Ethics and our Military

[Phi for All]

I really think we should get back to my original intent. How are morals and ethics engendered to our next generations unless we move in that direction? I honestly believe our military is a Godsend in reviving views in many lives. And that has nothing to do with religion!

One of the things that bothers me about our military structure is the rivalry among our own branch command structures. The sailors resent the jarheads, the grunts resent the flyboys, and instead of a cohesive military force we have splintered groups at troop level, and multiple hands at command level all reaching for the same appropriations dollar. I don't think this is conducive to either efficiency or moral structure.

 

I often wonder how much more effective (and less costly) our military would be today if Senator Symington's proposal for a cohesive military structure, with defenders who can fly, defenders who can sail, defenders who can ground-fight and defenders who can specialize in various combinations, hadn't been shot down by Robert McNamara. Perhaps a consistent ethical message would be more effective when applied to a single Defense Force as opposed to four different branches.

[rigney]

One of the things that bothers me about our military structure is the rivalry among our own branch command structures. The sailors resent the jarheads, the grunts resent the flyboys, and instead of a cohesive military force we have splintered groups at troop level, and multiple hands at command level all reaching for the same appropriations dollar. I don't think this is conducive to either efficiency or moral structure.

 

I often wonder how much more effective (and less costly) our military would be today if Senator Symington's proposal for a cohesive military structure, with defenders who can fly, defenders who can sail, defenders who can ground-fight and defenders who can specialize in various combinations, hadn't been shot down by Robert McNamara. Perhaps a consistent ethical message would be more effective when applied to a single Defense Force as opposed to four different branches.

 

Rivalry to me is simply a: brother/brother, sister/sister, or sibling/sibling thing. Most nations nurture this type of rivalry. Until the white men came and changed their vernacular, Indians of all nations in upper America played it out to the hilt. We retain this hegemony attitude even today with our sports venues in grade schools, High schools, College and professional sports; male or female. No! Symingtons proposal was not an attempt at cohesiveness, but to convert a soverign nation into a limp wristed bunch of pansies.

[John Cuthber]

"Rivalry to me is simply a: brother/brother, sister/sister, or sibling/sibling thing."

Possibly, but that's not what it means to the rest of us.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?aq=f&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=define+rivalry

To us it means competition.

Id rather the armed forces were fighting the enemy, rather than each other.

"Most nations nurture this type of rivalry."

Any evidence with that assertion?

 

This "Until the white men came and changed their vernacular, Indians of all nations in upper America played it out to the hilt."

doesn't seem to make much sense.

In any event, the white man probably didn't change the natives' language much.

 

"Symingtons proposal was not an attempt at cohesiveness, but to convert a soverign nation into a limp wristed bunch of pansies. "

also seem s a wee bit short of evidence.

[swansont]

The sailors resent the jarheads, the grunts resent the flyboys

 

And with damn good reason!

 

[Phi for All]

Symingtons proposal was not an attempt at cohesiveness, but to convert a soverign nation into a limp wristed bunch of pansies.

Symington pushed hard to make the Air Force separate from the Army, and then saw first hand what it did to morale structure and cohesiveness. He spent the latter part of his life trying to correct his error (and JFK agreed with him, and made Symington his first pick as VP).

 

I can't imagine how converting four separate branches of military into a single defensive force would create any kind of "pansy". If anything, it would eliminate having kids follow their parent's footsteps into what may be an inappropriate branch of service for them. How many grunts lost their lives (and possibly those of fellow grunts) because taking a much better suited assignment in the Navy wouldn't have been sanctioned by their families? How ethical is it to expect someone to take a job they may not be suited for because of tradition?

 

And with damn good reason!

 

Because if you're not a swabby, you're a moral derelict, right?

[Joatmon]

Seems we might be moving towards a few inter service jokes. In the RAF we had the RAF regiment who were the people that guarded airfields and installations. These days probably the most dangerous job in the RAF. As you might expect the Air Force tended to "look down" on the army and the RAF regiment were seen as "soldiers". With these thoughts in mind, here is the joke:-

 

 

I was walking down the road when I saw a RAF Regiment man with a parrot on his shoulder. I said "Where did you get that then?" and the parrot said "Catterick, where else?". (Catterick was the main training camp for the Regiment).

 

On the other side of the coin I knew a hairy old Station Warrant Officer who kept an aerosol container on his desk labelled "Fairy Technician Killer Spray". If one of us walked into his office he would give us a burst before asking us what we wanted.

