Millionaire Soldier signs on for 3rd tour in Iraq

hyper as i understand it in the US low socioeconomic statice and generally a low inteligence are those who join the millatry. This being said it makes it rather unfair to dump the responcability to work out if a war is legitimate under international law (which requires a HIGH level of inteligence and training to digest, im at uni and i have TRIED to read a couple of international laws and given up because I couldnt understand them)

(sorry if this doesnt make sence, got a PM while i was responding so it interupted my flow)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's true that recently military enlistee standards have been falling. The Sailors I served with back in the 1980s were a considerably brighter cross-section, than were the young USAmericans I studied with in college. For as much as they may still (wrongly) feel restricted in exercising their defense of the Constitution in word and deed, there still are a lot of smart and patriotic kids serving in uniform. This war still hasn't lasted long enough to dangerously dumb down even the high-turnover, lower ranks our military... Yet. If it grinds on another 5 years, we will have more kids representing us in Iraq who really don't know a lot about the world when they deploy. Even so, the intellectually and educationally-challenged will look up to their more experienced comrades to set the moral and patriotic example.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

hyper im sure there are some very inteligent people serving especially as junior officers as (if its the same as australia) they need a degree to be an officer (i think). However we need to concider the lowest common demominator not the highest. This isnt really a situation where you can say "if a normal person in the same situation was presented with the same choice" (the definition of negligence) for 2 reasons. 1) they are trained to obay from day one and 2) they are SELECTED for those rolls. Which means this isnt someone pretending to be a doctor and there by having to act as a normal doctor would. Its more like taking a kid just out of high school and throwing them into an operating room performing brain surgury and telling them if they dont operate as well as a nerosurgen you will be shot.

This is why i feel that although TACTICAL matters should lie on the solders shoulders the decision to invade in the first place rests on the POLITICAL leadership not the indervidual solders

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Shooting, shelling, dispossessing, or torturing someone isn't like brain surgery at all. Neither is not shooting them, or not abusing them because it doesn't seem the right thing to do. Life-and-death ethics are not like brain surgery at all. The most effective and essential place to apply the principles of personal and national honor is not in a situation room distant from battle, but instead looking down the gunsight. More than a challenge of privileged knowledge, it's a challenge about how much a soldier will risk his own life and those of his fellow soldiers in order to avoid behaving barbarically.

It doesn't require a fancy education, or an upper-class pedigree for a soldier to feel something when he sees everyday people crying and screaming, in horrific physical or psychological pain at what he or his comrades have wrought. Simple farm-boys, and inner-city homies with poor educations can understand this when they are confronted by it- especially as their society overcomes the morally flawed 9-11 shock-doctrine that was designed to stigmatize and de-humanize occupied populations. There is a potential for a more profound nobility from the very top to the very bottom of a nation's armed forces, but it requires a deep understanding and the selfless upholding of a solemn oath to defend sacred principles of human rights established constitutionally.

 

hyperwards i know we would both like the same thing, an international ban on ALL war, preferably acompanied by an international ban on standing armies and possably an international police force (after a fundermental change to the way the UN works to abolish the SC) but thats not way the world is. YES the US invaded iraq along with other countries like Australia but that was a POLITICAL decision and the buck stops with the pollies on this. Now if your sugesting that indervidual solders are comiting crimes like murder and torcher THAT is the things that those solders should be charged with. They SHOULDNT be charged with being there in the first place

 

That is incorrect. However you are right about this:

 

E3R, US enlistment standards are undeniably declining.

Dumb and Dumber: The US Army Lowers Recruitment Standards ... Again - Slate

Declining Army Standards - Toledo Blade

U.S. Army Expands by Lowering the Bar on Recruits - IHT

Army Falsy Claims Lowering Standards of Recruitment Has Not Affected Troop Quality - Think Progress

 

"hyperwards i know we would both like the same thing, an international ban on ALL war..."

Long before the world is ready for that, major powers must first evolve a higher moral discipline in the use of military force. Failing that, the cycle of organized violence will continue. I do have pacifist ideals about the distant future, but in the here and now people do still require defense.

