The path followed by a Marine
I'm not competent to speak personally to this topic.
I offer the following as one path an officer might consider even though he has reached the firm conclusion that the war is lost. The Marine was Bill Corson (CAP's Formative Years) (emphasis added):
Quote:
It (this decision [by MACV]) can be used to prove that our use of the CAP concept, beginning in 1966, was doomed to ultimate failure because it was at least two years too late. I knew that before I went to Vietnam, but I agreed to take on the job because, as I mentioned above, my purpose was to save Marine and Vietnamese lives. Lives, in my opinion, that would have otherwise been lost in the pursuit of a futile military and political strategy.
The context of the reference (why he went) occurs earlier in the speech:
Quote:
The search for a measurement of success for the CAP program is elusive. Remember, the United States lost the war. Did the CAPs make a difference? The answer is an unhesitating YES! On the quantative side there are many thousands of Vietnamese alive today who would have either not survived the war or been able to procreate if not for the CAPs. On the qualitative side, the young men who exceeded my greatest hopes, and those of Lew [Walt] and the Brute [Krulak], were forever changed for the better by their experience in "their" hamlets. One cannot attend a CUVA reunion without a sense of pride in knowing men such as those kids. In recent years some wives and children have attended our reunions. My conversations with those folks are treasured memories.
Food for thought on the positive side.
Regards
Mike
We will have to disagree on that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fuchs
Neither of those apply if reason tells them that these wars serve no purpose for the nation (a not really far-fetched conclusion).
First, neither you nor they nor I are really in a position to determine what serves the nation's purpose. We can have an opinion but that's all it will be, an opinion. That, to me, is not adequate to make a decision to abrogate an oath no one made you take...
More importantly and pertinent, service is voluntary. No one has to take the oath but if you take an oath, you either live with it or do not, period.
Quote:
Especially those who joined pre-2001 with the idea of actually serving and defending their country - instead of the constant nonsense bullying and meddling of the last ten year - may be prone to rejecting deployments, having seen too much of the reality.
Nonsense it may be but that's not the call of those who elected to serve. If one is not willing to play by the rules (when they are easily available for all to see and know...), one should seek another game.
Just like marriage, you don't have to say "I do" but once you do that you either work it out honorably or you do not -- and that is NOT advocating blind obedience; I was disobedient a bunch of times -- but I did not fail to do what I said I would even opr go where competently ordered when I disagreed with what was required. On two occasions I was told to do things I thought were very wrong, I refused and that was the end of that.
Reason -- and logic -- are important. Honor is an intangible. All are needed for humans. Knowledge is also important -- it can also be deceptive. It's been my observation that a number of very intelligent, erudite people are about half as smart as they seem to think they are. Those are the folks that tend to think the rules or norms do not apply to them.
Shows they really aren't all that smart; the norms always apply... ;)
ganulv has it right. Voluntarily assumed responsibility should trump both logic and reason