The role of the modern soldier

[Paratrooper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (morbid @ Aug. 12 2002,19:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Aren't they often sent to war by politicians who have failed to resolve a situation through diplomacy?<span id='postcolor'>

Are you suggesting that all situations can be solved by diplomacy and that war is the result of politician's failure?

If you are suggesting that military force is never neccessary then you are being naive.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Aug. 12 2002,13:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You don't have that information as a soldier. You get transported to some place and people are shooting at you; you shoot back. You are not only fighting for your unit and country but also for your own life. The information you have is what your CO tells you, and he probably doesn't know anything either.

Even if you are on the wrong side it is not murder when you shoot at people who will shoot you if they can.<span id='postcolor'>

Well then in that case you see what I mean.

don't put yourself in such a situation.

[morbid 0]

No no, I just got the impression that some people here believed that anything could be solved by diplomacy.

I was trying to make the point that diplomacy cannot solve everything (thats what I meant by diplomacy failing, its not nessecarily the politicians fault, the attempt may have been doomed from the start).

I also realise that it is possible that there are situations were it isn't possible to even attempt diplomacy.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Aug. 12 2002,13:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What if you were for instance an Abanian in Kosovo in '99 and the Serbs were out to in the best case deport you and in the worst case kill you? Wouldn't you take up arms and defend yourself and your people?

What if you were in Rwanda and a Tutsi? Would you allow yourself and your family to be slaughtered the same way as 800 000 others of your nation? Or would you take up arms and defend yourself and your people?<span id='postcolor'>

Well if I was pinned down and in that situation, I would not really be a career soldier, or a soldier at all. And I would pretty much know who the enemy is. And you can bet I would defend myself.

Point is, more has to be done through politics and good gestures to avoid such situations in the first place. Okay, so you figure if one country gets civilized and refuses to fight it will be brought down... probably true. If everyone slowly accepts that they will not resolve to war, things will change.

So many countries have bad leadership in place... probably 80%. What do you figure is going to happen. Look at USA.

[bn880 5]

1--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (morbid @ Aug. 12 2002,141)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No no, I just got the impression that some people here believed that anything could be solved by diplomacy.

I was trying to make the point that diplomacy cannot solve everything. (seems I failed rather miserably in getting that point across... )<span id='postcolor'>

That's because one or more sides in the diplomatic talks is asking too much or is lying and not keeping promises... etc.

Just like you can not as a Palestinian, free yourself of the Jewish occupation with diplomacy, because the other side does not even want to give you a full withdrawl for even a week to see if you can get a grip on suicide bombings.

[Warin 0]

The role of the modern soldier is to follow his orders to the best of his abilities.

As civilians in relatively peaceful nations, it's easy for us to say that 'if it was us' ... But the thing is we'll never really know.

The armed forces of a nation have command structures, and the way I see it, they'll never work if every private decides that he knows more than his NCO's and Officers. When you are told to do something, you are pretty much obligated to do it.

Now, there are exceptions. I know that if I was ordered to mow down unarmed civilians that I would face death or the stockade rather than do that...because there are lines that I will not cross. But thats also the reason that i didnt join up 14 years ago when all my friends did. I decided that I didnt feel like taking orders from someone of dubious intelligence

[moerty 0]

oki denoir, so as a soldier if a CO gave you a direct order to say contaminate a villages' well or to wipe out a town with civilians you would follow it? i doubt it very much, and my arguments are not intended for heat of battle orders, rarely will you ever see civilians roaming around a battle-field and a CO ordering you to wipe them out, he'll be more concerned about the enemy shooting at him. massacres are usually premeditated and occur when a) soldiers are not getting shot at by enemy and b) the victims are unarmed.

there is no way anybody can justify commiting a mass-murder, if death is the price you pay for following your principles then so be it, you die a MAN and you don't live like a shameless coward. it's the same principle you hold deserters up to, you'd rather fight to the death with honor than live a shameless coward, running and leaving your mates behind.

*edit after reading your previous posts ,ore thoroughly i have to say you have your heart in the right place, but the situations you describe are "normal" scenarios for soldiers. my point of contention centers around unarmed combatants whose greatest desire is to run and survive, not fight. being ordered to kill them is illegal, taking a time out for sick "recreational" activites is illegal, it's very simple you see, and you might not think you'll have to deal with situations like these but My Lai proved that even a "principled" army can commit heinous war crimes comparable to nazi war crimes.

as for the tribunals, the court martial is not the end of the line for a soldier, now we have the makings of an international tribunal, now even the "winner" can be paraded and humiliated publicly, think of pinochet and how much his power couldn't save him from living the high life. you guys might say that nothing happened since he got leave england eventually but as the son of a former chilean i can safely say that he returned to Chile a broken and humilated man. no longer can he go to europe with his head high (trips to europe rank highly important in South American snobbery), he can't leave his country anymore for fear of getting nabbed somewhere else. he's no longer the great Hero who "saved" latin american democracy.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (moerty @ Aug. 12 2002,20:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">there is no way anybody can justify commiting a mass-murder, if death is the price you pay for following your principles then so be it, you die a MAN and you don't live like a shameless coward. it's the same principle you hold deserters up to, you'd rather fight to the death with honor than live a shameless coward, running and leaving your mates behind.<span id='postcolor'>

Desertion in the face of the enemy is the most cowardly act that I can think of.  And in my opinion, death is a good penalty.

When you become a soldier, you agree to follow the orders of your commanders.  And if they order a position to be held at all costs, then you'd damn well better hold it.  Because if you run away from your job, then a lot of your mates may well end up dead as well.  Being a soldier isnt like being a postal clerk or a salesman in a mall.  When you get into it, you accept the inherent risks of that trade.  You cant be just a peace time soldier.  If it comes down to it, you must fight and die if that is what is needed.  Does it suck? Yeap! If you cant handle that thought..then dont become a soldier!

Now if I was ordered to kill civilians, I would question it.  And I think that most instances of western soldiers commiting such atrocities are 'heat of the moment' sort of things.  And htey should be unished.  But I dont see a lot of systematic genocide being perpetrated by western armies.   And that is what the War Crimes tribunal is for.

[KingBeast 0]

Following orders I think, should not always be taken as they are. On the one hand, history has proven that failing to follow orders has at times cost defeat, but history also shows that being too anal when it comes to giving or receiving orders can also lead to a lot of dead people.

But at the end of the day, the bottom of the ranks foot soldier should ALWAYS follow his orders. I would say that its the officers decision in how he interprets/follows his own orders and dishes them out.

[moerty 0]

hmm, perhaps i can give a good example to refute that.

public leaders of a democratic country always stay in line because there is always the possiblity that their "troops" I.E. constituents will rebel against them and vote for someone else. this does not include the US unfortunately because i cannot consider a country that serves up only 2 flavors of politics, bud and bud lite, a truly democratic country so only europeans will fully understand this analogy. now let's think of a country like iraq, Saddam does whatever he wants to his people because the people he's shitting on don't have the wherewithal to take him out of office.

it's the same with miliraty officers, if they have absolute power then they'll start thinking like little Saddams, playing soldier instead of being soldiers. if there is a single possibility that a trooper will tell him to go suck on it he will be carefull about what orders he will issue to them.

unfortunately there will always be soldiers willing to commit whatever barbarity comes their way, and officers know that so they can exploit it, an example is HERE .

you just can't always rely on your officers to be able to take the right decisions.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (moerty @ Aug. 12 2002,20:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">oki denoir, so as a soldier if a CO gave you a direct order to say contaminate a villages' well or to wipe out a town with civilians you would follow it? i doubt it very much, and my arguments are not intended for heat of battle orders, rarely will you ever see civilians roaming around a battle-field and a CO ordering you to wipe them out, he'll be more concerned about the enemy shooting at him. massacres are usually premeditated and occur when a) soldiers are not getting shot at by enemy and b) the victims are unarmed.

there is no way anybody can justify commiting a mass-murder, if death is the price you pay for following your principles then so be it, you die a MAN and you don't live like a shameless coward. it's the same principle you hold deserters up to, you'd rather fight to the death with honor than live a shameless coward, running and leaving your mates behind.<span id='postcolor'>

Battlefields have been extinct since WW1. Civilans & Military are often mixed. Most killing of civilians come from bombs falling from aircraft. The civilian casulties come from collateral damage and is not on purpose.

But yes, killing unarmed civilians is bad and cannot be motivated anyhow. However most western militaries have a policy of not targeting civilians. Soldiers that run amok should be punished.

While killing an unarmed civilian is a crime, one must realise that you cannot apply normal moral and ethics to war. You cannot judge an insane situation by sane rules. Human life is not equally worth in war as in peace.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">*edit after reading your previous posts ,ore thoroughly i have to say you have your heart in the right place, but the situations you describe are "normal" scenarios for soldiers. my point of contention centers around unarmed combatants whose greatest desire is to run and survive, not fight. being ordered to kill them is illegal, taking a time out for sick "recreational" activites is illegal, it's very simple you see, and you might not think you'll have to deal with situations like these but My Lai proved that even a "principled" army can commit heinous war crimes comparable to nazi war crimes.

<span id='postcolor'>

Yes. This is something you have to count on however. Casulties of war. The term exists for a reason. I am all for prosecuting individual soldiers comitting war crimes on their own behalf, but war time rules are not the same as peace time. I remember in Kosovo a scene between a US private and an Albanian woman. She was carrying a crate of beer and cigarettes and the private wanted to take some. She swore to him saying something like (translation) :"First you bomb my house and now you want to take my cigarettes? No way you SOB". While the private obviously didn't understand what she said he understood that he wasn't getting any beer, so he hit her twice in the face with the butt of his rifle. There were several high ranking officers around that saw it and didn't say or do anything.

Now, this would by normal means be considered a crime. However when you are surrounded by civilian houses that have been leveled to the ground by NATO bombs and that you know civilians were killed in large numbers then hitting an unknown woman seems like a very small offence. Within the picture of the insanity of war things that we would take for absolutely unacceptable become relatively normal. So everybody shrugs it off and accept it for what it is: a small act of agression and insanity in the shadow of a big act of agression and total insanity.

[Renagade 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Aug. 12 2002,20:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (moerty @ Aug. 12 2002,20:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">there is no way anybody can justify commiting a mass-murder, if death is the price you pay for following your principles then so be it, you die a MAN and you don't live like a shameless coward. it's the same principle you hold deserters up to, you'd rather fight to the death with honor than live a shameless coward, running and leaving your mates behind.<span id='postcolor'>

Desertion in the face of the enemy is the most cowardly act that I can think of.  And in my opinion, death is a good penalty.<span id='postcolor'>

Those who run away live to fight another day

pfft the very idea of it would make me want to tk alll my team

[Othin 0]

I hesitate at even posting in this thread because of the general feelings towards the US and US service members, but I guess that dosen't make my thoughts count any less.

First of all, I'm an active duty Sailor in the United States Navy. I'm not an idiot, a criminal, a sycophant, or a murderer. I have a family, I have goals, and I too dream of a "perfect" world. I didn't join the military because I couldn't do anything else. I joined because I wanted to gain experiences and responsibility that most of my peers won't have for years.

The role of a modern soldier is not an easy definition to give. Maybe someone who is in the military can't even give that answer because (at least in my countrys case) we're defined by the public (and to be honest, the media) and not from within.