 

Never seemed to cause resentment - in fact since everybody had some sort of discriminatory joke about other groups it seemed to somehow generate the opposite.

 

 

 

 

[Phi for All]

Perhaps I'll come at it from a cost-effectiveness point of view, with the idea that it's unethical to spend taxpayer dollars on something that's known to cause waste. There are four separate branches of the military in the US who each have command and administrative departments who all vie for every dollar appropriated by Congress. This represents an immense expenditure that would be unnecessary if our military was a single Defense Force. And if you don't think there's a detrimental rivalry between branches at the Pentagon level, you're living in a politically imaginative fairy tale.

 

Further, there is a hideous amount of waste in hardware as well. The A-10 Thunderbolt is a great example. Originally an Air Force asset assigned for use in close air support of ground troops, it's been so successful that the Army wants its own squadrons under its own command. They love the plane but don't like the way the Air Force drives it. They have to furnish reams of reports costing millions of dollars in order to get something that a cohesive Defense Force would've been able to assign based solely on strategic mission requirements.

Edited April 5, 2012 by Phi for All
added clarity

[Vent]

I really think we should get back to my original intent. How are morals and ethics engendered to our next generations unless we move in that direction? I honestly believe our military is a Godsend in reviving views in many lives.

 

Many people have this view. It comes from the idea that, for example, the US has the moral high ground with regard to ethical conduct in various cultures and countries and therefore it's justified in using military might for ensuring that other cultures value what the US values.

 

With regard to your question, and your assumed assent to the above paragraph of mine, the military is a vehicle for a commanders' opinions and decisions. The guy following orders will follow the orders the vast majority of the time irrespective of the ethical nature of the act. Moral responsibility is deferred to those higher up the chain.

 

So the 'how' of your question (assuming military action is a given in the endeavour), is to make sure our commanders are ethical, and further that they have the guts to act on it. It would seem to ring true that most people are ethical, but just rather lack the guts to act in various matters due to vested interests in other matters, especially policy matters, which is your real question that needs answering.

 

Since it wold appear troublesome to remove the sense of personal identity from our commanders the military seems a poor choice for moral posterity.

 

Although hey, maybe i'm wrong.

[JustinW]

Vent,

 

This is a nationalist viewpoint, but often times you hold an individualist viewpoint in your posts.

You're going to have to explain a little better so can know what you're referring to.

 

 

 

Captain,

But you were talking about international treaties, and now you switch to explain your personal views?

I was talking about shooting of rockets breaking international treaties. Not policies during times of war dealing with the trial of citezens on foreign soil.

You said you don't use military intimidation to go against international treaties.

And I've never said this.

And then your defense against my example is that personally you don't really agree with the human rights anyway. That's not relevant.

And I never said this. I said that I have a different opinion on human rights, and I only said so to avoid an argument that would be off topic.

 

Interestingly, this thread is supposed to talk about ethics and morals, yet you have the attitude of a colonist: Business before ethics.

What is so unethical about putting yourself in a stable economic position?

 

 

Slavery is also very profitable. Slavery can also be in a country's best interest. People decided to walk away from that.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but were we talking about slavery? Are we enslaving people now? I must have missed the memo.

 

So... you only detect a dislike of 21st century American imperialism, but still loads of respect of the liberators in WWII. But the mountain of credits earned in WWII with the Europeans will run out at some point. The USA has been cashing in those credits for well over a decade now. Europeans (also the Dutch) are helping you guys out this time, in Afghanistan and Iraq. That's not our conflict... but we're still there to help out, because we're allies. But don't give me the "we helped you in WWII, so you're forever in our debt" kind of talk. That may have worked with my grandparents, but it's too long ago now. That debt has been repaid, both financially and morally.

No we saved their asses in WW2, like we're trying to do now in the middle east. Is that such an absurd way to characterize things?

[John Cuthber]

Exactly whose arses are you trying to save in the Middle east?

 

"What is so unethical about putting yourself in a stable economic position?"

Nothing per se, but if you make money by exploiting others or, for example, invading their country and awarding yourself rights to all their oil, that is unethical.

 

"I was talking about shooting of rockets breaking international treaties. "

What rockets?

[rigney]

Vent Posted Yesterday, 04:06 PM

 

rigney, on 5 April 2012 - 11:37 AM, said:

I really think we should get back to my original intent. How are morals and ethics engendered to our next generations unless we move in that direction? I honestly believe our military is a Godsend in reviving views in many lives.

