The Army: A Profession of Arms
In his recent Army Greenbook article titled “The Second Decade,” the Army Chief of Staff addresses the topic of the Army Profession of Arms, and the merits of examining the impact of a decade of persistent conflict on the profession. (See http://www.ausa.org/publications/arm...Casey_1010.pdf ). The same topic was discussed in one of the Institute of Land Warfare (ILW) panels during the annual AUSA Meeting and Exposition. And earlier this year, the Commanding General of TRADOC dedicated an entire blog discussion to the Army profession. (See http://tradoclive.dodlive.mil/ ). Why an increasing emphasis on this topic and related discussion?
In short, periodic self-reflections and efforts to improve are what healthy professions or organizations do from time to time. In light of the influences , challenges, and even stresses that our Army has operated amidst for nearly a decade, coupled with the fact that ours is indeed an Army in transition, a valid need exists to “review, reemphasize and recommit to our profession” as the Commanding General of TRADOC recently stated. The persistent conflict has impacted both positively and negatively on the state of the Army Profession of Arms. This conflict has exposed strengths that have sustained us, while at the same time it has uncovered tensions and points of friction in our Army culture and DOTMLPF-P.
On 27 Oct 2010, the Army Chief of Staff and the Secretary of the Army signed a Terms of Reference (TOR) for the Review of the Army Profession in an Era of Persistent Conflict. This TOR sets the stage for a future comprehensive review to examine the state of our profession after nearly a decade of war. The review will be comprehensive, and will include a survey of the entire force, analysis of relevant trends and indicators of individual and unit behavior, sustainment of an Army-wide dialog and discussion . . . all of which lead to a review of existing policies and programs that apply to the Army as an institution. A detailed concept plan for this is currently being developed.
The Army Chief of Staff acknowledges the importance of this to our profession’s future: “ . . . it is essential that we take a hard look at ourselves and ensure the we fully understand what we have been through, how we have changed and how we must adapt to succeed in an era of persistent conflict. I encourage all leaders to think about how to accomplish this. It is essential to the continued effectiveness of our profession and to ensure that our young leaders are prepared for success in the decade.”
Domains of the profession
This Profession of Arms campaign will focus largely on 4 domains: military-technical, human development, moral-ethical, and political-cultural. It is important that the Army ensure strength in each domain.
I'm curious as to what domain people think needs to be studied the most.
What does it mean to be a profession of arms?
After 23 years of Army service, I find this question of what it means to be a profession of arms particularly interesting, since it seems to define the cultural fabric of my passion to serve my country while also subordinating that professional culture to our national ideals and civilian leadership. To defend our Nation with the ethical application of force of arms, our profession must maintain a clear sense of who and what we are by honestly studying our history to gain a more complete and nuanced understanding of our successes and our failures. War is such dangerous activity that people have developed the profession of arms, a dedicated group of certified, trained, equipped, organized, and led professional Soldiers, to execute warfare, but in the United States, as in many other countries, the profession remains subordinate to the political leadership who ultimately determine the scope of war.
This subordination of the profession to the political is key to understanding who is a member of the profession of arms and who is not. For example, Soldiers are clearly members, but are retired Soldiers members or newly hired Soldiers who have not completed basic training? Are DoD civilians part of the profession; they are certainly professionals doing military work, but are they working in the profession of arms. Are civilian contractors part of the profession? What about the civilian leadership, the President, or the Secretary of Defense or the Army?
Anchoring it's members in in a unified view of itself is a requirement of any profession and especially important to the profession of arms.
was just the convenient Ways that fit our Means
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bob's World
There
Do we still go to Iraq? I doubt it. It was never essential, it was just the convenient Ways that fit our Means.
Bob's W,
Great point and I completely agree that whatever force we build will tend to be used in ways that are more convenient to the strengths of that particular Army. So the question is what type of profession of arms should build. That in essence is the reason for this discussion the CSA asked us to have.
I value your end, ways, means, perspective as it really highlights the connection between the decision of what type of Army we make to what type of national strategy and policy we can follow. "Build it and they will come" may work for a field of dreams but in the real world we should think deeply about such decisions.
