Results 1 to 20 of 161

Thread: The Army: A Profession of Arms

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Council Member AmericanPride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    "Turn left at Greenland." - Ringo Starr
    Posts
    965

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TC
    First, the professional Soldier is a tool of policy. War is an extension of foreign and domestic policy. Foreign policy will drive where and how he is used. His thoughts on that policy should be irrelevant.
    I take issue with this because the Nuremburg Trials clearly established that a soldier's obedience to political orders is not a sufficient defense against charges of wars of aggression and crimes against humanity. The scope of international law is only expanding. The idea of a unquestioning military leadership is appropriate for 19th century states where no higher international legal regime existed that held individuals accountable for their actions. If a U.S. president ordered a war of aggression against a foreign state, should the military leadership obey that order?

    I think there is something to be said about the mythologizing of military service, both within and outside the ranks. And to an extent, I think that process is harmful to the formulation and execution of strategy - you brought up some good examples toward that end.
    When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles. - Louis Veuillot

  2. #2
    Council Member TheCurmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Woodbridge, VA
    Posts
    1,117

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AmericanPride View Post
    I take issue with this because the Nuremburg Trials clearly established that a soldier's obedience to political orders is not a sufficient defense against charges of wars of aggression and crimes against humanity. The scope of international law is only expanding. The idea of a unquestioning military leadership is appropriate for 19th century states where no higher international legal regime existed that held individuals accountable for their actions. If a U.S. president ordered a war of aggression against a foreign state, should the military leadership obey that order?
    AP, that's an interesting question. It was not my intent to go down that road, I was talking more in generalities. It should not matter if we are supporting a democracy or a dictator, only that it is in the interest of National Secuirty.

    However, looking at waterboarding and other methods that could/should be considered torture under the Convention Against Toruture, is it not fair to say that we have already crossed that bridge - that the government has ordered Soldiers to either torture suspects or be complacient in that torture (at least until someone dies and it becomes public) [see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagram_...risoner_abuse]. I suppose it only matters if you lose.
    "I can change almost anything ... but I can't change human nature."

    Jon Osterman/Dr. Manhattan
    ---

Similar Threads

  1. Towards a U.S. Army Officer Corps Strategy for Success
    By Shek in forum Training & Education
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 05-16-2010, 06:27 AM
  2. Replies: 13
    Last Post: 10-26-2007, 03:06 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •