What about the troops?

POSTED BY: Causal
UPDATED: Wednesday, December 26, 2012 15:17
VIEWED: 12314
PAGE 2 of 7

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Causal:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by oldenglanddry:
Let me answer with a question. As the military is an extention of the politicians arm, if your commanding officer recieved an order to fire into a crowd of civilians and passed that order on to you, what would you do?

---

I'm not sure what this question has to do with the military being "an extention of the politician's arm." I guess I was under the impression that having the military under civilian control was a good thing, being that it provides a check on the power of the military.

In the second place, it would depend on the crowd. Are the civilians armed and shooting at me? If so, darned tootin', I'd shoot. If the civilians were not armed, and not posing a mortal threat to the lives of my men, hell no, I wouldn't shoot. That would constitute a Rules of Engagement violation, and as such, it would be an unlawful order, and I would, therefore, be obligated under military law to disobey it. Then I'd try like hell to get that officer court martialed for dereliction of duty for passing on an unlawful order (because he, too, had the obligation to disobey).

---

Damned good answer.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Yeah, that's a thing: it's one thing to arm-chair quarterback, another to make decisions when it's life and death and bullets are flying. And you're absolutely right. If you sit down to figure out whether or not you like an order, you or someone close to you will die. And the hell of it is, it's impossible to explain that fully to someone who hasn't had the experience of mortal terror in combat.

---

I call bullshit.

Not about whether you "like" an order or not, mind you... but about whether you SHOULD follow an order or not, as in how do you know without thinking it over.

Soldiers are warriors, warrior trained and although they have no *formal* training in Bushido, the very nature of their intent and intended use obviously is there as a basis.

When given an order, there's no NEED for thought, a soldier *KNOWS* in the eyeblink instant whether or not he should do it, or he is no soldier, but just a killer.

Our current training gives a lot of lip service to defying an illegal order, but then provides endless reinforcement against actually DOING it.

This Watada guy even tried to do it the right way to begin with, BEFORE making an issue of it, he attempted to resign his commission, something normally done for the exact reasons he tried to do it - and the military defied it's own regs to throw it back in his face and demand his compliance with an order he felt illegal.
*sigh*

Look, either they KNOW, or they're not soldiers, they're killers.
Which is it ?

That bein said, mostly the troops at the front end of things get the mushroom treatment, they don't know shit about what's going on, could care less about the big picture - cause what's really important to them is finding decent cover, a safe place to pee, and not gettin themself or their buddies killed - at which point I am not going to assign blame cause there's no way for em TO know, you understand.

I want em outta there, actually paid enough for the dirty job they're doin, and medically and psychologically supported after the fact - but in 220+ years of this country that hasn't happened a single time, and it would be ridiculous to expect it this time.

I think our sad history of crapping on war vets is pretty shameful, overall.

And yes, I did serve a stint in a somewhat ludicrous MOS, 76X10 basically the guy who gets the food from the airdrop to the warehouse (with the help of a 20,000lb MoGas rough terrain forklift) and then from the warehouse to the troops at the front line, be it perishables for cooking by the 94B10 (cook) with the unit, or MREs, someone has to GET the food to those yahoos and more often than not logistics doesn't have the folk or trucks to spare.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/atlas.htm
Woo, the new 20,000lb units are nice, man what I woulda given to have that extendable boom back in my day!

So prettymuch yer on your own, no escort, no air support, just you and a deuce and a half of MRE's trying to find the unit that was "kinda somewhere around here, last time we checked" on your map, and get the food to them, armed with naught more than a badly worn vietnam era M16A1 that will probably jam on the second round if the damned thing fires at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuce_and_a_half

I gotta say, out of all the usually crummy equipment the army forced off on me, I loved "Moi Deuce" - that damned thing would go places you couldn't get a mule to go, and was tougher than clint eastwood with bad constipation.

The guys I feel the worst for are our current logistics folk, stuck on predictable routes and underarmed, unarmored, often without escort down IED alley.

We can discuss the matter in detail once we've got em OUT of there, because the whole if,why,and how matters a lot less than getting them the hell out before more of em die.

And that's ALL I plan to say on the matter.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Our current training gives a lot of lip service to defying an illegal order, but then provides endless reinforcement against actually DOING it.

---

Well, no offense, but I have to wonder how long ago your service took place; you did, after all, say "current." My service took place in Afghanistan and Iraq. And here's what I can tell you about the lawful/unlawful training we got: at least 2-3 units in bootcamp, another 2-3 in my primary and secondary schools covering more job-specific stuff, 2 units prior to each deployment, 1 unit when arriving in theater (both deployments), 1 unit when arriving in the combat zone, and an ROE brief before every mission. So it is not lip service. It is something that is taken seriously, as far up the chain of command as I ever had access to.