Do we need a large forward deployed force to keep us safe at home; maybe not, perhaps a smaller more expeditionary force would serves us better. But either way our political leadership may ask us to do things we did not anticipate, so a core aspect of any force should be the ability to adapt while engaged in the fight. The more adaptable the force the more easily it can transition along the full spectrum of conflict. Some may point out that such an adaptable force is also easier to use and thus more likely to be used. Providing political leaders with a profession of arms means they may be less inclined to solve problems with other means, but not providing such a force would leave the nation less prepared.
As a profession, we should strive to provide the most effective force possible within our means and trust the political leadership to use it appropriately. As a profession we should not attempt to limit our political leaders by designing a less than optimal force.
Bill Jakola
Chris, you are going to have to educate me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Chris Case
According to international law, this is illegal. It also violates the moral reasoning that underpins international law (Just War Theory). That being said, it does not follow that we won't do it anyway. My guess is that it isn't because anyone in the military necessarily wants to intentionally violate these laws and norms, it is that they have no idea what they are or how to apply them. The profession's interest in its moral-ethical knowledge usually ends with a notion of "leadership=ethics" (internal jurisdiction) and "following orders=ethics" (external).
Okay, Chris, you are going to have to educate me. I do not see how preparing our force to be more responsive to a rapidly changing enviroment is illegal.
Bill Jakola
Mike, your view is closer to what I am trying to say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jmm99
by Chris Case that this, simply as stated:
constitutes a prescription for either preventive or preemptive war.
Bill's prescription does not necessarily call for a resort to armed force ab initio - nor, does Bob's World in his numerous posts on "nipping things in the bud".
Regards
Mike
Look, I am not advocating preemptive war but keeping an eye on potential future problems seems only prudent.
My thought at your initial comment was
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Chris Case
...my pointing out the possibility is hardly "ludicrous" as the title of your reply claims...
"Make standing broad jumps at wrong conclusions often?" ;)
That does not equate to ludicrous, a judgment call, however it does seem to imply that your comment was perhaps a bit hasty.
Quote:
...my reply to Bill's claim was in an effort to clarify what he was describing...
Perfectly understandable and I agree with you that he wasn't clear. Still, it helps to phrase questions with a "Did you mean..." as opposed to "That is flipping criminal..." :wry:
FWIW, you can use the search function on the site and discover that many discussions on the topic have been held and the post above by Robert C. Jones stating his opinion on what should happen have been echoed by me and others -- still others have posed alternatives.
Here are some Threads on or near the topic: LINK, LINK, LINK.
Hey 120mm, violent agreenent
as to this:
Quote:
from 120mm
It would also help if we actually conducted diplomacy, and had a robust diplomatic corps, and used the DoS instead of the DoD to elminate the need to constantly "nip things in the bud" militarily.
but, given DOD Directive 3000.05 (Military Support for Stability, Security, Transition, and Reconstruction (SSTR) Operations) and its progeny, the military has been (and into the foreseeable future, will be) tasked not only with the "M" component, but with the "DIE" components as a practical matter.
Tomorrow's armed forces will have to deal not only with the military "struggle" (the continuation of Politik by other means - mainly military, the "M" component), but also with the political "struggle" (a different continuation of Politik by still other means - mainly political, the "DIE" components). The injection of the political struggle into the mix will certainly impact the "moral-ethical and political-cultural domains" of our (US) armed forces.
We (US) have (doctrinally) apolitical armed forces. Moving aspects of the political struggle into their tasked missions will most probably give rise to moral-ethical and political-cultural issues which in the past have been consigned to the non-military side of the ledger - and which generally have been considered "political questions" constitutionally.
The general question, in a "DoD 3000.05 world", is how deeply do our armed forces become involved in "Politik" - that is, in formulating the policies that are the driving engines behind both the military struggle and the political struggle ?
More specifically, how deeply should individual members of the military, because of ""moral-ethical and political-cultural" concerns, become involved and respond to policy decisions made by the National Command Authorities ?
E.g., a decision to go to war ("Jus ad Bellum" for those who prefer Latin), where arguments are made for and against characterizing the decision as an aggressive war, a preventive war, a preemptive war (different, BTW, from a preventive war), a just war, etc., etc.
