The Problem with Soldiers

[IdaBriggs]

The problem with soldiers is the same as the problem with police officers -- we need them.

Human beings have been dealing with the "problems" that come from needing security for thousands of years. Locally, we utilize police officers, and expect them to "protect us" from criminals. Unfortunately, police officers are neither psychic nor proactive; they really are only responsible for helping to administer "justice" after the fact which helps us to avoid the vigilante "blood feud" problem, at least in theory. If someone is going to rob, rape, or murder you, you are pretty much on your own when it comes to stopping them.

Obviously, we need a more proactive view when it comes to national defense, so we have our military. Since we don't want the military to be in charge, they report to our civilian government (which we hope will prevent the problems the Roman Empire encountered when their generals went around becoming rulers). When our soldiers make a loyalty oath, they pledge to WE THE PEOPLE via our Constitution and government, and it is OUR JOB to make sure the Commander-In-Chief is a trustworthy individual with good judgment.

With Bush Jr., we failed in that trust. 9/11 happened on his watch, and whether he "Let It Happen On Purpose" or "Made It Happen On Purpose" or was just "Too Stupid to Prevent It Because Osama Is Smarter", he used it as an opportunity to invade other countries. Unfortunately for our troops, once Bush Jr. took the oath of office, he became the President of the United States, and his orders became their duty. It doesn't matter how many times protesters march around in circles; our soldiers still have to do what they are told by our civilian authorities, and we really want them to keep to that tradition, thank you very much.

There is no question Iraq didn't need the war we started. The idiots in charge of our country didn't think they would take the Iraqi cultural "blood feud" seriously, or mind us disrupting their lives/killing them, and they were wrong. Our people live in FEAR, and FEAR is what makes them do some of the crazy things they've been doing. This is not impugn their courage -- a man without fear is stupid, while those who overcome it are brave -- but is simply a rationale observation. Gun shots and suicide bombers result in adrenaline overload. Mistakes get made. People die who shouldn't.

I am not of a nature to be a soldier. Lives depend on them doing what they are told, even if it means certain death. "Take that hill!" may be a necessary order and good for the global picture, but my automatic "Why?" would be a problem. Once you make your oath, however, you have surrendered your rights to The Why, and are expected to Obey the Order. (Note that it isn't a suggestion; its AN ORDER.)

At the same time, we expect our soldiers to use THEIR judgment to make sure they aren't crossing over from "necessary violence" into "war crimes." After all, if we are trusting you with guns and training you to kill people, we need to know you aren't going to misuse those skills. It is part of their responsibility to make sure that they are doing "the right thing" instead of "the automatic thing."

Its a fine line we ask them to walk -- kill, or be killed, but only when we say so.

I honor our troops for being willing to do a job that I am not. I want them equipped with the best stuff we've got to keep them safe (and I'm willing to pay taxes to make that happen), and I want them to hold on to their humanity with everything they possess. If they are wounded, I want their medical care to be top-notch, and if they die, I want their families to receive financial compensation in an appropriate fashion. I honor them for their sacrifice, and expect them to live up to their responsibilities in return.

That being said, from personal experience, I am *NOT* convinced the services really get our "best and brightest." This unpopular view, about which I generally keep silent, is because I can't help but notice a large percentage of folks who have been recruited into our current volunteer armed services are there BY DEFAULT. They had no marketable skills, no interest in college, and no clue as to how to support themselves once they graduated high school, so they joined the service. Since they continue to have no marketable skills when they get out of the service (driving a submarine, for example, is not in high demand in the civilian sector), and have spent time serving their country instead of learning how to function outside of the military structure, they end up in disproportionate numbers as homeless, unemployable, or low wage earners. If you add in any physical or psychological problems that occurred while doing their "tour of duty", you further handicap them in their ability to function as a civilian.

I am sorry to say that I would not wish any of my family to join the military. Its a low appreciation job that has a higher than normal long term financial risk factor, with the added bonus of sacrificing time spent with loved ones, and people trying to kill you. Furthermore, I want my "best and brightest" working to find a cure for cancer or making gas stations unnecessary or creating jobs for other people or .... well, you get the idea. Five years ago I wouldn't have worried as much about the nephew who didn't really know what he wanted to do, so decided to serve his country while he grew up a little more; today, I would be a nervous wreck.

I am a practical woman. I need soldiers. I don't like it, but its a reality. My soldiers need good leadership -- and that means someone who values their lives as much as his own -- and they don't have it at the moment. I don't like what they are doing in Iraq, and I'm more than casually annoyed about the fact they are there. I still take the opportunities I am given to personally express my appreciation to the different soldiers I meet for the service they are doing for our country. I need them, I appreciate them, and I'm going to do everything I can to make sure they have a Commander-in-Chief who ALL OF US can trust.

Its not just about "supporting the troops" -- its about doing MY duty as a citizen, and frankly, its the LEAST I can do.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Goldmund]

2. What's all this jive -- when the RW says "jump", you're supposed to say...

..."how high?"!

