Need formal intro or look elsewhere to post political opinions
From time to time folks come onto the SWJ without introducing themselves which leaves their comments without a foundation of exactly where they are coming from.
Being 'anti-war" says you are in the wrong place to start with to write on SWJ. Warfare is a means and arm of foreign policy, always has been, always will be. The world of reality tells you and all of us so. Fact.
For example 9/11, coupled with my 31 years in the active and reserve forces, and some years in NYC international banking, and writings in overseas newspapers and academic journals (foreign and domestic) were spelled out in my self intro when I first came onto SWJ. I served in Pakistan, as an example, from 1963-1965, as a young USAF officer at the old US Embassy in Karachi, as the Liaison Officer for the then US Air Base at Badabar, just outside Peshawar, and traveled years ago in Afghanitan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Libyia, too, etc, etc.
Mr. Boyle, as Mr. Owen wrote in the open you, too, like us all, need to do a courteousy background introduction. But if you just want to slap on some opinions without the courteousy of an introductory hello first, perhaps you do need to find another venue instead of SWJ, whose clear and polite norms are the same for all of us, me included.
In terms of pure political science, international organizations and standards stand first upon any nation's, including the US, political objectives, goals, and needs related to the total global scene, not vice versa.
Foreign or even internal attacks on law and order and civilizied society such as 9/11 require no justification for self defense and pursuit of the attackers beyond what the world has from 9/11 to this day seen to be the case.
If you want to help mankind, find the means to stop the Islamist driven maniacs who are murdering fellow Muslims and all others worldwide today "in the name" of a religion whose defintion is "peace" but whose misguided practice by some Islamists is "sheer violence, murder and havoc."
The norms of world society do not allow for such and maybe you and any fellow thinkers of your view(s) need to get over there and show them how to observe, obey, and follow the international treaties and norms of world law and order you wish to have in place where the fighting is now.
By the way, be careful not to step on the bodies of young boys and girls used as suicide bombers, of school teachers murdered in the girls schools in Pakistan and Afghanistan...which schools back in the 1960s operated safely in a law and order society over there. And be sure not to polute the environment when your body is blown to bits by terrorist planted and detonated IUDs along the public roads, where many innocent civilian body parts are found all too often. This really messes up public cleanliness and santitation.
St. Edmunds Episcopal School in Peshawar educated Khan Abdul Ghaffer Khan the Muslim leader of the original 20th century Pakhtuns, if you will, "freedom movement" without any attempt to proselite him into being a Christian. He remained a Muslim of the peaceful sort as was Mr. Ghandi in India. You remember Mr. Ghandi, who was murdered by a religious terrortist?
George L. Singleton, Colonel, USAF, Retired
Miscellaneous history of Burma 1964
While stationed at the US Embassy in Pakistan, in the pre-MATS/MAC, et al world, when we only had Air Logistics Service, I controlled all US Air traffic in behalf of the upcountry base at Peshawar into and out of West Pakistan.
Thus I occasionally, only a Lieutenant (non-rated) you understand, manifested myself to inspect and check out the routes.
Thus I was able to take an ALS flight into and back from Rangoon, then Burma, the last such flight before they closed Burma to the rest of the world. Bought some nice narrow width 100% silk ties, was gawked at by a bunch of local military folks (guards etc.) and did not RON there...Burmese military wanted us in and out same day.
Not worth much but an odd bit of old history vs. today's still closed to the outside world "Burma" in it's renamed format.
Just War theory is full of fail
I may only fifteen but has this theory that romans came up with even follwed by them ? This reminds me of the hilarious stance of some that war should be proportional (recent gaza conflict).
Slight correction to Dayuhan ....
Quote:
Individuals within the military will certainly have their own opinions, but they are sworn to obey the civilian government, not to decide their own policies.
they, like I, are sworn to obey the Constitution. That, of course, vests power over the military in the civilian branches. So, your ensuing comment ends up being correct, though not by the correct analysis initially.
Where the distinction becomes important is in the case of manifestly unlawful orders. E.g., an order that the military act in such a way as to trample the Bill of Rights. The US oaths, whether by military or civilian officers, all are sworn to the Constitution as the highest civil authority. That must be contrasted to, say, the German officer's oath of WWII - a personal oath to the head of government, in that case - Hitler.
As to Just War, I can without difficulty come up with three somewhat different formulations. One is the current formulation of the Roman Catechism, which is on the Vatican website. Another is the traditional Just War formulations of Augustine and Aquinas (which also differ to some extent), which you can find by Googling. A third is the Southern Baptist formulation, which you can find on John Ankerberg's website.
My point being that I do not want military officers turning themselves into theologians professonally, whether in the Just War area or in other areas as well.
PS - Dayuhan: About Iraq, I favored the policy going in; but opposed the policy to stay (after say, Dec 2003). The "powers that be" differed (as probably most on this board). The question then is whether you stay on the boat or leave it. I chose to stay with the boat - and hope for the best (or, in Ken's terms, at least an acceptable outcome).
Thanks for the correction....
You're right, I was sloppy there, but I think the point is clear. I just thought it odd that someone of Todd's apparent ideological conviction was questioning the concept of civilian supremacy...
On Iraq, well, we all had an opinion. Looking at where it stands today, I'd have to say it's better that what I expected, going in.
Agreed on the Iraq point ...
although Iraq has not yet played out. The SOFA seemed an acceptable solution to me - and the 7 years or so extra, may lead to a much better outcome than if we had pulled the plug back in Dec 2003 as I wanted. I am always happy to be proved wrong by a better outcome. :)
I can't address Mr Boyle's ideology because I don't know what it is. The various legal and moral arguments (expressed by him in the form of questions) are pretty standard "war resister" arguments that are concerned with an immediate focus on potential war resisters in the military (who are not likely to be its senior officers ;) ) - not with the long-term position of the military re: civilian control.