What should happen to "PVT-GEN Jakola", if (after he has considered all of the "jus ad bellum" arguments) he says "Hell no, I won't go" ?
Regards
Mike
Good questions on the questions, howsomeever,
I can take a shot at both.
Re: question 1. Once someone volunteers for that professional force and signs the contract without coercion, they lose all right to object to being told to do what they voluntarily took on. I think that means if you sign on, you're stuck. Don't want to be stuck -- seek other employment. Because it's a job, it's a trade, not a profession. Did I mention that entrance is not mandatory? Since it's not, the old saw 'be careful what you want, you may get it' applies.
Yes, draft or conscription changes that rule and conscientious objection is permissable -- probably should be encouraged... :cool:
On question 2, those engaged in the trade of soldiering have taken someone's Shilling, as it were, therefor they have an obligation to do what they're told. It as they say, goes with the territory. They do have the autonomy -- and IMO an obligation -- to exercise their own expert judgment in refraining from doing harm to an extent in executing the missions given as they see fit. They do not have the right to decline missions but have a responsibility to attempt to structure missions to best accomplish them at the lowest possible cost to own nation and force. If given a mission they do not believe is lawful or that is consistent with their values they may resign if possible or take the punishment prescribed for failure to follow orders or violation of their contract. Hopefully without whining about it in either case.
One always has choices.
Hyvää iltaa, Vanha Kotka ...
and a good evening to everyone else.
I'm not a great fan of DoDD 3000.05 et seq. - believing that the political struggle should largely be handled by civilian agencies (which would require a substantial shift in resources) in co-ordination with the military effort. As such, I've a bias and shouldn't be answering my own questions about who makes policy.
I'd like to see a more conservative presentation, updating Samuel P. Huntington, The Soldier and the State: The Theory and Politics of Civil-Military Relations, (1957), and Morris Janowitz, The Professional Soldier: A Social and Political Portrait (1960). Since Janowitz at least floated the concept of "constabulary forces", he might not be that far off re: some of the present doctrine.
I can think of no better person to educate us than you. :)
Kiitos ennakollisesti ;)
Mike
Chris has a point with clarity
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ken White
and I agree with you that he wasn't clear.
I was not clear, and Chris is right to insist on precise language when discussing war, since so much depends on getting it right. So let me try again to present this idea of increasing the adaptability of our forces to provide the political leadership as useful a military as possible.
We now have a better understanding of a limitation on this concept, as Chris made clear, we want to remain within the legal constrains of preventive war. However, as Bob's W pointed out we routinely do prevention with our SF and other units in the FID mission. So perhaps we need to sharpen this distinction between what exact actions are legal and what are not.
The changing character but enduring nature of war that Clausewitz described is helpful here, since we now face a more transparent, faster paced, more competitive, more decentralized operational environment. These factors are changing the character of war in ways we have not fully anticipated or prepared our forces to address. I hesitate to narrow our focus to the operational environment because we actually must prevail in all environments. And there in lies the problem.
Preventive war legalities do not adequately arm us for the changing character of war. For example, we live in a time when there is a deep blurring of lines of responsibilities, missions, and roles that goes beyond purely defined war as a continuation of politics with other means. This blurring now has Soldiers making political decisions like a company commander organizing local a government, or a commanding general influencing a the leadership of foreign country. Moreover, humanitarian missions like the recent earthquake response to Haiti or the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico are not strictly war but rather roles where force is potentially necessary but not exactly the point of the mission. We now depend on our military to work with other federal state and local agencies, as well, as a cornucopia of international organizations, foreign governments and their military and civilian leaders.
So in this environment of multiple roles for our forces, defined as the full spectrum of operations, where Soldiers must be able to conduct, offense, defense, and the stability operations/civil support missions where does war and the use of force begin; when Soldiers are building water treatment plants, providing food and shelter or the requisite security to protect a population.
When does a Soldier have to stop preventing war; when even by the mere existence of an army can and does prevent war.
