Daily Kos

View Story | 562 comments

  •  Actually um.. no they are not... (4.00 / 2)

    Of course the soldiers aren't the only ones responsible. We all are. But they are uniquely positioned to resist most effectively.

    There's a little thing called the UCMJ and soldiers refusing orders are subject to it. In a war zone and during active combat, there are provisions to allow summary execution of soldiers who disobey combat orders.

    You, on the other hand, have no such restrictions. So the greater responsibility, as a citizen, is yours.

    Like it or not, these munitions are currently lawful to use. And before we all start parsing levels of tragedy and travesty, both of which this illegal war are, we should recognize that the babies killed by shrapnel are just as dead.

    The Multinationals and the Religious Right have identical goals: Profit from war, ignorance and fear...and the GOP is their Party.

    by dj angst on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 10:20:28 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Civilians have the greater responsiblity (none / 1)

      I agree with this.  Soldiers involved in combat operations have less access to information about what is going on than do civilians.  Soldiers are enveloped in the fog of war and typically do not have complete situational awareness even of the proximate battle actions in which they participate, much less the distal consequences of the orders they are asked to follow.

      War places the soldier in an extreme demand environment.  Those who have experienced such an environment can appreciate why soldiers must place a high degree of trust in their chain of command and in the rules of engagement communicated to them by that command.

      This is why, in a democratic nation, it is the civilians who have the ultimate responsibility for  the rules of engagement and the orders conveyed to soldiers by their chain of command.  

      Homeland: as in Bantustan, or as in home of the brave and land of the free?

      by homeland observer on Thu Nov 10, 2005 at 01:31:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  When supporting the troops means supporting (none / 0)

        ourselves. I agree with parent. It is civilians, and American civilians that gotta raise a wholly holy stink here. We gotta promise the assholes in charge that they'll see these pictures so many times that they'll begin to see them in their sleep.

        If we care about our cause, we better not be threatening war crimes trials on the low level troops on the ground... at least not with the facts we have now. War as one of many options is a crime in and of itself. Blaming the troops first, for these atrocities, is to miss the point entirely. It will be neighbor on neighbot around here, if you think you're going to threaten a war crime trial on your neighbor's kid for being a soldier.

        Focus on the top, where the indirective direction originates!

        by kazoo of the north on Thu Nov 10, 2005 at 07:53:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Erm (4.00 / 2)

      Pardon me but aren't there circumstances where it is legitimate for a soldier to refuse to obey an order?

      Isn't that kind of blind obedience "I was only obeying orders" an opportunity to test Godwin's law?

      You say that a soldier refusing to follow a battlefield order could be subject to summary execution...isn't that what the fucking enemy that soldier is facing is planning on doing anyway?  

      So the grunts on the ground get a blank cheque to toss willy pete around where there are civilians?

      I thought America had the "smartest" military on the planet?  I thought you had smart bombs that could fly through a key-hole and up the noses and asses of their intended targets?

      That's the impression I got watching CNN during Gulf War I and II.

      If that's the case, why are you tossing indiscriminate incendiaries around like confetti?  

      Hunter's diary hits the nail on the head - melting civillians with incendiary weapons is wrong, and no amount of semantic wrangling about treaties, the nature of the weapons involved or anything else can detract from the fact that the USA's indiscriminate killing of civillians is wrong

      Halley Seven, United States Nil - You see, it can be done!

      by ian1973uk on Thu Nov 10, 2005 at 03:29:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes (none / 0)

        Yes there are legitimate moral grounds, and the that soldier's commander has legitimate legal grounds to execute that soldier on the spot.

        It's a volunteer army, it's hard to claim conscientious objector when you signed up. And while you may consider the arguement that the soldier did not know they where signing up to do these deeds (if they did do them) as a valid reason, the army does not and it the army that basically owns that soldier.

        by xejn on Thu Nov 10, 2005 at 05:08:38 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  LAWFULL is the key (none / 1)

        Every soldier has a duty to obey LAWFULL orders.  If the order is unlawfull he must NOT obey.  Even then, we recognize that in some cases, he might have to do that unlawfull act and report it later.  If refusing the order gets you killed there will be no one left to report that an unlawfull order was given and the cancer of a bad leader will remain.

