How much do we blame the soldiers for following orders that we find repugnant? How much do we blame the military for being involved in a situation we found repellant. In the 70’s, activists blamed individual soldiers in a war with a freaking draft for their collective affiliation with the war. Fred Phelps is taking a similar, though even more psychotic, stand with his protests at funerals for American military members. I think he’s claiming they’re defending the right to sodomy. He’s off his meds.
So, can we denounce the military and, by extension, members of it for a moral failure if there is a collective fuckup, like an immoral war? Leaving aside the question of what constitutes a moral war, I say no. ROTC was damn tempting to me. I deliberately chose to stay out of the military because I didn’t want to turn over my decision making power.
Soldiers aren’t mindless, but they are subject to a system of authority, and they maintain that system for good reason. In emergency situations, like most violent ones, it is crucial to coordinate and respond rapidly. So they mantain a direct and ingrained decision making structure. But, soldiers also need a large degree of initiative. If a CO calls every shot, nothing gets done. Soldiers’ freedom isn’t in whether to be in Iraq, and, I suspect, generally isn’t in what they’re doing while they’re over there, but rather in how they do what they do.
If you want to blame someone for the military presence in Iraq, blame Bush (especially), Clinton, Bush Sr, and Regan, along with their administrations, but not the military. If you want to blame someone for what the military is doing, blame senior command, or a meddling administration. But if you want to blame individual soldiers, talk to them and find out what they were doing and why before you start casting stones.
Even if soldiers are subject to huge punishments due to owing a legal duty to obey, they still have a choice whether to obey, no matter how harsh the punishment might be.
Sometimes soldiers might not have enough information to make a good choice on their own–if that’s the case, and if they really couldn’t do any better at being informed, then I think there’s an argument for relieving them of moral liability for their actions.
Unless, of course, it’s immoral to be a soldier to begin with, because that occupation carries an unreasonable risk of having the soldier unwittingly do horrible things unintentionally. You might say that being a soldier is more like driving a car than shooting clays near a crowd, but that’s all a matter of taste, I think. That’s why I think morality tends to be talismanic and circular.
Aren’t these people protesting something even more fundemental though? My understanding is they aren’t protesting the Iraq war. What they are claiming is these soldiers died fighting for America. America currently is defending people’s right to engage in gay sex or being gay for that matter. Therefore, these soldiers are fighting to project gay sex, and should be condemned to an eterninty in Hell.
Glad to be considered off the hook by at least one person.
The Nuremberg model was a great template. The Nazi-Party decision makers (many of whom also held military positions) were held accountable for their actions, but the rank-and-file German soldiers, especially the conscripts, who did not violate any rules-of-war or human rights were not criminalized in any way. There is an entire school of ethics about military orders, war crimes, and morality.