I'll give Chris his preventive war point a try as well here. Why is this a law? I imagine we would want to keep nations from using force when a less that lethal solution exists. For in it's extreme, preventive war would dictate all powers would attack all other powers to prevent being attacked.
I see the value in not using force if something better will work, but better than what. Avoiding war at all cost results in weakness and slavery. So where do we draw the line of demarcation between preventive war and preventing a war.
Exactly what is allowed under the law as it exists? Why would we not install metaphorical smoke detectors in our environment and train and equip our fire department to respond rapidly to the weak signals of the smoke alarm beeping? Should we wait for a raging fire before we react?
As a profession of arms we are tasked with the defense of the nation. Our duty is to make that profession as capable and useful as possible for ensuring that defense. In our environment of transparency, rapid change, more competition, and blurring of roles we need a profession with high resiliency, one that maximizes it's ability to see and react to weak signals so we can solve problem with the least cost in terms of blood and treasure of all parties.
Okay, I was not much clearer here, but the more I think about the tension between avoiding preventive war and how we need to build our profession, I find a clear line established by our founding fathers to provide an answer. The founders subordinated the military to the civilian political leadership. We can use structure to solve our dilemma. As Soldiers we simply build the best army we can with our signal detectors and all and allow the civilian political leaders decide when and how to use that army. In other words, military focus is on providing the capability to conduct preventive war, and political responsibility is the use of that capability.
Too many legalisms do not
a good professional military force make.
The thread title says the profession of arms. Perhaps, DoDD 3000.05, etc., has added the profession of politics as well. Even if that is so, the military is not and will not become the profession of law; nor would you want it to be.
That is particularly so where the legalisms deal with the issue of going to war (in modern jargon, engaging in an armed conflict), which in our (US) system is placed constitutionally in the hands of the executive and legislative branches.
These Wikis (read as neutrally as possible - read their caveats) illustrate the slippery nature of that international law topic: War of aggression (Crime against peace); Preventive war; and Preemptive war. I skipped "Just War Theories", which is really moral theology varying by religion.
Of course, if you want every trooper to delve into those topics, I suppose you could do that.
I expect more important things have to be done. Substantial civil-military operations have been added to the mix. That means that the military will have to make decisions on whether operations are to be governed by the Laws of Wars (LOAC; IHL) or by the Rule of Law (civil laws). That is a difficult enough area - tying in to ROEs, RUFs, EOF, etc.
All this being said, military law is certainly with us and is no longer the province of "Spaight's Ambitious Subaltern" (bold added):
Quote:
..... for an ambitious subaltern who wishes to be known vaguely as an author and, at the same time, not to be troubled with undue inquiry into the claim upon which his title rests, there can be no better subject than the International Law of War. For it is a quasi-military subject in which no one in the army or out of it, is very deeply interested, which everyone very contentedly takes on trust, and which may be written about without one person in ten thousand being able to tell whether the writing is adequate or not. James Molony Spaight, War Rights on Land (1911), p.18
Ah, the good old days. :)
A decent article from the ICRC on the "antiquity" of the Latin terms, Robert Kolb, Origin of the twin terms jus ad bellum / jus in bello. No, they don't go back to the Romans.
Regards
Mike
Selective contentious objection
We might want to define what each of us means by "selective conscientious objection". I'll start by reference to Conscientious objector - Wiki and its sub-topic, Selective conscientious objection - Wiki.
To keep things simpler, I'll posit an all-volunteer force and that the service person was not hussled (a great legal term) into the contract and had no firm conscientious objections when he or she entered into the contract.
I'd present three examples (all post-entry "conversions" to eliminate issues of fraud by the service member):
1. Conversion to complete pacifism - joins the American Friends Service Committee and wouldn't raise a finger in violence to defend himself or others from great bodily harm.
2. Conversion to pacifism re: a particular war - this is the situation presented in the Wiki subtopic re: "Selective conscientious objection" (basically, "hell no, I won't go [there].")
3. Conversion to pacifism re: a particular form of warfare - e.g., service member willingly participates in air operations involving conventional ordinances; but refuses an order to perform the preliminary arming sequence on a nuclear device.
Leaving aside the strict legalisms for the moment, should all of these cases be treated the same ?
Regards
Mike
Quasi legal and semi moral contracts abound...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bob Underwood
For one, no one has a right to volunteer for or be obligated to do something that is morally wrong in the first place.
That's a rather sweeping statement and it raises several questions. Says who? Who enforces that? Who determines what is 'right?' My version of morals say that they are very much an individual construct and I have no right to impose mine on you nor do you have a right to impose yours on me.
Thus if the governmental system says the issue is legal and moral and one disagrees, that is ones right. However, that disagreement does not automatically contravene the legality (or the morality in the eyes of that government) of the law that established the contract.
Quote:
On the other side of this, no one has a right to contract another person to do something morally wrong as well.
The same questions apply.
Quote:
Basically, this means that a contract for murder, rape, robbing, beating kids etc. has no obligatory force on either party.
It may have no legally binding obligatory force but it could have a morally (or immorally, dependent upon how one views such concepts as honor) binding force.
That not withstanding, the issue is not generally acknowledged criminal actions, it is the legal right granted by the People to the State to use force. That has been adjudged over the years by the majority of people in most nations and certainly including this one to be moral and, with some contraints, legal. Assuming those constraints are properly addressed and / or negated, then the contract in service of that usage is legal, period. Whether or not it is moral is an individual determination. The preponderance of evidence in this country today is is that most people assess it and the recruiting or selection of people willing -- not forced -- to accept those terms as morally acceptable (I'll insert a reminder here that a draft or conscription totally changes the rules...).
Quote:
If we are going to take on the problem of selective contentious objection(SCO) as a profession, we need something better than this. The SCO's objection will be a moral claim so we need to be able to tell them why the action is moral - otherwise, we should not be surprised that the contract fails to motivate them.
Again, morality is an individual construct. Nations do not, cannot, have morals -- if they are to act 'morally' then it is in the terms of the various beholders and thus, obviously, some may not agree with the presumed correct "morality" of an issue. If one accepts a "moral" norm (some people do, some do not...) then one would presume that nations laws were crafted in "moral" terms and should account for such contingencies.
The purpose of a contract is to obligate two parties to do certain things. Generally a quid pro quo situation exists. No contract of which I am aware is intended to "motivate" anyone -- motivation, like morality is an individual thing -- so whether a given contract motivates anyone should not be a question. Whether it is legal is a valid question. Whether, in a democratic society, it is morally acceptable to the majority of the people, is also valid. Whether it is moral to an individual or small group of them is immaterial.
Quote:
However, I don't see the choices as quite so freeing. What do we think should be the prescribed punishments for someone doing what they think is, ex hypothesi, moral? According to the case at hand, they are choosing the harder right over the easier wrong. Also, the problem above still looms. How can I be in violation of a contract that has no moral or legal grounds?
What case at hand? To my knowledge, no exemplary case exists in this thread. If you're using the blanket SCO postion as an example, whether the "harder right" is in fact right or even exists is not a given.
IMO, if a "moral" objection to an assignment (combat or not) is raised and is proven valid on the merits and corroborative testimony, I'd just discharge the individual (with an obligation to collect any funds not recouped). If, OTOH, it was not proven then they'd have the option of complying or receiving punishment as the modified UCMJ and a Court Martial direct.
One can be in violation of a contract that one deems to have no moral or legal grounds to ones hearts content. However, if that contract is deemed moral and legal by the people, legislature and courts of a democratic society, I'm doubtful ones opinion will count for much.
If one signed that contract on own volition, regardless of one's perception of its contents, one has accepted an obligation to comply with its terms. If one decides later that those terms are onerous or that one does not wish to comply with any or all of those terms, one has options. One can do it anyway, protesting mightily; If allowed, one can resign forfeiting all future benefits and paying any contractual debt incurred and not met; One can refuse to comply and take the contractually stipulated penalty for so doing. Either way as I said, hopefully without whining.
It is not the job of the Armed Forces in this nation to tell anyone why a given action is "moral." That is the job of the elected civilian leadership (not that they won't try to sluff it :rolleyes: ). That is dipping into the realm of strong personal opinions and that is no place for a large unwieldy bureaucracy to try to go. Particularly not one whose very existence is itself broadly immoral in the minds of a number of the citizens it serves...
