spread

Germany has just announced it is dropping conscription and is the last major European nation to continue with the system, most others have given it up in the past 20 years.

Personally, I applaud anyone who is willing to turn their back on any given situation due purely to their own morals.

Is he a traitor? I'd say not. It's not like he walked away from a fire fight. He found he couldn't handle certain things (either witnessed or asked of him) and did the right thing of remove himself from it.

Exactly when facing insurgency you have to options kill everyone but you( which is is generally frowned upon) or convince the local populace that it is a better idea to side with you

I think that is social studies question. Some people need to be subjugated in order to win their respect and allegiance. Iraq is a culture that does not respect any weakness. After decades under the harsh regime under Saddam the U.S. rules of engagement are a joke in comparison and in many ways have encouraged the insurgents.

Do you really think the English would have ever gotten the allegiance of the Gurkha, by not showing strength? Why can't the U.S. just get weapons out of the hands of everyone there? No more personal weapons for anyone. Put enough boots and technology on the to keep weapons out of the country. If you are caught with weapons it should be open season. If you surrender, trial and execution. Do people really think there was no insurgency in Germany or Japan? Its actually documented.The U.S. disarmed the public, including hunting weapons. Any insurgency was dealt with quickly, brutally and effectively. (yes i know Europe post world war 2 was different, I know a million reasons why it was different. But the tactics worked and have not been used because now war must be humane)

You can either rule thought love or fear. These people knew only the harsh discipline of fear. Anything else is weakness. Love can come later.

Instead the U.S plays patty cake, and we are over there for the better part of a decade. The cost in soldiers, equipment, sanity, and PR had been horrible. You think people would frown upon being brutal and leaving? Well they are not smiling now either. It may appear worse in the beginning but its better for all involved in the end.

Where do you think Iraq/the U.S./the world would be if we just left after Saddam was taken out?

Wow we have really hijacked this thread

Mr Mystery wrote:Personally, I applaud anyone who is willing to turn their back on any given situation due purely to their own morals.

Is he a traitor? I'd say not. It's not like he walked away from a fire fight. He found he couldn't handle certain things (either witnessed or asked of him) and did the right thing of remove himself from it.

The things he claims to have been witness to were clearly wrong, and as such should have been taken to the Inspector General. I call him a coward and a deserter hiding behind a flimsy excuse, that could have been rectified through other channels, to avoid doing the duties that he volunteered for.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andrew1975 wrote:

I think that is social studies question. Some people need to be subjugated in order to win their respect and allegiance. Iraq is a culture that does not respect any weakness. After decades under the harsh regime under Saddam the U.S. rules of engagement are a joke in comparison and in many ways have encouraged the insurgents.

Do you really think the English would have ever gotten the allegiance of the Gurkha, by not showing strength? Why can't the U.S. just get weapons out of the hands of everyone there? No more personal weapons for anyone. Put enough boots and technology on the to keep weapons out of the country. If you are caught with weapons it should be open season. If you surrender, trial and execution. Do people really think there was no insurgency in Germany or Japan? Its actually documented.The U.S. disarmed the public, including hunting weapons. Any insurgency was dealt with quickly, brutally and effectively. (yes i know Europe post world war 2 was different, I know a million reasons why it was different. But the tactics worked and have not been used because now war must be humane)

You can either rule thought love or fear. These people knew only the harsh discipline of fear. Anything else is weakness. Love can come later.

The only thing you breed by using such heavy-handed tactics is more insurgents. The only way the U.S. has encouraged insurgents were the loose rules of engagement during OIF I and shortly thereafter. If you're killing people wantonly you're only going to breed resentment, and the insurgents have used this to great effect by causing lots of civilians casualties to U.S. return fire. I find it slightly offensive that you suggest we stoop to the level of a corrupt despot like Saddam Hussein.

You can hardly ever refer to Iraq as having a single culture, they're broken up into several major groups (Sunni, Shia and Kurd) and several minor ones (Chaldean, Assyrian, Yezidi and so forth) that all have different histories, customs and sometimes languages. Different parts of Iraqi society mesh differently with Coalition forces. For example, military personnel can walk around unmolested in the Kurdish provinces in the north, but wouldn't dare to in some neighborhoods of Baghdad.

The reason we just can't out and out disarm them is because they don't want to be disarmed and would never consent to it. The tribal mindset there has them always on guard against rival tribes and they do not want to be caught with their pants down by a rival tribe. U.S. troops were generally openly hostile towards anyone carrying a weapon during the early stages of the occupation, but all that did was breed resentment because we killed a lot of people that just happened to be carrying a weapon and weren't a threat, making enemies where there were none before.

The only way to establish a legitimate rule over there is to have the average Iraqi want that and trust in the system.

LordofHats wrote:Military service is simply more restrictive than most jobs, and the contract plainly states that you are expected to serve for a period of time. I honestly don't see the problem. You signed the piece of paper of your own will.

I didn't say that there is a problem. I said that it disingenuous to imply that the military is like any other job. You seem to agree with me, but you also seem to want to push you analogy so that the deserter in question is thought less of.

LordofHats wrote:
Anyone in the military knows that they don't issue death sentences for desertion anymore. The last time the capital punishment of the US Military was applied was in 2008 when Bush signed off on the execution of a soldier who committed several murders and rape.

According to the UCoMJ the possibility remains.

Ok this does not belong on Dakka, why because I was there in Iraq on 2 tours and have seen what goes on in the dark rooms and not seen by the public. I can say this guy as a US soldier took an oath as he was taked into the US Army of not doing what he just did, talk about his battle field / unit experiance to the public without the official permission of the US Government is guilty of Treason of other charges. Penalty is 25 yrs imprisionment or death depending on the circumstances. This man says things have been done by his unit, well it seems to me that he....like myself were involved with the CIA or Black Ops and took that very Oath. So anything he says without proper documentation is heresay at the most. Not to say things like this ever happened we say the news of Iraqi prisoners being tortured and humiliated on TV News. That is something of a need to know basis, why well have you heard what these Iraqi military personel did to the entire Kuwaiti populace? Rape of every mother and child under the age of 12 yrs old, murder of every male 16 yrs or older, stealing of everything of value in the country by these troops. The United States along with many other counties rallied together to stop this madness. And we pushed the Iraqi Army half way back into their own country, and were stopped by are own Politions because of Death Ally. An area were most of the invading Iraqi Army was fleeing Kuiat with their stolen loot. Yes 10,000 Iraqi troops died in a very bad way but they were crushed as thieves and murders. 10 yrs latter we went back into Iraq because a failed attempt by Iraqi civilians to unseat Sudam Hussain for gassing 100,000 of his own people to death with chemical weapons. Now if you knew the reason behind all this is because the Muslim / Islamic people believe in a 15th century Religion called the Korran. It calls for every Muslim/Islamic person to kill the Non-Beleiver....Christians any way thay can and get a great reward in their Heaven....72 Vigrins and live forever happy. Well sorry to burst anyones bubble, this old world religion is out dated and racist to the point. If your not of Islamic blood you must die is their belief, Its the local law there harshly inforced by the government. As evicting families from homes, yes it happens but the US Government does give them money to compensate these families, I have been there and seen the money pass hands. This guy that is saying this stuff in a public forum should be put in jail unless he has proff anything he has stated is true. I as a Vet think he is a coward, because I have lost buddies to sniper, IED's, mortor attacks, missile attacks and just assults by people in Iraq dressed in civilian clothing, that is the truth because the hostiles in Iraq fight a cowardly war that is already over and let the civilians take the blame and punishment of their own actions attacking US/Allied personel. I have even seen a 5 yr old girl walk up to a US marine with a hand grenade and blow herself up because her father told her to and it was good that she take an enemy with her. Its how their old regilgion is and will be unless their eyes become open that death is a choice and its not worth your life to kill yourself to kill an enemy. A lot of work is still going on in Iraq and Afganistan to open the eyes of the people that the fighting thats going on by the the local warlords for power and weapon and drug trade is no longer the way, it will kill to many innocent people. Thw world has no true idea as to what goes on in Iraq the people fear retabution more from the warlords than from the US/Allied forces, as long as politics control the military command this war in Iraq and Afganistain will keep going for 20+ yrs. A money drain for sure, If the US had any intention of ending this war they would invade Pakistain and get Bin Ladin, taking the sting from terrorists everywere. Untill then we have a bypass and nothing really gets done until a strong leader gives the order. If it were up to me I would build up troops in Iraq and Afganistain from all Allied countries and move like in Europe in WW2 town to town city to city and take back these countries with brute force like it should be. Then peace will come, I am so damn tired of people blaming the military....we did not start this conflict....Terrorists did, put the focus back on them and off the Allied leaders Terrorists murdered almost 5,000 people at the Trade Center, Terrorists should be given no quarter and shot were they stand.We is they are willing to murder based on Religion. Enough said, I have proven my point of fighting those who wish to murder on Religious beliefs and why the UnitedStates fights against such things!

LordWynne wrote:Ok this does not belong on Dakka, why because I was there in Iraq on 2 tours and have seen what goes on in the dark rooms and not seen by the public. I can say this guy as a US soldier took an oath as he was taked into the US Army of not doing what he just did, talk about his battle field / unit experiance to the public without the official permission of the US Government is guilty of Treason of other charges. Penalty is 25 yrs imprisionment or death depending on the circumstances. This man says things have been done by his unit, well it seems to me that he....like myself were involved with the CIA or Black Ops and took that very Oath. So anything he says without proper documentation is heresay at the most. Not to say things like this ever happened we say the news of Iraqi prisoners being tortured and humiliated on TV News. That is something of a need to know basis, why well have you heard what these Iraqi military personel did to the entire Kuwaiti populace? Rape of every mother and child under the age of 12 yrs old, murder of every male 16 yrs or older, stealing of everything of value in the country by these troops. The United States along with many other counties rallied together to stop this madness. And we pushed the Iraqi Army half way back into their own country, and were stopped by are own Politions because of Death Ally. An area were most of the invading Iraqi Army was fleeing Kuiat with their stolen loot. Yes 10,000 Iraqi troops died in a very bad way but they were crushed as thieves and murders. 10 yrs latter we went back into Iraq because a failed attempt by Iraqi civilians to unseat Sudam Hussain for gassing 100,000 of his own people to death with chemical weapons. Now if you knew the reason behind all this is because the Muslim / Islamic people believe in a 15th century Religion called the Korran. It calls for every Muslim/Islamic person to kill the Non-Beleiver....Christians any way thay can and get a great reward in their Heaven....72 Vigrins and live forever happy. Well sorry to burst anyones bubble, this old world religion is out dated and racist to the point. If your not of Islamic blood you must die is their belief, Its the local law there harshly inforced by the government. As evicting families from homes, yes it happens but the US Government does give them money to compensate these families, I have been there and seen the money pass hands. This guy that is saying this stuff in a public forum should be put in jail unless he has proff anything he has stated is true. I as a Vet think he is a coward, because I have lost buddies to sniper, IED's, mortor attacks, missile attacks and just assults by people in Iraq dressed in civilian clothing, that is the truth because the hostiles in Iraq fight a cowardly war that is already over and let the civilians take the blame and punishment of their own actions attacking US/Allied personel. I have even seen a 5 yr old girl walk up to a US marine with a hand grenade and blow herself up because her father told her to and it was good that she take an enemy with her. Its how their old regilgion is and will be unless their eyes become open that death is a choice and its not worth your life to kill yourself to kill an enemy. A lot of work is still going on in Iraq and Afganistan to open the eyes of the people that the fighting thats going on by the the local warlords for power and weapon and drug trade is no longer the way, it will kill to many innocent people. Thw world has no true idea as to what goes on in Iraq the people fear retabution more from the warlords than from the US/Allied forces, as long as politics control the military command this war in Iraq and Afganistain will keep going for 20+ yrs. A money drain for sure, If the US had any intention of ending this war they would invade Pakistain and get Bin Ladin, taking the sting from terrorists everywere. Untill then we have a bypass and nothing really gets done until a strong leader gives the order. If it were up to me I would build up troops in Iraq and Afganistain from all Allied countries and move like in Europe in WW2 town to town city to city and take back these countries with brute force like it should be. Then peace will come, I am so damn tired of people blaming the military....we did not start this conflict....Terrorists did, put the focus back on them and off the Allied leaders Terrorists murdered almost 5,000 people at the Trade Center, Terrorists should be given no quarter and shot were they stand.We is they are willing to murder based on Religion. Enough said, I have proven my point of fighting those who wish to murder on Religious beliefs and why the UnitedStates fights against such things!

There no paragraphs or indentations.

dogma wrote:I didn't say that there is a problem. I said that it disingenuous to imply that the military is like any other job. You seem to agree with me, but you also seem to want to push you analogy so that the deserter in question is thought less of.

It's less the deserter in question I'm opposed to and more the idea that deserters are worthy of praise. I don't think they deserve any praise for backing out of service they fully of their own volition agreed to. I don't care why they're refusing. They agreed to military service when they signed up. They should take some responsibility rather than trying to shove it onto others because their personal morality is in conflict. A soldier is responsible for the men and women beside them, not just their own conscience.

The only way to establish a legitimate rule over there is to have the average Iraqi want that and trust in the system.

True, but that has to come in time. If you read my posts I never encouraged the wholesale slaughter of the Iraqi people. Far from it, I think over the past 8 years we have killed more people and destroyed more infrastructure and property because we have not set the rules properly and thus have taken far too long to establish order thus exposing U.S. soldiers and the people of Iraq to this chaos where warriors are reduced to animals. I think it's better to be an A hole for a day than a dictating occupying schmuck for life. It's irresponsible to all involved. It's like a bad boss blaming his employees because he has never set the tone of the office.

As far as not wanting to give up their weapons. F' em. You lost. Give up the weapons or fight with them. If they want to war over who gets to keep weapons, well let them. The U.S. know how to win a stand up war. They will probably always have secret stashes, but at least they will be discreet when bringing them out.

To let them keep the weapons is just encouragement to take pot shot at our soldiers. Why go half assed into a war? Go or don't go. This mess has been irresponsible and has cost every side too much. It has destroyed Iraq as a country, its destroyed U.S. credibility, and so much much more. It's one thing to ask volunteers to to expose themselves to war. It's another thing to expect them to stand up to the demands of this mishandled B.S. way of fighting.

Besides are we really trying to rule there? I know that's some peoples impression, but not mine. We might be trying to set someone else to rule, isn't that usually better handled by the people accustomed to the cultures of their own people to figure out? We are not fighting Americans with American mind sets and sensibilities in Iraq, we are fighting Iraqis and other insurgents from the area that have a completely different mind set.

As far as being offended if we use the tactics of Saddam, I'm not talking about gassing the Kurds. That region(the middle east) is a mess and I personally don't think they are ready for any sort of western government, ideas or kindnesses. With few exceptions that entire region is run by the same type of people, brutal and strict despots, it's the only way to run it currently.

A good example was the Soviets. As soon as their heavy handed rules disappeared look what happened, whole sale slaughter of millions of people. Sure these conflicts happened during Soviet rule too, they'd just role some tanks into town, kill a few people and tell everyone else to quiet the F down. Heavy handed, brutal..yep...Effective no doubt, saving millions of lives and billions of dollars in the process, and also letting people just get on with their lives. The Soviets didn't even have to do it that often, people knew the consequences of steeping out of line.

By not enforcing law and order we have created an unforgivable state of chaos in a once great country. By not enforcing our will we have shown we do not have the will or ability to end the chaos. When there is chaos there is NO ability to return to day to day life, which is what needs to happen in Iraq. In essence we have taken a country and turned it into a proxy battlefield between the U.S. and insurgents, we have turned Iraq into Palestine a place where the actual inhabitants have little to do with the true conflict, yet have no means to escape it.

War should be a brutal thing and should not be subject to too much civility lest we forget it's cost and enter it too lightly, too often and for too long. All peace starts with war, all civilization starts with subjugation. You can not have the first without the second.

I love our soldiers, they are doing the best they can under the circumstances. Military planners and politicians need to get their heads out of their a@@ses. Soldiers should be soldiers...not policemen.

(someone please tell me if I am hijacking the tread here. I think it's relevant to the discussion, but not right on topic)

LordWynne wrote:Now if you knew the reason behind all this is because the Muslim / Islamic people believe in a 15th century Religion called the Korran.

Believe in the what? 15th Century?

And when did the army start rationing paragraphs?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andrew1975 wrote:That region(the middle east) is a mess and I personally don't think they are ready for any sort of western government, ideas or kindnesses. With few exceptions that entire region is run by the same type of people, brutal and strict despots, it's the only way to run it currently.

So except for the countries in the region with democracy the region isn't capable of democracy.

As soon as their heavy handed rules disappeared look what happened, whole sale slaughter of millions of people. Sure these conflicts happened during Soviet rule too, they'd just role some tanks into town, kill a few people and tell everyone else to quiet the F down. Heavy handed, brutal..yep...Effective no doubt, saving millions of lives and billions of dollars in the process, and also letting people just get on with their lives. The Soviets didn't even have to do it that often, people knew the consequences of steeping out of line.

I think you'd have to look at Chechnya for an example of Russian tanks driving into town and using maximum force to stop resistance. It really, really didn't save lives or money.

Seriously, overt and disproportionate use of force does not make people too afraid to resist. Humans don't work that way. I get what you're saying about the cost in lives of not having clear authority, but I think you're confusing clear authority with violence. They are not the same thing, and mistaking one for the other produces situations like Chechnya.