What do I think it is to be a modern soldier? I think it is a great burden to balance. I have to be smart and resourceful, yet follow orders. I have to live my life in manner befitting the service, yet live my private life in an enjoyable way. I have to respect my service, but not be a robot and ignore the opinions of others.

But, for all that, I love what I do. I chose the United States Navy (USN henceforth) because it gave me the greatest sense of tradition and pride. I simply love what I do. As I mentioned above it all comes down to balancing your life.

Taking orders to me is much less of an issue then it seems to be to most of you. Does this mean I'm any less independant or any less freewilled? No. What it does mean is that I respect the authority of my superiors and trust in their judgement. If I didn't have that then the whole ethos on which I base my life would be n o t h i n g.

As far as unlawful orders go that comes down to your moral fiber. If I was given an order to fire upon a civilian ship without just cause I would not follow that order as it would be "unlawful". I would also understand that until an investigation was conducted I would be treated as a criminal by the chain of command. Do I blame them for that? No, because if they didn't prosecute people then everyone would disobey orders. But I have faith enough in our Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) that I would be tried fairly and eventually found to be innocent. Though as was previously mentioned in this thread, during war normal rules don't apply. If your battlegroup was attacked by 50 ships that tried to kill your shipmates and friends, and a 51st ship shows up, how would you react towards it? There is an easy answer and there is reality...

I also think that being a modern soldier means that you must be professional. This goes for being in uniform, and out. I'm not saying you should live your life as a priest, but you should live your life as someone who is in the public eye just because of your job. Because of what I do I get to interact with service members from many countries. I would have to say I'm always impressed with the sense of professionalism that they give off, from the lowest enlisted to the highest officer. This goes tenfold for members of the British Royal Air Force and the Canadian Air Force, I love working with you guys!

That was somewhat disjointed, but then again I'm a Sailor not an English professor

*flame shield on*

[Renagade 0]

Why have a family if ur have a job thats more likely to get u killled than a regular one ?

Also to the above posts,u wouldnt kill a civilian if ordered too but what happens if hes got a suicide bomb up his shirt and ur officers clocked onto this

[E6Hotel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Aug. 12 2002,17:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In a perfect world yes, then we would not need soldiers. However due to human nature soldiers are needed. Not to kill and destroy but to defend and protect. The sad truth is that if you don't have a big stick then somebody else will come around with it and hit you on the head.

<snip>

If you are ordered to massacre civilians I think it is your moral obligation to disobey that order. I think you also should get shot for disobeying the order.<span id='postcolor'>

I agree with the first part. However, if I disobey an unlawful order (that I am by definition under NO obligation to follow) and the El-Tee tries to kill me, that's attempted murder in my book, and when it comes to gunslinging, I'm not an easy win. Draw down on me at your own risk.  

Semper Fi

[USSoldier11B 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The soldiers role is to follow orders.

The militaries job is to protect the people / government / nation.

Nothing much have changed there, only the rules and ethics applied to it.<span id='postcolor'>

I disagree with most of you. I don't believe that troops are to protect or enforce peace. That is what police are for. The sad fact is that soldiers are for killing. Especially infantry. At least that is the doctrine that U.S. troops are taught.

For example: Section 1-1 of FM 7-8

1-1. MISSION

The mission of the infantry is to close with the enemy by means of fire and maneuver to defeat or capture him, or to repel his assault by fire, close combat, and counterattack.

a. Despite any technological advantages that our armed forces might have over an enemy, only close combat between ground forces gains the decision in battle. Infantry rifle forces (infantry, airborne, air assault, light, and ranger) have a key role in close combat situations. They--

Attack over approaches that are not feasible for heavy forces.

Make initial penetrations in difficult terrain for exploitations by armor and mechanized infantry.

Retain existing obstacles and difficult terrain as pivots for operational and tactical maneuver.

Seize or secure forested and built-up areas.

Control restrictive routes for use by other forces.

Operate primarily at night or during other periods of natural or induced limited visibility.

Follow and support exploiting heavy forces when augmented with transportation.

Conduct rear area operations, capitalizing on air mobility.

b. Success in battle hinges on the actions of platoons and squads in close combat; on their ability to react to contact, employ suppressive fires, maneuver to a vulnerable flank, and fight through to defeat, destroy, or capture the enemy. The successful actions of small units relies on the ability of leaders and soldiers to use terrain to good advantage; to operate their weapons with accuracy and deadly effect; to out think, out move, and out fight the enemy.

c. Infantry rifle platoons and squads normally operate as part of a larger force. They benefit from the support of other infantry units, armor, artillery, mortars, close air, air defense, and engineer assets. They also provide their own suppressive fires either to repel enemy assaults or to support their own maneuver.

Sorry, but I believe that the miltary exists to kill the enemy, not to protect anything.

[drewb99 0]

They kill, however, to keep those people they killed from happily prancing into their home country.

[Guest]

USSoldier11B:

You are missing the point entirely. We are not talking about practical tactical doctrine. When we say defend and protect we refer to something larger, like way of life, culture, ethics and so on.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ Aug. 13 2002,02:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I agree with the first part. However, if I disobey an unlawful order (that I am by definition under NO obligation to follow) and the El-Tee tries to kill me, that's attempted murder in my book, and when it comes to gunslinging, I'm not an easy win. Draw down on me at your own risk.  

Semper Fi<span id='postcolor'>

And are you sure that you can judge correctly what is and what is not an unlawful order?

[E6Hotel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Aug. 13 2002,03:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And are you sure that you can judge correctly what is and what is not an unlawful order?<span id='postcolor'>

The answer is, of course, "It depends." Without a specific scenario, that's the best you, I, or anyone else can do.

Semper Fi

[Othin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Aug. 13 2002,03:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ Aug. 13 2002,02:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I agree with the first part. However, if I disobey an unlawful order (that I am by definition under NO obligation to follow) and the El-Tee tries to kill me, that's attempted murder in my book, and when it comes to gunslinging, I'm not an easy win. Draw down on me at your own risk.  

Semper Fi<span id='postcolor'>

And are you sure that you can judge correctly what is and what is not an unlawful order?<span id='postcolor'>

As I said in my post that is when it comes down to what you, the individual soldier, is made out of. What can you live with? Are your reasons just? Do you have *all* the information?

It is a difficult situation, one that I pray I'm never in. But I have faith enough in myself that I'll make the correct decision morally.

[MDRZulu 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It is a lose-lose situation.<span id='postcolor'>

LOL!

[LauryThorn 0]

I think that soldier's duty is to follow orders, whatever they may be.

That is teached in every military that I know of.

It would all go to hell if every poor infantryman would start to look

"at the big picture".

if you CO yells at you and orders you immediately to climb in to a tree,

then you should do that and perhaps ask the questions later.

In Finnish army, if some command seems to be unlawful or harmful

for the soldier, then the soldier asks the superior for a written order.

Then the soldiers follows the order, and the righteousness of that order

is investigated later.

EDIT:

I would like to bring this thought in here again:

Has someone blamed the soldiers of Rome for killing Jesus?

[Longinius 1]

"Has someone blamed the soldiers of Rome for killing Jesus?"

Jesus was sentenced by a court and then executed, by a legionnaire named Longinius as it were. The soldiers were carrying out a death sentence, no more wrong nor criminal than the death sentences issued in the US, China or wherever.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (MDRZulu @ Aug. 13 2002,02:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It is a lose-lose situation.<span id='postcolor'>

LOL!<span id='postcolor'>

What? That's what I always say.

Seems like USSoldier has a better idea of the role than most. I think soldiers are mostly for killing, not protecting. When it comes to protecting... Canada even sends veteran RCMP officers out as peace keepers to Rwanda and Bosnia... so you are really a peace keeper in Law Enforcement, as opposed to a killing tool in the army.