Being a War Veteran: Is It Always Admirable?

[Heyo]

It is actually a very convenient way to push responsibility down the chain of command, as if the people ordering a genocide were less culpable than the people who ultimately carried it out.

That wasn't my intention. I'm neither absolving the ones giving the orders nor those who carry them out. When you pay an assassin to kill your wife, you get punished as well as the killer. There is no excuse for either.

 

[Stevicus]

According to Sartre, we always have a choice, even while enslaved or tortured. I guess we can draw the conclusion from this that all the slaves and torture victims wanted to be there, or else they would have resisted. What do you think?

I'm not entirely certain how I would act in such a situation. But I might imagine that if I was in a situation where I was facing enslavement or torture, I might attempt to resist just so they would have to shoot me instead.

 

[Kooky]

I'm not entirely certain how I would act in such a situation. But I might imagine that if I was in a situation where I was facing enslavement or torture, I might attempt to resist just so they would have to shoot me instead.

Here is my "solution" to the problem:

Freedom of choice is not a binary state. We are not either completely free or completely unfree, at any point. Rather, our choices are always limited, but the nature of oppression means that if we suffer from it, it subsequentially limits our options; the ultimate step of oppression is a state that narrows our possible options down to a binary: Submit or be killed.

I personally see Sartre's failure in this context in that he focuses on the fact that we can always have a choice, rather than focusing on the fact that there is a neferious and fundamentally unjust system designed to limit our choices to those acceptable to our oppressors.

 

[oldbadger]

Once a person has signed up to serve then they serve, and they obey orders, their only personal commitment to the soldiers either side and around them.
They don't get to vote about every order and decision but anybody has the freedom to refuse an order and go stand at the stake, which happened a lot during the Great War

 

[Heyo]

According to Sartre, we always have a choice, even while enslaved or tortured. I guess we can draw the conclusion from this that all the slaves and torture victims wanted to be there, or else they would have resisted. What do you think?

That is a non sequitur. You may not have been able to avoid being tortured or enslaved but at least you have the choice to resist.
What I'm arguing is that there is rarely a situation where you have no choice. It is a defeatist mindset of people who are driven by circumstances without putting up any resistance, without even thinking about their situation. It is those people to whom Kant dedicated his "Sapere aude!".

And it is especially a thing people should ponder who are going to take up a position with the job description "killing people in foreign lands". The US has a volunteer army and everyone who enlists should know that there is a chance to be send into an illegal attack war. "I had no choice" is no excuse for any of those. And I think making the choice to accept or seek a position as killer doesn't earn respect.

 

[Orbit]

This issue has frequently come to mind upon seeing people favorably refer to current or former military personnel as having "served" in a war.

Let's say a foreign army invaded a country aggressively and unjustifiably, as was the case in Iraq and Ukraine. Naturally, able-bodied people in the invaded territory would rise up to defend their homeland. But with the order-based nature of militaries, the forces of the invaders would kill those defending their home country from invasion. Many would lose family members and friends to this act of aggression.

On what logical or moral grounds would such an act of killing people who were merely defending their people and their country be considered admirable or respectable "service" as many refer to it? There is a case to be made that many are deceived into fighting and only know they were lied to when it is too late, but this still doesn't make fighting on the side of invaders an admirable thing; it only makes it the result of a lie.

I would never say that any of the Russian soldiers currently in Ukraine were honorably serving their country: there's nothing honorable about the Russian invasion. Similarly, I would apply that same logic to American soldiers who were in Iraq or any other invading forces attacking a sovereign country.

I'm interested to read what others think of this, especially if they think highly of current or former military personnel for serving in the armed forces during invasions that we now know were unjustified or unnecessary.

I had a student (US) who was a veteran of the war in Afghanistan. He felt he had been duped, and was quite angry about it. He didn't feel his service was honorable.

 

[England my lionheart]

This issue has frequently come to mind upon seeing people favorably refer to current or former military personnel as having "served" in a war.

Let's say a foreign army invaded a country aggressively and unjustifiably, as was the case in Iraq and Ukraine. Naturally, able-bodied people in the invaded territory would rise up to defend their homeland. But with the order-based nature of militaries, the forces of the invaders would kill those defending their home country from invasion. Many would lose family members and friends to this act of aggression.

On what logical or moral grounds would such an act of killing people who were merely defending their people and their country be considered admirable or respectable "service" as many refer to it? There is a case to be made that many are deceived into fighting and only know they were lied to when it is too late, but this still doesn't make fighting on the side of invaders an admirable thing; it only makes it the result of a lie.

I would never say that any of the Russian soldiers currently in Ukraine were honorably serving their country: there's nothing honorable about the Russian invasion. Similarly, I would apply that same logic to American soldiers who were in Iraq or any other invading forces attacking a sovereign country.

I'm interested to read what others think of this, especially if they think highly of current or former military personnel for serving in the armed forces during invasions that we now know were unjustified or unnecessary.

I have thought about this,my grandfather fought in ww1 and survived a gas attack and the war which i think he served honourably,my father fought in ww2 and served honourably,let's face it's not like they even had a choice.

The same goes for their enemy the Germans although they committed war crimes in ww1&2 with2 being the most heinous the average soldier in the German army probably felt they had served honourably.

When the Falkland war started everyone in the regiment wanted to go but instead the sent us to Germany on the east west border,during that time i lived in an NBC suit and mask,a whole armoured division,many tanks helicopters and infantry,a really impressive sight,you could feel the ground tremble but i didn't feel honourable as this was a war that wasn't going to happen,the honourable war was in the Falklands although i hate thatcher for sending our troops there without proper preperation.

My son fought in Kosovo and was wounded but it wasn't life threatening, he went there on peacekeeping duties but this i feel has been the mistake of Iraq and Afghanistan,shouldn't have been there in the first place but sending the Parachute regiment,Royal Marines,US Marines,these are not meant for peacekeeping theyr'e for killing,that being said my son went because a soldier goes where he's sent and although the Iraq and Afghan war were not honourable a soldier can still honourably serve his country imo.

 

[Kooky]

That is a non sequitur. You may not have been able to avoid being tortured or enslaved but at least you have the choice to resist.

So should we blame torture victims for not getting themselves killed, therefore victimizing themselves out of their own "free" choice? Should we not rather ask them whether, given the choice, they would have chosen to remain in the clutches of a torturous regime in the first place?

What I'm arguing is that there is rarely a situation where you have no choice. It is a defeatist mindset of people who are driven by circumstances without putting up any resistance, without even thinking about their situation. It is those people to whom Kant dedicated his "Sapere aude!".

People tend to talk big when they have no stake in an outcome and don't have to fear adverse consquences; Immanuel Kant, who withdrew a publication of his because he was afraid of William of Prussia's reaction to it, is certainly no exception to that rule.

Personally, I think this issue deserves a more nuanced take than "lol it's your fault your employer ordered you to commit atrocities".

And it is especially a thing people should ponder who are going to take up a position with the job description "killing people in foreign lands". The US has a volunteer army and everyone who enlists should know that there is a chance to be send into an illegal attack war. "I had no choice" is no excuse for any of those. And I think making the choice to accept or seek a position as killer doesn't earn respect.

And here we are again with blaming the people at the bottom of the chain of command for the policies of those at the top. Would you have the same attitude towards career soldiers in the Bundeswehr, even though they literally signed up for the exact same job, except their government didn't happen to send them to kill foreigners (or hasn't yet - who knows how the wind will blow five years from now)?

 

[Revoltingest]

I know a former student of mine with particularly deep mental health issues who joined so he could, as he stated, be put in a position where he could kill people.

He's apparently doing really well there. I am glad the kid found his place in the world and I hope his mentality has changed, but I have trouble with respecting the choice to do something just so you can kill people.

A friend joined because he wanted to kill commies.
He's quite pleased with having killed a Chinese soldier
in Vietnam.
Alas, commies shoot back. He's a physical mess.

 

[Heyo]

And here we are again with blaming the people at the bottom of the chain of command for the policies of those at the top.

Yes. I guess that's my libertarian side shining through. I'm all for personal freedom - and with that for personal responsibility.

Would you have the same attitude towards career soldiers in the Bundeswehr, even though they literally signed up for the exact same job, except their government didn't happen to send them to kill foreigners (or hasn't yet - who knows how the wind will blow five years from now)?

Basically, though with the Bundeswehr it is a bit different. The Bundeswehr is strictly and constitutionally a defence army. If that would ever change, any contract would be void.

 

[Kooky]

Yes. I guess that's my libertarian side shining through. I'm all for personal freedom - and with that for personal responsibility.

And I've already argued that this is a painfully limited view when we look at the real world and the limits it factually imposes on choice and freedom (and arguably one of the major pitfalls of individualism as an ideology to begin with).

Basically, though with the Bundeswehr it is a bit different. The Bundeswehr is strictly and constitutionally a defence army. If that would ever change, any contract would be void.

Sure, let's just say that by invading a foreign country, they're defending their NATO allies, like they did in Afghanistan. Would you say Bundeswehr soldiers were serving as paid killers there?

 

[Heyo]

Sure, let's just say that by invading a foreign country, they're defending their NATO allies, like they did in Afghanistan. Would you say Bundeswehr soldiers were serving as paid killers there?

The Bundeswehr was not in Afghanistan to defend their NATO allies, they were there on a UN sanctioned peacekeeping mission. But in my eyes that sounds more like an excuse for Germany playing war with the big guys. I don't think the presence of the Bundeswehr anywhere outside Germany or NATO states is necessary to be respected as a major player.