I also suggest that we as a profession do NOT need to take on the issue of Conscientious Objection other than to determine and prescribe procedures for dealing with those who elect to so object. What constitutes that objection, and all the various ramifications surrounding it are matters of national political policy. They are not and should not be military policy. The comment in the paragraph just above applies; the 'military' solution will always be suspect in the eyes of many. Our penchant for messing around in the political milieu invariably brings big problems. We ought to quit doing that... :mad:
Apparently, I was unclear, let me muddy things a bit more...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bob Underwood
The problem is that professionals traditionally enjoy autonomy in practice. Namely, they generally get to decide when, where, how and on whom to practice their expertise...So the question is: how much should we have? Can we afford this sort of autonomy?
I'm disposed to think it a trade and not a profession -- I think aspirations to be a profession create several problems -- however, that's a digression. What is certain is that the Armed forces of the US have a very mixed bag in the autonomy arena. Those forces deploy to missions only on orders of the national government and the civilian masters of the force. That is far from autonomous in the largest sense.
Quote:
The problem with our profession is that rights are at stake. If we fail to do our job, those we protect will lose rights...However, if we do our job incorrectly, act on the wrong people or in the wrong way, rights are lost as well. This is what makes morality appropriate to the conversation.
I agree with most of that but will point out that the decision to deploy to do the job is made by the politicians. Thus they have the onus to decide the vagaries of conscientious objection. If we deploy and then err, thus turning some willing US participants into unwilling participants (as happens in all wars), then the onus is on the service(s) involved for errors of commission, i.e. they didn't do their job competently (as unfortunately happens in all wars). Regardless, the responsibility for the determination of what qualifies as Objector status and what should be done about claimants lies with the civilian law makers, not the Armed Forces.
Quote:
Two things here: My point doesn’t necessarily depend on what is right and wrong. Whatever you suppose is right, you generally agree that you can’t be obligated to do wrong.
Essentially correct IMO. Unless of course that generic you wants to do wrong...
It is important to note that the "generic you's" determination of wrong may or may not be supported by legal and public more considerations. Just because you or I think 'X' is wrong doesn't mean that it is legally wrong or morally deficient in the determination of the broader public.
Quote:
Also, this statement seems inconsistent with your earlier claims.
Obviously, I see no inconsistency so you'll have to point that out to me, please.
Quote:
I take you to think it wrong to make a contract and then renege. So what would you say if I told you my version of morality tells me “don’t keep contracts”? If you think its wrong to break contracts, that’s fine, but such claims impose morality across individual constructs.
Yes, I do think its wrong to make contracts then renege because because something one failed to foresee occurs. That is admittedly my opinion and many do not share that view. I have no problem with that.
However, the issue is not one of disparate moral views, it is one of legal requirements. Whatever one's moral approach to the issue, if the contract is legal and binding, then the legal aspects will overrule everyone's moral concerns. Whether they should or not is irrelevant, they will.:cool:
Quote:
Second:Here I cut parts of the quote together and don’t mean to do so unfairly. But, the issue is generally acknowledged criminal actions. Illegal wars are criminal, and widely thought to be so.
Possibly correct though "widely" could be problematic. Still, I'll accept that. What I do question is who determines the legality of a given war. Everyone does not accept the ICJ and the invasion of Iraq for one example was adjudged illegal by many. Now what? We're still there and in a role blessed to a degree by the UN. :wry:
Quote:
The point holds if we extend this to moral terms as well. There is a long and well-established acknowledgement that unjust international attacks are moral wrongs in the strongest sense.
My goodness. Again, WHO determines these things? Unjust? Moral wrongs? If you mean public opinion, well and good -- but I'll mention that it generally is divided and getting true consensus on 'unjust' and 'morally wrong' is difficult. Certainly that was not obtained for the Iraqi adventure. Even if that consensus existed and was overwhelmingly opposed, it is still only public opinion. That the public believes a thing does not make it so. Five years ago they believed we were all going to die of heat stroke before 2010 due to global warming... :rolleyes:
Quote:
What is widely accepted is the right to use defensive force.