Quote:

---

This Watada guy even tried to do it the right way to begin with, BEFORE making an issue of it, he attempted to resign his commission, something normally done for the exact reasons he tried to do it - and the military defied it's own regs to throw it back in his face and demand his compliance with an order he felt illegal.

---

I have to respectfully disagree over the case of Watada. He tried to resign his commission and the Army refused his resignation--but that's not illegal. The Army typically has a minimum number of years that an officer must serve after being commissioned (to prevent people from taking a commission and walking away after 18 months or some such). In addition, the Army can refuse the resignation of an officer if they deem that there is a pressing need for his continued service (and please note, I'm not saying that's right, but it is legal). In addition, the Army offered Watada a non-combat posting with his current unit, but Watada turned that down. Why? Because he felt that the Iraq war was wrong. And that's why he's on court martial: he doesn't get to make that call. I can sympathize with Mr. Watada's situation in this much: he is firmly convinced that the order to deploy was unlawful, and he therefore disobeyed that order. But if the military court should find him guilty, as seems likely, it will be because Watada was wrong about that. Frem, I know you disagree with that passionately, and I respect your right to do so. I'm not wanting to pick a fight over this issue. I'm just wanting to offer an additional perspective on Mr. Watada's actions. Because Mr. Watada does not get to disobey an order that he feels is illegal. The unfortunate fact of the matter is that his deployment order was not illegal, which is why he's being tried for missing movement.

Quote:

---

Look, either they KNOW, or they're not soldiers, they're killers.
Which is it ?

---

The fact that you disagree with the military situation does not mean that the orders being given to the men fighting the war are illegal ones. So why are you implying that the people who are doing their job--which is to serve at the discretion of the Commander in Chief--are just killers, not soldiers? Because if you want to tell me that these are illegal orders, I need to you to show me what parts of the UCMJ, US law or Geneva Convention that has been violated--specifically, what's law has been broken such that each and every deployment order is actually and unlawful order? And if it is so clear cut that deployment orders are unlawful, why is that not being talked about? Why is that not being debated on the senate floor? Surely there are '08 presidential contenders who would love just that kind of ammo...

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

Vote Firefly! http://www.richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html


Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

ya know i always get the impression that there are some people that have this picture in there head...kind of a what if or a what should happen.

It’s of the "troops" in masse refusing to do X to follow order Z. Just say dropping there weapons and declaring that they wont be a part of this clearly -insert adjective- war/action. On account off how it's all so obvuase and clearly wrong and the only reasonable reaction from people of good faith....yada yada (maybe there's even a little bit of the fantasy were instead of dropping the guns' thay return home and "SET THINGS RITHT").

Sounds real string and it's the sort of thing that can make a real kick ass climax to a story. Shoot in small way's things kind of similar have even happened in history. After all it's what these people would do them selves an't it? Seeing as how it's just such a clear and obvuase conclusion especially at a safe distance.

Problem is the world just don't work that way. If for no other reason than that well ya know that obvuase and oh so clear conclusion ya came to? Well ya'd be surprised how many people (and perfectly pleasant reasonable people at that) just as strongly disagree with ya.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

I've always had this notion, utterly unworkable I know, of a final step in basic training that would involve a concocted situation in which a soldier is intentionally given a clearly illegal order, just to see if they would have the guts to disobey. Like, being ordered to shoot an unarmed civilian, only the soldier doesn't know that his weapon is loaded with blanks and the 'civilian' is really an undercover officer. I'm sure the case could be made that it's an unfair test, but then, so is combat. It'd be interesting to see the success rate...

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Causal:

Quote:

---

What seems to be missed is that those people are a tiny proportion of the 135,000 people who do their jobs honorably, professionally, and in keeping with the Geneva Convention and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

________________________________________________________________________

---

What happens when the President, the Commander -in-Chief, declares that the Geneva Conventions don't apply, as GWB did?

He's on moderately reasonable legal ground, too. I've read 'em-- they only apply between the armies of nations that are signatories to the Convention, which Islamic Jihad and al-Quida are not. They also require that armies wear distinctive uniforms, and carry their arms openly, so ya know who to target-- by definition, an insurgent army wants to look as much like a bunch of civilians as possible.

But then, the Conventions are about protecting non combatant civilians and the wounded and sick, and others, such as POWs, who no longer fight.

So he says, Conventions don't apply, tells the General in Command, who tells your colonel, who tells your Sergeant, who tells you to shoot somebody, or torture a prisoner to find out about some future terrorist attack.

Is it an illegal order you should refuse? C-IN-C says no. When did it become one? What will the US Supreme Court decide? or the International Criminal Court, to which the C-IN-C says we don't have to listen?

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME