One often hears the liberal shibboleth, "support the troops, not the war." "Support the troops: bring them home," reads one popular left-leaning bumper-sticker. Let us assume for the moment that the Iraq war is not justified and may be not only improvident, but also immoral. Why, then, support troops when they are the voluntary agents of an unjust war? If those troops generally consent to prosecute war, and then do intentionally prosecute an unjust war, then are they not responsible for their actions?
If they are not, then why not? Perhaps troops are not responsible because they are the mere unfortunate instruments of an unjust and unwise war policy a general or president directs from the top. It is that general or president who is responsible, then, not the troops. So most soldiers enlist primarily for reasons unrelated to the job, i.e., for the reasons most people get jobs: wages, health care, security, etc., and now cannot quit the job for fear of forfeiting those benefits. Moreover, and crucially, because desertion is a criminal offense, soldiers risk court-martial and imprisonment if they refuse to follow orders. There is a whiff of duress, then, in how soldiers are made by law and contract to follow orders, and so their consent and hence responsibility for their actions may be somewhat diminished.
These may be reasons to feel sympathy for soldiers caught in a difficult position; however, they are not moral reasons to support those soldiers in their choice to continue fighting an unjust war, or a fortiori moral reasons for those soldiers themselves to choose to continue fighting. Even in cases of incontrovertible duress, as when someone forces a person to commit a crime by holding a gun to that person's head, then the duress constitutes at best only an excuse, not a justification, for the performance of the immoral act. The act performed is still morally wrong, morally unjustified, though we may excuse it. Those who act under such duress may not deserve punishment - they may be excused - but from a certain purified moral point of view, they should not have done what they did, and no one should support them in so doing. We therefore should not support troops choosing to perform immoral acts such as killing people in support of an unjust war, though we may in some cases excuse them from punishment if we believe that the threat of court-martial and imprisonment or execution, as well as the loss of other benefits, is great enough to constitute duress. Reasons related to duress are in fact strong reasons to support soldiers who refuse to fight, because those are the soldiers who are going to need our support, as they will then probably face grave punishment for their ethical choice. But I doubt "support the troops, not the war" is intended to apply only to troops who refuse to fight.
If Nazi soldiers continued fighting because they feared court-martial, or Sauron's enthusiastic orcs - heh - continued fighting because they feared his wrath, then no one would say these soldiers are making an ethically sound decision, though many people may feel sympathy for their plight, and may even excuse them for not standing up against Hitler (or Sauron), given the circumstances. No one would say "support the troops" in these cases, unless they meant only "feel sorry for the troops." But if a war policy is patently immoral, such as those of the Nazis or Sauron adduced here, then there may not even be room for this weak sense in which we support troops by feeling sorry for them, and excusing them from blame.
Or is there some reason to support troops engaged in an unjust war simply because they are a part of a nation's military organization, because they are our troops?
Perhaps a reason we should support troops engaged in unjust war is that we as a nation need a credible, effective military, and our military would be feckless and unreliable if soldiers could abandon a campaign whenever they morally disagreed with it. There would always be some soldiers who would object to a war mission, and others who would feign moral objection so as to avoid personal peril, and so as a matter of pragmatic course we strive to inculcate in our soldiers an ethos of strict unthinking obedience and loyalty to their military superiors. Hence when we say "support the troops, not the war," we mean support this ethos of obedience that makes our troops effective, so as to preserve and strengthen our nation's military power in general, no matter how wrongly it may be deployed at any particular time.
From this point of view, soldiers are more like tools or other military hardware than they are like independent moral agents. We have to keep these tools in proper order if we want to use them effectively in the future. So "support the troops, not the war" means something like keep our tanks well-oiled, or our machine guns fully-loaded, because if we did not in general support the troops' efforts to carry out their orders, whatever those orders may be, then the troops may start to question what they are doing and become the disorganized ragtag group the rest of us with our differing moral viewpoints often are, and not obedient soldiers at all. Is this the sense in which we mean to "support the troops, not the war"?