We can agree on that. What we might not agree on is when and how that force can be applied and what should happen to those in a volunteer force who are to be part of such application but decide they do not want to participate. :D
Quote:
It might be true that nations do not have morals in the way individuals do.
I do not not believe "it might be true," it is a fact.
Quote:
However, this does not mean that morality should not or cannot apply to state/national action. People take such actions, these actions affect people, and are meant to benefit still other people. These are moral issues.
Ah, yes. Different thing and we can agree on that. The issue then becomes a moral consensus on which a or the decision maker(s) operate. In a democratic society, can we accept that will generally be the sensing of what the majority -- not all -- of the population is believed to think appropriate or moral?
Quote:
I think there is something here worth talking about. However, this would be a significant departure from current policy.
Really? Not in my experience. I've been retired for a while but we used to do both those things pretty much as I laid them out.
Quote:
Does this mean the Army, National Command authority, or other agency have an obligation to tell its professionals on the merits and with corroborative testimony that the combat assignment is legal and moral? I think it might.
My suspicion is that social mores are trending in that direction. I personally think that is not good for the Armed forces or the National Command Authority but they seldom seek my opinion.
My answer to that would be no, the constraints I mentioned earlier, the checks and balances in this governmental, the ease and rapidity of communication today and other factors really mean that any mission commitment is going to meet or exceed and reasonable criteria for legality (as most of the Legion of Lawyers determines) and morality (as viewed by most of the populace or politicians). Thus, any quibbles along that line are generally going to be outliers and no one should cater to them. Regardless, the politicians have the responsibility to explain to the voters (including those serving) their rationale -- though they are past masters at sluffing this off to the services -- who should IMO stoutly resist playing that game.
Quote:
Parting shot: This is interesting because it is clearly in tension with what you say above.
Sorry, once again I do not see any tension or disagreement. Please enlighten me. Obviously, I was unclear somewhere but a couple of revisits leave me unsure just where...
Quote:
Also, I think we have a duty to explain the morality of our actions when those actions involve killing people, ordering others to kill people, and ordering others to die.
First and foremost, Armies kill people, by definition (and by law in this country) that's what they do. So no one should be confused on that Score. To include those who sign or intend to sign enlistment or accession contracts...
I don't disagree with the duty to explain unless by 'we' you mean the Armed Forces, then I disagree. If the national government commits a force, then that government has the responsibility to justify its action legally and morally.
Quote:
None of that makes any sense to me unless it is in a moral context. If you fear a large bureaucracy getting involved in moral issues, then first among those must be those that involve the deaths of thousands of people.
I'm unsure of your meaning. Yes, I do fear a large bureaucracy getting involved in moral issues, particularly if it is an organization that is viewed as only marginally moral by a good many citizens. I believe that to be an invitation to problems. Politicians are elected by the citizens to make decisions, hopefully legal and moral decisions. It is their responsibility to explain to the public -- and to those serving who will do their bidding -- the rationale and to assure all of the legality and morally acceptable dimensions of the mission.
Quote:
Maybe that is exactly why it should be a personal and not governmental choice.
If you mean it should be a personal choice to enter the Armed forces, I totally agree. If you mean that once one has entered the force that any decision to not comply with orders or participate in an action should be (and currently, as well as in my future view, is) a personal choice, I also agree. I not only agree one can make such a choice, I have no animosity toward those that elect to do so. I do, however, have little sympathy for anyone that inconsistent.
If you mean the government has or should have no entry into those choices, I also agree. If you mean the government should have no recourse if an individual reneges on a contract voluntarily undertaken, I do not agree, many members of the public do not agree nor does the Congress or US Code. The Courts have also been known to disagree.
As I said yesterday, One always has choices.
Interesting read. Er, slog. Yes, slog was a good choice of words...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jmm99
might want to slog through
this.
Yet again the concept of the morality of a nation is introduced as 'normative.' :cool:
I could cite the 1/3 rule and its pertinence to the jus (or lack of juice) and such normativity but I'll spare everyone. :D