Great post.

[lonestarnot]

3. Dear Ida Briggs: You just keep on du'n n/t

[Stone_Spirits]

4. perhaps but

the US military is FAR TOO LARGE. Why do we need a military budget that completely dwarfs all others?
I wish health care was considered a national security issue.

[rpannier]

5. Well stated.

I'm a former serviceman who is working in Korea. Your post is excellent. Thank You.

[TahitiNut]

6. "Let George do it."

As long as "we the people" leave the jobs of governance (e.g. politician, military, police) to hirelings and separate castes, we have no moral right to call ourselves a Democracy. When it's 99% "for the people" but only 1% "of the people" and "by the people" we're not a Democracy. As long as the military is "them" we're not a Democracy.

[Wrinkle_In_Time]

7. Well stated. Timely. Recommended. n/t

[Benson]

8. Respect starts here,

Thank you, IdaBriggs

[Hugin]

9. Not in complete agreement...

"our soldiers still have to do what they are told by our civilian authorities, and we really want them to keep to that tradition, thank you very much."

In the U.S. soldiers take an oath to "Uphold and defend the
Constitution" and "Protect it from enemies both foreign and
*domestic*."

That oath was written specifically to keep our troops from blind
allegiance to a *person*. The people who wrote that document were
well aware of the trappings of tyranny as that's what they were
fighting.

They're only to answer to their conscience and due process.

There is nothing in that oath which binds them to the president.
In fact, he took the same oath when he entered office.

[nytemare]

11. The problem there comes with the "order" thing

"I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the officers appointed over me"

That thing, if you don't follow it, is the problem for a soldier. That is also why I didn't retire from the military.

[Hugin]

20. You forgot a bit...

"I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice."

Meaning... Lawful orders. It was added in 1962.

That's the part where I said... "Due Process".

[nytemare]

24. Yes, but the troops at Abu Ghraib haven't exactly had

the benefit of Bush testifying at thier trials about the Gonzales memo.

That is just the reality of the military. Due Process doesn't really happen there, at least in cases like Abu Ghraib.

:shrug:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. The "problem" with soldiers is the military.

It's all very nice to say that soldiers are obliged to follow the Geneva conventions but, in reality, it's pretty meaningless.

We like to think of individual soldiers, risking their lives, protecting their buddy's lives while heroically picking off enemy soldiers. But, what of the pilot ordered to bomb certain coordinates? Or, the artilleryman ordered to level a building? Or, even the the lowly grunt ordered to fire indiscrimately between point A and point B? Do they have the right to ask "Who is in the town I'm bombing? Who is in the building I'm going to level? Who is between point A and point B? And, Why should I kill them?"

What do you think would happen to the individual GI who had the courage to refuse to kill his fellow human or even as "why" he should?

Hell, when I was in the marines, I saw a guy go to prison for 18 months because he was goaded by a sergeant into taking a swing at him. All because his brass belt buckle had a minute stain on it.

[nytemare]

12. Yep, and that is where we get into Abu Ghraib

The soldiers did not follow Geneva conventions. Some of them did wrong, and should pay for their actions. However, I am positive their actions came from high above, and those people should pay for those actions as well. We will never see them accept responsibility.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

13. Shit inevitably flows downhill.

The top brass never have to pay for their "unfortunate" mistakes that cost lives.

[nytemare]

15. Sometimes they will, JFK did with the Bay of Pigs deal

Tony Blair did with Iraq. You would just think with a memo from Alberto Gonzales outlining pretty much everything that was in those pictures that someone up there would say, "Oops, there goes our plausible denial" and say SOMETHING, but NO! It's still a few bad apples. America will face credibility issues for a long time with this.

[diamond14]

14. it's really about America people KILLING by proxy....

seems that for many Americans, it's OK to sit on the couch and cheer at the TV, as they WATCH our troops KILL innocent men, women, and children in a defenseless THIRD WORLD country.....most Americans do NOT want the blood of innocents splatted all over them, and PREFER to KILL by proxy....that PREFERENCE does not alleviate the guilt....

[IdaBriggs]

17. Your images are graphic, and prove my point more than yours.

Under bad leadership, this is what happens. You may call it "killing by proxy" but I personally do not want my soldiers in the situation shown by your photos, and a good leader would have avoided it.

[WebeBlue]

16. Sounding off, from a military family....

Posting an appreciation for your post IdaBriggs, and while I agree in part with much of it, I'm not sure I agree in totality. Military family here with two loved ones deployed to Iraq = veterans now, and under orders for 2nd deployment to Iraq in few short months. At same time they are under Stop Loss orders. At the time they are to decide about re-enlistment. So what would be their choices? Not to re-enlist in protest, yet be sent to Iraq anyway due to the Stop Loss orders? By pass the attractive re-enlist bonus and wind up in combat in Iraq anyway, less the bonus that would help the family's economic status?