        We can agree that dying from a horriable substance that consumes flesh is a bad thing but until it is unlawfull it is just one more way to die.  It is the dying and the need to kill that is horriable.  Dont pick at the margins on the "quality" of death, stop the killing.

        It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

        by ksuwildkat on Thu Nov 10, 2005 at 05:54:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  In Hopes of Clarification (4.00 / 2)

          I posted this in another diary about the use of white phosphorus as an anti-personnel weapon.

          I'm a former officer in the US Army Chemical Corps.  My specialty was nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons.

          White phosphorus (WP or "Willy Pete") munitions are perfectly legal.  So are snow globes, bic pens, and ball peen hammers.  Using ANY of them to intentionally injure or kill an innocent civilian is illegal.  Even in combat.

          Yes, white phosphorus CAN be used as an anti-personnel weapon against an enemy combatant, just as we can use flame-throwers, napalm, flame fougasse systems, and fuel bombs.  However, WP is primarily used for illumination, as an agent in all types of ignition sources, and as an obscurant (smoke to hide movement, for example).  

          Use against unarmed civilians with indiscriminate targeting is illegal, despicable, and grounds for criminal prosecution.

          Hope this helps clear up some confusion.

          "If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking." -George S. Patton

          by vmibran on Thu Nov 10, 2005 at 06:49:48 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yep. Very much true... (none / 0)

            Now imagine yourself in combat in Fallujah.

            These enemy tactics make the interaction with civilians very difficult:

            1. Non-uniformed enemy. They don't wear ANY insignia.
            2. Weapons Caches. They don't have a concept of a "personal" weapon like we do. They don't check rifles out from the armorer and they don't get an Article 15 for losing it. They grab a weapon from their cache, fire on US soldiers, run, drop it back in the cache and go have sandwich.
            3. Actively use women and children as shields from which to fire weapons.

            That being said, our soldiers are trained from day one: "You are supposed to do the difficult." I guess this scenario means that it's just MORE difficult than before.

            But maybe we, in all our moral superiority, can cut them just a little slack.

            The Multinationals and the Religious Right have identical goals: Profit from war, ignorance and fear...and the GOP is their Party.

            by dj angst on Thu Nov 10, 2005 at 01:07:47 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Nails and Heads (none / 0)

        [q]melting civillians with incendiary weapons is wrong,[/q]

        Is it any less wrong to kill a civilian with a bullet?

        [q]and no amount of semantic wrangling about treaties, the nature of the weapons involved or anything else can detract from the fact that the USA's indiscriminate killing of civillians is wrong[/q]

        Ah, there it is. Nail meets head.

        by Iconoclastodon on Thu Nov 10, 2005 at 09:06:58 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Obeying orders... (none / 0)

        I had a friend who fought in Vietnam; unfortunately, he is dead now, so I can't ask him to be sure, but he told me that once he decided he could not invade and burn villages full of civilians and children, he requested other duty in which he would not have to carry a gun. He said he got it. Does anyone know if this is an option?

        "That story is not worth the paper it's rotten on."--Dorothy Parker

        by martyc35 on Thu Nov 10, 2005 at 09:25:42 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Sure it is. (none / 0)

          But you can bet that request was made in the rear, off the line, so to speak. Not in the middle of a battle.

          The Multinationals and the Religious Right have identical goals: Profit from war, ignorance and fear...and the GOP is their Party.

          by dj angst on Thu Nov 10, 2005 at 12:53:14 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Bursting Bubbles!!! (none / 0)

      They are responsible and my husband refused to kill looters in Fallujah when they first went in and told his commanders that it was an illegal order to kill looters and he told all of the soldiers with him it was an illegal order and he didn't have to kill any looters and the I believe he gave reason for the other soldiers to maybe not do it too!  I just saw him this morning at breakfast in uniform still living!  Of course he is an old soldier and younger soldiers are probably easier to intimidate but they are still responsible for obeying an illegal order!

      "People die. Strategies fail. Blame is laid. And we, as a nation, are made to look like assholes." - Brandon Friedman

      by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 10, 2005 at 06:47:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

View Story | 562 comments