 

Many people have this view. It comes from the idea that, for example, the US has the moral high ground with regard to ethical conduct in various cultures and countries and therefore it's justified in using military might for ensuring that other cultures value what the US values.

 

With regard to your question, and your assumed assent to the above paragraph of mine, the military is a vehicle for a commanders' opinions and decisions. The guy following orders will follow the orders the vast majority of the time irrespective of the ethical nature of the act. Moral responsibility is deferred to those higher up the chain.

 

 

[rigney]: Other than under total duress in combat situations, few; if any commanders in the US Military can take such assertive actions. Only when communications are totally unavailable between field positions and a higher echelon does the situation allow an officer of any rank to make the final decision as to what is good or not good for his command. But those decisions are rare without being discussed with other ranking officers. Even the decision to execute Pvt. Slovik by firing squad during WW!! likely didn't come from the local command, but straight from the White House as President Roosevelts decree. Morally and ethically, was the execution justified? I'm just glad it wasn't my decision to make. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Slovik#Court_martial

 

Lt. Calley and the: My Lai Massacre

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre

 

Can anything be morally justified in a War Theater? Kids on the USS Stennis are not at war, but could be at war on a minutes notice. I believe the regiment of training they are subjected to will be both morally and ethically helpful as their return to civilian life.

Edited April 6, 2012 by rigney

[JustinW]

John C,

 

Exactly whose arses are you trying to save in the Middle east?

Innocent people that have fallen under the tyranny of those who wish to rule them with brutal dictation.

 

 

 

"What is so unethical about putting yourself in a stable economic position?"

Nothing per se, but if you make money by exploiting others or, for example, invading their country and awarding yourself rights to all their oil, that is unethical.

Who exploited who? Who awarded theirself rights to who's oil? Is there anyone in particular you are thinking this example might be?

 

"I was talking about shooting of rockets breaking international treaties. "

What rockets?

Why North Korean rockets of course. I was talking about the testing of their armaments in direct and blatant violation of international treaty as a way to intimidate and threaten.

 

It was talked about on the first page of the thread, I was just late in replying.

 

John C,

 

Exactly whose arses are you trying to save in the Middle east?

Innocent people that have fallen under the tyranny of those who wish to rule them with brutal dictation.

 

 

 

"What is so unethical about putting yourself in a stable economic position?"

Nothing per se, but if you make money by exploiting others or, for example, invading their country and awarding yourself rights to all their oil, that is unethical.

Who exploited who? Who awarded theirself rights to who's oil? Is there anyone in particular you are thinking this example might be?

 

"I was talking about shooting of rockets breaking international treaties. "

What rockets?

Why North Korean rockets of course. I was talking about the testing of their armaments in direct and blatant violation of international treaty as a way to intimidate and threaten.

 

It was talked about on the first page of the thread, I was just late in replying.

[Vent]

President Roosevelt was a commander. The chain will often, but not always, go all the way up. My argument stands.

[rigney]

I get tired of Hussein's attacks using gas against the Kurds being held up as proof he was a monster. The Kurds in question were near the Iranian border, they were overrun by Iranian forces at the time, and the gas that was used was for area denial, meant to flush out the Iranians who were entrenched in the city. When the enemy runs out coughing, you shoot them with bullets.

 

 

[/quote: Here is a juicy tidbit for you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack

But lets forget about the Kurds for a moment and look at the 100,000s of thousands of unmarked graves found throughout Iraq after allied troops invadedthat country. If you think Saddam wasn't a monster, that's your opinion. But history has a way of handling the truth.

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Iraq

Edited April 7, 2012 by rigney

[Joatmon]

I have touched on this before, but feel it has been overlooked as the debate has gone up the ranks. The people that may have to take the risks and perform the tasks are the "foot soldiers". One of the first things I was told when I joined the British Air Force was that disobeying a LAWFUL order was a serious matter. However if I was certain the order was unlawful then I could, and should, refuse but be prepared to defend my position. Admittedly easier said than done but I hope the people on the ground in the American forces are told the same.

 

"Seems like pretty good motivation to obey any order you're given, right? Nope. These articles require the obedience of

LAWFUL

orders. An order which is unlawful not only does not need to be obeyed, but obeying such an order can result in criminal prosecution of the one who obeys it. Military courts have long held that military members are accountable for their actions even while following orders -- if the order was illegal."

http://usmilitary.ab...eyingorders.htm

Edited April 7, 2012 by Joatmon

[rigney]

I have touched on this before, but feel it has been overlooked as the debate has gone up the ranks. The people that may have to take the risks and perform the tasks are the "foot soldiers". One of the first things I was told when I joined the British Air Force was that disobeying a LAWFUL order was a serious matter. However if I was certain the order was unlawful then I could, and should, refuse but be prepared to defend my position. Admittedly easier said than done but I hope the people on the ground in the American forces are told the same.

 

"Seems like pretty good motivation to obey any order you're given, right? Nope. These articles require the obedience of

LAWFUL

orders. An order which is unlawful not only does not need to be obeyed, but obeying such an order can result in criminal prosecution of the one who obeys it. Military courts have long held that military members are accountable for their actions even while following orders -- if the order was illegal."

http://usmilitary.ab...eyingorders.htm

 

No trues words could be spoken, unless you're working for the likes of a Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Hussain and a few other nut cases I could readily mention. Disobeying those guys or their henchmen in any respect would only get you shot as a traitor. It takes moral courage to stand your ground, but you best be right when you do. Ignorance and/or stupidity are no substitute for courage, and just won't get the job done. Edited April 7, 2012 by rigney

[Vent]

Moral courage to stand your ground? You've moved from military to philosophy. Moral responsibility is deferred to those who are perceived to be in charge. Officers are trained on situational influence. They know, for example, that the perception of them as an authority figure is, in the vast majority of cases, adequate in seeing that a particular task is done. This was shown to us in the 60's by Milgram and repeatedly since.

 

As an aside, how is a foot soldier to decide what is lawful or not? Legal education? Surely not. Their sense of right or wrong (i.e. appealing to their morality in a war zone)? We could use many examples to question this sense of morality, even with only Iraq and Afghanistan throughout the past decade, such as the irradiating of Iraq and Afghanistan, or the melting of people, many of which are innocent, by dropping napalm on them (different classification due to burning temperature is mostly irrelevant). The military is not full of moral philosophers but rather those who are disciplined and obedient. It's a large reason for its effectiveness. One legal scholar among a thousand hardened military matters little to what unfolds.

[Joatmon]

Moral courage to stand your ground? You've moved from military to philosophy. Moral responsibility is deferred to those who are perceived to be in charge. Officers are trained on situational influence. They know, for example, that the perception of them as an authority figure is, in the vast majority of cases, adequate in seeing that a particular task is done. This was shown to us in the 60's by Milgram and repeatedly since.

 

As an aside, how is a foot soldier to decide what is lawful or not? Legal education? Surely not. Their sense of right or wrong (i.e. appealing to their morality in a war zone)? We could use many examples to question this sense of morality, even with only Iraq and Afghanistan throughout the past decade, such as the irradiating of Iraq and Afghanistan, or the melting of people, many of which are innocent, by dropping napalm on them (different classification due to burning temperature is mostly irrelevant). The military is not full of moral philosophers but rather those who are disciplined and obedient. It's a large reason for its effectiveness. One legal scholar among a thousand hardened military matters little to what unfolds.

 

Civilians, whether legally trained or not, are expected to keep within the law. Why not members of the armed forces? The general populace is not full of moral philosophers but I've never heard that used as an excuse for breaking the law. Members of the armed forces are as much human beings with the same characteristics as human beings in any other sphere of experience. The fact that some of them have to take rapid life or death decisions on occasion adds to their burden of responsibility.

 

 

 

[rigney]

Moral courage to stand your ground? You've moved from military to philosophy. Moral responsibility is deferred to those who are perceived to be in charge. Officers are trained on situational influence. They know, for example, that the perception of them as an authority figure is, in the vast majority of cases, adequate in seeing that a particular task is done. This was shown to us in the 60's by Milgram and repeatedly since.

 

As an aside, how is a foot soldier to decide what is lawful or not? Legal education? Surely not. Their sense of right or wrong (i.e. appealing to their morality in a war zone)? We could use many examples to question this sense of morality, even with only Iraq and Afghanistan throughout the past decade, such as the irradiating of Iraq and Afghanistan, or the melting of people, many of which are innocent, by dropping napalm on them (different classification due to burning temperature is mostly irrelevant). The military is not full of moral philosophers but rather those who are disciplined and obedient. It's a large reason for its effectiveness. One legal scholar among a thousand hardened military matters little to what unfolds.