I certainly hope not. The virtues of the good soldier should reside on a different, lower plane from those of an ethical human being. Loyalty, sacrifice, and obedience to superiors are indeed necessary for soldiers to make war, and may mean the difference between life or death for a soldier in the field, but these skills and practices of war are not required or even salutary for good moral decision-making as to whether war is justified. To make such weighty moral decisions, it seems to me that patience and wisdom, and above all, a strength and independence of mind, is critical; one should not be unduly swayed by those with vested interests in one's moral decisions. If an Olympic basketball player decides to protest the immoral social policies of the host country by not playing, then that choice has nothing to do with the habits of discipline, obedience, and teamwork the player may have developed in order to be a good basketball player. The purpose of a player's playing skills is to win the game, and those skills have nothing whatsoever to do with whether the player should be playing the game in the first place. Likewise, the purpose of the obedience and loyalty a soldier learns is not to weaken that soldier's independent moral judgment, but instead to enable the soldier to fight well, should the soldier choose to fight. The soldier's duties to obey and be loyal are instrumental virtues that serve his or her purpose in being an effective fighter; they have no bearing on whether that fighter should fight in the first place.
Possibly there are those in power who would prefer soldiers not to consider the morality of a war or campaign, to blindly carry out whatever violent action is ordered. But it seems to me a very good thing, and a powerful brake on despotism, that our soldiers remain independent moral agents. Our military has recently converted an entire fighter wing from manned to unmanned jets. If we "support our troops" despite their entanglement in an unjust cause because we fear weakening our military power in general, then we should greet this new robotic fighter wing with some relief, as its existence will now resolve our moral tension: "support the troops, but not the war" would then quite plainly mean keeping these robotic troops in prime condition so that they may one day fight a morally justified, necessary war, perhaps by "bringing them home" before they are destroyed or damaged. But I doubt we mean to support soldiers as if they were good tools or robotic air wings.
The ancient Greeks at Thermopylae distinguished themselves from the Persian invaders by asserting that they were not slaves fighting out of fear of their masters' whips; unlike the Persians, the Greeks freely chose to fight. Perhaps our troops should likewise be free to selectively choose not to fight a particular war, and only employ the soldierly virtues of obedience and loyalty, and self-sacrifice, for causes they deem just. There may then be fewer troops available for any particular campaign, as many will choose not to fight, but those who do choose to fight will not then be in the awkward moral position of one acting somewhat under duress or of a person treated as a mere instrument of another's moral will, like a drone or robot. And those who support or oppose them could do so wholeheartedly, without the uncertainty as to whether the troops act in moral confusion, and without resorting to tortured political slogans.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
8 comments:
Perhaps you should stop thinking about them as "soldiers" or "troops" and start realizing that these faceless masses of pawns are actually people who are loved. They are family members who are asked and have agreed to do something (that has been historically necessary for every country) that puts their life at risk.
The decision to send them into combat is one that should be taken seriously and has not been. If you can not honestly say that you would send your brother, niece, son or spouse into a war then you shouldn't send someone else's. The people who have signed up for military service have done so with the understanding that our leaders will weigh the life they are risking as heavily as their own. Unlike other jobs, where when expectations are not met you can leave, the military does not allow it's employees to say no.
Supporting your troops means to honor what they have agreed to do and to want them to return home safely to their family and friends. Whether you agree with the war they are fighting or not (or even whether or not they agree with the war) is irrelevant to this support which they deserve to be shown.
Having good will towards the loved ones who are jeopardizing their lives for a war that our country is mandating is not too much to ask.
It's easy to question the "support our troops" when to you they are just troops, and not someone you care about.
Politicians use history to rationalize confrontation
Priests use religion to explain restraint
And Professors use academia to justify cowardice
politics is just the systematic organization of hatreds
There are, I think, two unfortunate and ugly realities that we, as a nation, must understand when it comes to having a military. The first is related to preparedness. We could not have an effective military were each individual member thereof to possess veto power over every engagement that his or her unit was instructed to enter or over every objective laid down by his or her military superiors. The simple fact is that we need our military to react within the chain of command immediately, without hesitation. Of course, when we ask our military personnel to react without delay, we are asking them to trust the motives of the government in causing them to proceed to, on occasion, kill and destroy. This is a grave responsibility.
Unfortunately, and now getting to my second "ugly reality," decisions to wage war are sometimes (some would say oftentimes) made unwisely and hastily and for purposes at loggerheads with stated objectives or for the advancement of interests other than the protection of the nation. It is our responsibility-- in this, our democracy-- to fiercely check our government when it makes wrongheaded decisions. But the soldiers who are ordered into the fray who proceed to accomplish the missions laid out for them should not be blamed, and, in fact, should be supported for their devotion to their duty to defend the country, which, like it or not, Ms. Scroogle, is part of their job description.
Now, obviously, there are limits-- clear moral limits-- on what the troops can and cannot do. Your Nazi (or orc) example is not quite right, because I think that at the point where your government no longer reflects the democratic will of the people but instead the insane ravings of a genocidal maniac (or an evil power out to destroy the entire world), the individual soldier should do a "gut check" as it were. Once that line is crossed-- and that can conceiveably happen with a democracy as well, though it seems much less likely-- the moral decision is, in fact, placed in the hands of the individual solider, and he/she must make a decision, hopefully to lay down arms or desert.
It is always where the lines are blurred that the decisions are hardest.
Hence, the "liberal shibboleth" of "Support Our Troops, Bring Them Home" accurately and correctly reflects the view that the troops are virtuously performing their duty, but the government has made a wrongheaded decision and must tack back to the correct direction on the moral compass.
a.s.:
1) You suggest that the fact that soldiers have agreed generally to fight wars when called upon means that they have delegated their moral responsibility for whatever cause they may fight to those who direct them. Those at the top are responsible, and they often do not take that moral responsibility seriously, sending in troops for reasons of expedience and acquisition. I don't doubt that those at the top are responsible when ordering soldiers into unjust war.
But I don't think soldiers' general consent to fight in defense of the country, or in other limited situations where it is morally justified, absolves them of the moral responsibility to determine for themselves whether the cause for which they fight is just. If they engage in an unjust war, then they are responsible for what they do.
Perhaps Iraq is not an unjust war, but merely an unnecessary one, but even in that case, the work of a soldier is to kill, and killing for reasons that are not defensive, and less than necessary, is not moral.
Hence I disagree that the cause for which soldiers fight is irrelevant. Unless you think soldiers completely give up their moral independence when they enlist, then the particular war and particular action in which they engage is very relevant indeed.
No doubt we support our soldiers when they agree to fight in defense of the country, but when they become agents of raw power or greed or ideology, then supporting them no longer makes sense.
2) Your second response suggests to me another reason for the popularity of the "support the troops, but not the war" slogan: the pervasive militarization of our society. The US military is the largest employer, the largest single corporate beneficiary of public funds, and manifestly one of the most influential and far-reaching institutions in our society. The military permeates our families, our communities, our industry, our politics and media, and so it is quite likely that anyone thinking about the Iraq war or any particular war will have a family member, loved one or close friend who is actively engaged in that war.
That fact makes opposing war, or indeed any action of the military, a very difficult political move, perhaps even sure political suicide for anyone hoping to be elected to office. Oppose any military action, and you oppose a huge group of people vested in a successful outcome for that action, however unnecessary or unwise that action was in its inception.
Hence while "support the troops, not the war" doesn't make any sense, it does make political sense in a society dominated by the military, like ours is.
d.w.:
I disagree with the first "ugly reality," and see it as at any rate a consideration running skew to the argument as originally presented.
1) Troops make natural human moral decisions all the time: on the ground, in the air, wherever they are called upon to deal out the deadly force they carry. They are charged not to injure or kill civilians if they can avoid it, to distinguish allies from threats when the two sometimes seem indistinguishable, even - as in Iraq - to halt disputes between violent warring parties with superior intervening force, and to act in many other situations in which blind obedience to orders may result in terrible suffering and loss. I consider it an important ongoing check on the improper use of military force that a bomber pilot may think twice before incinerating a civilian target, despite orders, or that a marine on the ground would hesitate before tossing a grenade into a house that may shelter noncombatants such as children. Our troops make such moral decisions all the time, and they should continue doing so. I believe it makes them more effective, not less. Unmanned drones blindly follow orders without any moral thought, but I would not consider that an advantage, for the reasons stated in the original post.
I suggested at the end of the post, as an aside or point of departure for discussion, that perhaps our military could still be effective if it were voluntary on a campaign basis rather than on a term or time basis, although I don't know if that would work or not. Volunteering for a campaign or for defense of the homeland is a more traditional form of military service, as opposed to the modern standing armies of today, and would better characterize, for example, the free armies of ancient Greece (as opposed to those of Persia, which I think were standing slave armies). Every soldier in the ancient Greek armies, and indeed in any "volunteer" army of the past, volunteered for a particular campaign or war, not for a term of service. So the idea that soldiers might specifically endorse a campaign, or not, is not absurd or an idea we must reject because it opposes the obvious "ugly reality." It is true enough that the bureaucratic, layered professional army of today has become the norm, but that doesn't mean it's necessary, or even the historical norm.
Also, BTW, recall that I am not advocating that soldiers give up on codes like respecting the chain of command and so on, which are critical to being good soldiers and doing their job well, but instead merely suggesting that soldiers exercise their moral judgment as to whether they should fight at all, which is a different consideration entirely. Once the decision to fight is made, that the cause is just, then obeying orders efficiently, working in strict hierarchies, quickly conforming to certain disciplines of command and control, etc., all become very important skills.
2) But even if our military were less effective, or even much less effective, were soldiers free to voluntarily refuse a particular campaign (which is all I was suggesting) if they thought it immoral, then wouldn't it still be wrong for the individual soldier to engage in war s/he thought unjust? If I as a soldier believed I was acting immorally by killing the designated enemy, and yet I continued to do so anyway, would it matter to my responsibility for my action whether I was continuing what I was doing in order to maintain and enhance the effectiveness of my military unit? Or might that consideration make me yet more responsible rather than less so, since an effective unit engaging in an unjust or immoral act would be a greater force for evil than an ineffective one engaged in unjust war? The consideration of military effectiveness does not release soldiers from their responsibility for what they do.
Effectiveness as a soldier and a unit are instrumental skills that have no bearing on the moral determination as to the proper goals of those skills.
Soldiers volunteer to defend the country, and to engage in just war. They do no duty to their country when they follow orders that are immoral or unjust, and orders that violate their moral duties are never in their job description.
anonymous:
In what is presumably fragments of your distinctive ana, you seem to make a vaguely Marxian point about how ruling classes influence the wider society through their own peculiar ideology: so politicians thrive on confrontation and systematic hatred, priests thrive on "restraint" (perhaps you mean nonviolence and church-going?), professors thrive on impotent thought without action (viz cowardice). When we engage in confrontation and stoke hatred, that reinforces the elite politicians; when we go to church and exercise restraint in our geopolitics, the elite priest classes benefit; when we simply discuss, discuss, discuss without action, then elite professors rule.
This line of thinking suggests that unjust war will not only occur, but will be probable, as politicians will seek war and build up hatred and division whenever possible, so as to reinforce their elite position. Hence I take it that you agree that it is imperative that the soldiers who prosecute war, who usually are not of elite provenance but instead are typically working-class, must insist on exercising their moral judgment whenever asked into battle. And moreover the elite politician class will have an interest in weakening soldiers' independent moral judgment, and ultimately even in replacing human soldiers with machines and robots so as to entirely eliminate any working-class brake on elite-class designs of world power and conquest. That process is precisely what is happening in our military.
There are a lot of good points made here. I agree that soldiers must bear moral responsibility for the decisions they make in the heat of battle (e.g., throwing the grenade into the house potentially with noncombatants inside). Even a soldier who feels compelled to fight in what he views as an unjust or immoral war can nonetheless make correct moral decisions about how to wage that war.
Making moral decisions "on the ground" is different, however, from making the decision to be in the military at all or to fight in any particular war or campaign. The point has been made that for the military to function well, we must have specifically delineated chains of command and soldiers who follow orders passed down those chains of command. As a result, we make it very difficult for members of the military to leave, and we impose rather draconian consequences on those who refuse to fight, regardless of the reason for such refusal. Because of these consequences – which often result in unemployability, loss of medical benefits, loss of pension benefits, and loss of standing in the community – most soldiers do not, I believe, truly have the freedom to make the choices that Scroogle advocates. In this situation, moral criticism is a luxury of those who do not face the decisions that members of our military face.
I use the word “we” throughout this comment intentionally. I feel that what is missed in the discussion so far is our own responsibility. We live in a democracy. If our soldiers are fighting an immoral war it is because we, the people, have elected a Commander in Chief (or allowed the election of such a CiC by failing to vote) who has sent them off to such a war. In that case, we absolutely should support the troops who we have placed in such an ethical dilemma and vote so as to rectify the situation.
not-so-stay-at-home-mom:
In the original post I considered whether the penalties imposed on soldiers who refuse to fight a particular unjust war after enlisting for a fixed term of service might constitute a moral excuse for fighting anyway that rises to the level of duress, and I concluded that it may, in certain circumstances, serve to mitigate soldiers' direct responsibility for furthering a hypothetical unjust war, such as Iraq may be. It is still important to remember, however, that duress is a mere excuse, not a justification for immoral action.
You suggest that a mere vote for a president who later enters an unjust war may be enough to make a noncombatant citizen responsible for the actions of the soldiers under that president's command. This is Al Qaeda's, or any other terrorists', argument, and if successful, justifies many of the most heinous war crimes of the past. Moreover it seems to me that the soldiers pulling the triggers cannot transfer moral responsibility for their actions by pointing to a citizen somewhere who may have voted for Bush for reasons unrelated to his war policies, such as because he opposes women's reproductive freedom, or capital gains taxes, or whatever. The soldiers are far closer to the immoral act than a citizen could ever be. There is an argument that Bush himself is responsible, and everyone else is merely following orders, but citizens simply do not have the power of duress over Bush or other military personnel necessary to extend moral culpability that far back, regardless of whether they voted for him or not.
But as this discussion has progressed, it has seemed more and more to me that it is the fixed term of enlistment in our military that creates the moral difficulties here. In the original post, I contrasted the free armies of ancient Greece, which was truly a volunteer army in the sense of the campaign or war rather than a term of service, with those of the Persians whose slaves were impressed into service and made to fight whatever wars the king determined might extend Persian power. Our military, despite its "voluntary" status, seems to resemble the latter more than the former, or perhaps the paid professional centurions of the Roman empire the most. The argument from duress may excuse the Persian slaves and perhaps even the Roman centurion mercenaries but not the free Greeks for whatever they did in prosecuting a war. The free Greeks would have to be fighting what they thought was a just war, else they simply would no longer fight, and only those who thought the war was just would blame them for abandoning it. "Support the troops" then has a clear meaning.
Everyone assumes that we have to have a standing professional army, bound for a term of service to the absolute order of commanders, and yet I don't think such armies are the historical norm. Traditionally armies were raised so as to fight a specific war that was necessary, and the situation of a soldier engaging in a war that he/she thought unjust was probably unimaginable. The "truthiness" of the assertion that an army would be ineffective if soldiers were free to make moral decisions about whether to fight a particular war or campaign comes from our acceptance of today's crack standing army as the inevitable norm, as if this were the way armies have always been and always will be. It may be the way the army of an imperialistic empire has to be - because such empires would presumably have to fight unjust wars all the time and constantly apply military force to maintain its dominance - but it is not the way the army of a democratic, peaceful nation needs to be.
Post a Comment