"Now if your sugesting that indervidual solders are comiting crimes like murder and torcher THAT is the things that those solders should be charged with. They SHOULDNT be charged with being there in the first place"

I disagree. A US military campaign can be (and some have been) so corrupt in goals and effect as to be unconstitutional. It is for such contingencies that we swear an oath to support and defend first not the President, not an empire, and not a corporation. We swear to support and defend the Constitution of the US against all enemies foreign and domestic. I meant what I said, and the oath said what I meant. I felt and feel responsible to that, and I strongly believe that other USAmerican men and women at arms should also.

 

yes but its up to the courts to make a rulling that its unconstiutional not the solders

 

Or the Congress, if they would only uphold their oath. But our oaths don't begin with "I, _____, do solemnly swear that, provided my superiors live up to their oaths, and only so far as orders allow, I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same..."

We all swear to personally support and defend our Constitution, which includes binding limitations to the powers, purposes, and conduct of foreign wars. We swear to bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution- that means swearing to learn and know what the hell it is all about, and that means swearing to give a damn. That is why if I were serving today, I would refuse deployment to Iraq, and proudly face the consequences, with the full expectation that I would be treated with respect for doing so by the overwhelming majority of my countrymen. Even if it brought me the disdain of most of my fellow citizens, I believe the oath compels my conscientious refusal to deploy to an unconstitutional war. I wouldn't go for a million bucks.

 

I'm not arguing that. If you read my response in the other thread, I was addressing the popular misconception that the poor and undereducated are overrepresented in the US military with respect to mainstream American society.

This really isn't a debateable issue. As I said once already, the SCOTUS is the only authority who can interpret the Constitution. Not you or me, and most certainly not the military establishment. Disregarding that you overlook the fact that the Iraq War went through every constitutional process necessary for authorization, it still isn't your place to apply your own subjective interpretation of the Constitution to every order you are given and decide which ones you feel like obeying. It might feel like the de facto moral high ground, but all you would really end up doing is getting yourself thrown in the brig for mutiny and being remembered by the guys you work with as the self-righteous blue falcon who weaseled out of a deployment. I've seen it happen.

 

I agree with E3R here mate, if you were a solder who felt that the war itself was wrong then your duty (ethical obligation ect) would be civilan not millarty and that would be to take a case to the high court expressing your view. However once that case (or any other civilan action like writing to newspapers, protesting on the streets, signing and organisting petitions to congress\parliment ect) ran out your obligation would be to follow the terms of your employment.

This MAY be concidered different in a case where your conscripted (like vietnarm) rather than volenteered because there isnt a choice and i wouldnt DARE call someone who went to canada or to jail as being a coward but if you chose to join then you chose to serve and only the courts, the goverment or the legislative can decide where you should serve

 

I just have to weigh in here and say that the idea of a conscientious objector in an all volunteer army is absolute and utter bullshit. If you have a problem with killing, fine. Become a medic, request placement in a logistics unit, or be the best damn typist on the base. But how the bloody hell do you join the military, and then decide in your infinite wisdom as a buck private that you just can't go to Iraq? I mean, what an asshole. You think you're suddenly wiser than all the guys in your unit, their commanders, the commanders of your commanders, the guys at the Pentagon, all of our Congressmen, and finally the POTUS. What sort of self-righteous bullshit is that? Talk about an over-inflated ego....

I have no problem with a conscientious objector who gets drafted, but to be in all volunteer army and then decide your politics outweigh your oath...total bullshit. Not a damn thing noble or righteous about that.

 

I agree with you 15 excepting one point, shouldnt the order you just put have the president UNDER congress in this case rather than the other way around? I thought it was congress's decision not the president in the US who decides to send trops to war?

 

It was designed that way my Aussie friend, but unfortunately the Executive Branch has usurped power over the years and can go to war without a Congressional declaration of war. So ultimately, no, the POTUS can commit an act of war without really consulting anybody. Sucks, but that's the reality of the twisting of power in the U.S.

 

has this ever been tested in the judical branch?

i would be interested to see if it could pass because if it could then i may well be wrong in my opinion on the responcability of the solders as a whole if the constitution has been userped in breach of the constitution

 

True faith and allegiance writes the most essential strokes of the Constitution on the defender's heart. The Constitution is our only real tyranny-antidote. It describes the limits of human power over us- not for someone in a lofty bench wearing a wig to put into practice, but for every citizen to take to heart and to the streets. Those who swore to defend the Constitution and bear true faith and allegiance to it, but never really read it, and those who never sought to understand the minds and motivations of the Framers, are clueless as to the covenant they have entered, and clueless to defend it. Understanding the fundamental principles of the Constitution is absolutely essential for its defense. I could quote the Constitution here, or I could quote John Quincy Adams' explanation of the Constitution's meaning in very plain terms, on the specific subject of going to war:

Now some USAmericans and veterans too will scoff at that, and they'll be prone to note that we've fallen down many times from that ideal. But the Constitution doesn't say it's only valid until somebody disgraces it in ignorance. Our oaths did not say that we were exempt from them, if others, including our military superiors, failed in their true faith and allegiance.

In very plain terms, the Constitution sets forth that USAmericans Constitutionally go to war two ways: If we are suddenly attacked by surprise, the President may mobilize our short-term defensive response, with a 2-month time-limit. Beyond that, any warfare Constitutionally requires a formal Congressional Declaration of War- Not a go-to-war-without-a-declaration-when-you-please-Mr-President: A Declaration of War, making Congress accountable for the decision. The Constitution does not allow for shortcuts or deferments in this, even if everyone involved wants a war, but can't be bothered with formalities.

So are soldiers exempt from supporting and defending the Constitution, and are soldiers exempt from bearing true faith and allegiance to the Constitution when superiors have clearly violated it? No. It does not require a degree in law to understand this. Especially in the case of the war in Iraq, we have a conflict that was unprovoked, is harming the interests of the United States, and has caused horrific suffering on the part of the people of Iraq. It's more than enough Constitutional basis for faithful defenders of the Constitution to refuse their participation. All the rationalizations about illegal wars that came before do not annull the power and protection of that oath.

We are in a trance in the United States. We were bequeathed an exquisite system of government, but we're letting it run wild. Particularly in the military, where conformity of action is so important to good military order, the higher discipline called for in our oath to understand and defend our Constitution is going mostly ignored. If we can regain our respect for who we set out to be 231 years ago, there is a wealth of unfulfilled promise before us, including a speedy reversal of our stupidest ignorance of the wisdom of the Founders. We're making mistakes that were entirely foreseen. They would not have entertained the thought of this war in Iraq- not for a single minute. That's why they set down protections against just the sort of abuses of power that we are ignorantly and unnecessarily suffering the consequences of today.

 

Flowery language is nice, if you're trying to pass a class, but saying something in no uncertain terms is much more eloquent.

A man can type a thousand words decrying the perceived injustice of a war of aggression, but a funny thing happens between that statement, and the reality of the situation: He might just come off looking like a narcissistic asshole, even if his convictions ring a bell of truth here and there.

 

I'll take my chances.

 

Not quite correct. The war powers resolution gives the President the authority to deploy troops for up to 60 days without any kind of oversight aside from consultation. It is up to Congress to review it and either terminate the action between 60 to 90 days, or extend the period of review. With OIF it seems as though continued funding has been construed as tacit congressional approval for an extension, but in any case, Congress has yet to reign in the executive.

Haiti, Desert Shield, Panama, and Yugoslavia were some other deployments authorized under the war powers resolution.

You mean like 1LT Watada? This guy commissioned well after our sojourn in Iraq was in full swing, sat on his ass stateside collecting a paycheck, but when the warning order came down the pipe for his brigade to head to Iraq, he decided that his pet political philosophy preempted his sworn duty to his nation. He claimed CO status (which was obviously horseshit) as well as some other specious legal arguments he had no business making, as reasons why he couldn't deploy. The end result was that he missed movement and the Army court martialed him. Even worse, the guys in his platoon ended up getting the shaft because they had to deploy with a new platoon officer that they hadn't gone through work ups with, which seriously alters the command climate of a unit and is damaging to morale and readiness for obvious reasons. Hence my previous use of the term blue falcon.