 

Unless you have been in the military in some capacity other than a full time KP; you're simply talking apples and oranges. Yes, juris prudence is left primarily to the higher echelon and not to the enlisted man. And why? Do you think General D. MacArthur got his ass booted to the curb, (fired); by a corpral or Pfc? No! President Harry S.Truman cropped the generals horns as a reminder that even generals have bosses. As I related earlier, command decisions come from the top. Fortunately we have a military system that is morally and ethically sound enough as not to let one or two idiots destroy the foundation it was predicated upon. Edited April 8, 2012 by rigney

[Vent]

The situation of war is not the same as the situation of society. We are all brought up within society, not war. We rely on our experience of social norms to inform us how to behave, we have learned no such norms for war. If you want to believe that any given soldier will act with an individual morality in times of war by all means do so, but you are mistaken.

 

Rigney, you've just rephrased the question i told you to ask instead of asking the one you originally asked. I'm glad you've changed it. Good luck.

[Joatmon]

"............................... If you want to believe that any given soldier will act with an individual morality in times of war by all means do so, but you are mistaken. ................''

 

 

If you want to believe any given civilian will act with an individual morality in times of peace by all means do so, but you are mistaken. A group of soldiers (IMO) is likely to contain a greater percentage of people with a high moral standard than (say) a group of bankers! Of course in both groups you will find a range of moral standards - but a group of soldiers is a group of human beings much like any other group. I was lucky as I never had to handle loaded weapons except for practice on the firing range. It would have troubled me greatly if I had to do so.

Edited April 8, 2012 by Joatmon

[rigney]

The situation of war is not the same as the situation of society. We are all brought up within society, not war. We rely on our experience of social norms to inform us how to behave, we have learned no such norms for war. If you want to believe that any given soldier will act with an individual morality in times of war by all means do so, but you are mistaken.

 

Rigney, you've just rephrased the question i told you to ask instead of asking the one you originally asked. I'm glad you've changed it. Good luck.

 

We can look at experiments down through history performed to make a capital point of an idea. But it goes back much farther than Pavlovs' Dog, and philosophy has little to do with it. Civilian or military, we all must follow orders to some extent. When I made the statement that even generals have bosses, you ran with it. Civilians by and large set regulations for our military. General MacArthur evidently forgot that, as did Army Air Force General, Billy Mitchell. When moral and ethical standrds of a nation are compromised, whether civilly or militarily; that country is in trouble. The following may shed some light on my thoughts.

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2012/03/9563756

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_control_of_the_military

Edited April 8, 2012 by rigney

[Vent]

Joatmon, my first sentence in post 70 answers your post 71. As an aside, i never said they weren't human beings, but rather said that they are a disciplined and obedient unit of soldiers.

 

Rigney, post 58 precedes 61 so no, i ran with nothing. You began with Military personnel and claimed they give us moral posterity. I then suggested that it should be the commanders you need to look to for moral posterity if you want the military to be involved and concerned with the action. You then restated this assertion of mine by highlighting that Roosevelt was a commander as if this is not what i said in the first place. You are now trying to teach me to suck eggs instead of remaining consistent with your original assertion.

 

If you actually did mean that the military personnel have commanders and that it's these we need to look to for moral posterity and that this was actually your original intent then you should have said so rather than saying something completely different and then changing it.

Edited April 8, 2012 by Vent

[rigney]

If you want to believe any given civilian will act with an individual morality in times of peace by all means do so, but you are mistaken. A group of soldiers (IMO) is likely to contain a greater percentage of people with a high moral standard than (say) a group of bankers! Of course in both groups you will find a range of moral standards - but a group of soldiers is a group of human beings much like any other group. I was lucky as I never had to handle loaded weapons except for practice on the firing range. It would have troubled me greatly if I had to do so.

 

Joatmon, I would much rather go to combat with a well trained Pvt. than with a Salesman, Wall Street tycoon or Religious leader. The private usually has had a High School education prior to entered the military and now has been schooled in warfare. Most of our morals and ethics are learned at this early period of our lives, not when we become suscessful and jaded. I think Vent just likes pulling the leg of unsuspecting yokel? The following gives a descent account of how military morals and ethics stack up as compared to those of a civilian.

 

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=SVG2tWbIGTEC&oi=fnd&pg=PR11&dq=military+ethics+and+morals%3F&ots=tpKV42VOSY&sig=de_1le0y-jy5CkiHqH2u4FomqI4#v=onepage&q=military%20ethics%20and%20morals%3F&f=false

Edited April 9, 2012 by rigney