I point this out to demonstrate the the manner of how the military is both recruiting and retaining the troops is deception and the deck is stacked against the individual soldier. Once recruited and in the status of enlisted, the soldier of any branch of the military service, has in effect, signed a contract for a permanent sentencing to military conniving and deceipt. They are literally "stuck" with few ways out, and it is not unlike an involuntary imprisonment.

Recruiters target our vulnerable kids, the ones you describe that seemingly don't have well-marked career plans or employment opportunities. My years of experience in the social services field, have shown me that often what appears to be a disadvantaged background does not denote the promise of our young, rather reflects the family background from which they have been raised. I take some exception to the generalization that those that enlist are not the brightest or even the ones with promise of contributions to our greater society.

My own two enlisted before the war in Iraq, one right around the time of 911 and the other several years before 911. Both saw career potential to provide for their young and growing families. Career potential at that time in the military was touted by many social programs and agencies as a positive step of responsible behaviour and a good career-making decision. That was then. Now, it is not viewed in the same light, yet those who fall into the curve between then and now are entrapped into a military system now that enthusiastically pulls not punches in both recruitment and retention.

I wholly agree with you that we each have a citizen's duty in this war and have used those very words myself. Until the citizens in this country start taking that function seriously, and exercising their citizen's duty on behalf of the troops, those troops are pretty much left with no support from any quarter. Which puts them into a survival atmosphere and environment. I don't mean just trying to survive in combat, I mean a survival mode as is true for any population who has been abandoned and betrayed and left to figure it out with their own devices.

The function of having a war-ready military has traditionally been to prevent war, not to eagerly seek it out. That, of course, has changed with Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia, Gulf 1, and now Iraq....next Iran? Syria? hot in Korea? Young enlistees didn't enlist to become permanent combatants in war but those that are stuck now realize there is no way out with Stop Loss, repeat deployments, activated Guard and Reserves, activated IRR, all of which constitutes quite "legal" process, but in nonetheless a deception for the public to allay the fear of a military draft/conscription. It has already happened.

It is seriously Not okay to leave it to the troops and their families to carry the burden alone and apart from the rest of our citizens. There ought be no level of comfort on any citizen's part to leave it to the troops (and their families) to carry out this war and it's projected years to decade long duration.

IdaBriggs, this response is not aimed at taking exception to what you said, but an opportunity for me to sound off....Support the troops has to have more depth in it's meaning than empty words, yellow ribbons, and the republican's exploitive use of capitalizing on a sense of patriotism to define it in their own terms. We, military families that speak out, will define it in our terms as it is impacting our lives directly and I've been at it now for 2 + years with years more from the looks of the truth on the ground regarding our troops. I, for one, need more citizens to do their duty and take up the cause.

There are large numbers of citizens who have taken up the cause, and I'm appreciative, but from where I sit, I think we need far more citizens to step up to the plate, sounding off and making their voices heard on behalf of the troops to better support the troops.

Thank you for your post, and this opportunity to share and add my own thoughts.

[IdaBriggs]

18. Thank you for YOUR post!

As I said, five years ago it would have been difficult to believe our country would be in such a disastrous situation; unfortunately, it is our military that is paying the largest price (and the people we are invading, of course). It isn't always easy to remember not to blame the troops; I hope my post reminds people of that.

:)

[merh]

19. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution provides

Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

(snip)

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Our military is not being used to suppress insurrections or repel invasions. The resolution providing for military force to stop SH's use or manufacture of WMDs, chemical and biological weapons only allowed for the use of military force if all other methods were exhausted by the president to stop and/or oust SH. We all know he did not exhaust all other options, that he simply invaded, and that the "war" was not legally declared and the military is not being used to "execute the laws (resolution)" or to suppress insurrections or repel invasions (we are the invading nation), therefore the military is being used illegally and the "war" is not only illegal it is immoral.

It is our duty as citizens of this nation to speak out against those that ignore and pervert our laws. To remain silent is to be unpatriotic.

[IdaBriggs]

21. But what can be done about it? That is where the frustration lies! nt

[merh]

22. On a large scale effort, I don't know.

I carry a copy of the constitution and resolution with me to let people know how they read in unison to reflect the illegality of the war. The immoral part is harder to prove without the computer, the deaths of thousand of Iraqis, the deaths of all of our soldiers, not just those reported by the DOD, and the maiming of the soldiers.

Folks don't want to believe our nation is wrong. It takes time and patience to convince them given the silence of our media. I think it is up to us to enlighten everyone we can. We need to spread the word and be the media. It will be a slower awakening, but god let's just try to have an awakening.

[IdaBriggs]

23. I think part of the problem is that people don't WANT to know.

We compartmentalize our lives -- you take care of this, and I'll take care of that. Once you realize there really is nothing you can do about something, then you start concentrating on things where you can make a difference. We have to "trust" our leaders to do the right thing, and I as I said in my original post, at the moment, these folks are incompetent idiots who have created a system where they can't be held accountable for their jobs (since with the fraud systems in place, they can't be fired). :(