Hacker News Reader

The military, no military would function if each member went their own way and did their own thing. It's OK to not serve if you disagree with the leadership, just don't sign up. You can change the world by working to oust corrupt politicians, Republicans and Democrats and Libertarians. Understand though that freedom is not free, there's always someone waiting for the opportunity to take over your country and they don't care at all if you are a conscientious objector.

This issue is more complicated than you make it sound.

It's absolutely true that discipline and following orders are essential to the smooth functioning of a military force. However, that does not give soldiers an excuse to leave their conscience with their civilian clothes. The entire point of the Nuremberg trials (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_trials) was that "I was just following orders" is not a defense, when the orders in question are illegal or immoral. And illegal or immoral orders can be issued by American officers just the same as they were issued by German ones -- just ask the soldiers who served under Lieutenant William Calley in Vietnam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre). No nation's army has a monopoly on morality. So it's the responsibility of every soldier to balance the need for discipline with the need to ask conscientiously and with respect for human life and dignity.

And that's why there are things called ROEs: Rules of Engagement.

A soldier just can't shoot anyone they see. There are very hard limits on who is considered a "combatant" and who is not. A big part of what gets soldiers and Marines on our side killed is ambiguity about who can be shot when they present a threat and who cannot.

If you do anything outside of the ROE it can be considered a war crime:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2383037/Clint-Loranc...

And yes, the USG DOES put its own soldiers in jail. Sometimes for life.

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

Have a read. How many soldiers ended up in jail for these?

How many commanding officers?

Wikipedia is your source? LOL.

So you get to use wikipedia but I don't?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7796608

Not for something as clearly politicized as the topic of war crimes by a nation currently at war.

A great book on this subject is The Law of Armed Conflict and International Humanitarian Law in War by Gary Solis (related to nrsolis?) I think it's currently used as a textbook at West Point and other places. I have a copy here. Solis is a clear advocate for rules of conduct in war and for the punishment of those who break those rules but he also does not shy away from pointing out the frequent cases when, as you note, guilty soldiers on the winning side escape punishment. E.g., here is a quote from the book concerning the trial of Ernest Medina, implicated in the My Lai massacre:

The prosecution urged that Medina knew, or should have known, of the massacre, but, in addition to inciting it, he took no action either to stop it or to subsequently bring to justice those who committed crimes. “Even if he did not personally commit any crimes in My Lai, Medina clearly failed to maintain control over men under his command who were committing scores of them.”42 Despite apparently meeting the von Leeb–List standard – knew or should have known – and, for that matter, the Yamashita standard – must have known – Medina was acquitted.43 One civilian nonlawyer who viewed the trial found the case poorly prosecuted.44 Another calls it “a striking example of the extent to which a domestic . . . tribunal will devise a restricted formulation of the superior responsibility doctrine in order to avoid the prosecution of its own nationals.”45 But that ascribes a sinister motive to the court-martial that did not exist. (p.422)

http://www.amazon.com/The-Law-Armed-Conflict-International/d...

I hope this information is helpful.

I had an entire semester of instruction on "The Law of Armed Conflict". It's taken VERY seriously by the military.

One example:

In the movie Lone Survivor, the SEAL team of which Marcus Lutrell was a member of is "soft compromised" by a group of goat-herders in the Afghan mountains. They were discovered when the goat herders LITERALLY tripped over them.

Now they were faced with a difficult problem. It was commonly known that the anti-coalition militia used goat-herders as scouts knowing that they would not be molested by coalition forces. Letting them go would almost certainly result in their presence becoming known to the militia. Killing them was against the ROE.

They really didn't have a choice: they let them go. In less than an hour, they were ambushed and three SEALs died. Marcus Lutrell was saved by a local Pashtun. A quick reaction force with two helicopters full of SEALs was repelled by RPGs and another 16 SEALs and other operators were killed.

SO: three goat herders were freed and nineteen men lost their lives because by the ROE, you couldn't kill the goat-herders because they weren't carrying weapons.

Ask yourself if you truly believe you could live with the fact that you freed the people who called the forces that would ambush you and kill your friends.

Our military is willing to follow the rule of law far more often than not. That's a huge difference given the life and death stakes these people are under.

This isn't a movie and there is no do-over. Making a bad decision might get your friend killed or put you in prison. Let's try and adjust our thinking to fit the circumstances these people find themselves in. It's the LEAST we can do as an informed citizenry.

(BTW: I know one of the guys who went in to those mountains to retrieve the bodies of the killed SEALs and find Lutrell. He has no illusions about the enemy he was facing.)

> The entire point of the Nuremberg trials (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_trials) was that "I was just following orders" is not a defense

That's precisely why the relevant articles of the U.S. Uniform Code of Military Justice relating to "disobeying orders" explicitly requires that the orders be lawful for a crime to have been committed.

U.S. servicemembers not only have the right to disobey illegal orders, they have the explicit and positive duty to disobey illegal orders.

The catch is that ambiguous situations/"judgment calls" tend to break the tie in favor of an order being lawful. But beyond that the issue is not at all as complicated as you think.

E.g. with Lt. Calley's company, they were clearly guilty of not only crimes, but war crimes, yet there was a concerted effort in the U.S. and in the military leadership in Vietnam to cover the incident up. The issue there wasn't about "just following orders", the issue there was that the U.S. never attempted to put the criminals on trial in the first place, and that the eventual justice process that was meted out was so watered down. Even worse the Army and U.S. leadership tried to (and did) ruin the careers and lives of the 3 who actually followed their training as soldiers to put a stop to the massacre.

But you'll note that Lt. Calley was eventually court-martialed, and despite consistently claiming that he "just followed orders" was found guilty, sentenced to life, and his sentence upheld on appeal. Of course, U.S. leadership gutted that too, and effectively commuted his sentence, but "just following orders" was very much put on trial in the U.S. system and shot down again.

Joshua, I'd like to add that I know people who have had direct contact with Adm. McRaven. That's the "UT guy" you spoke of. I feel like you could do him the courtesy of using his name and rank.

And I'd suggest that MAYBE a person who leads highly-intelligent and committed individuals into dangerous situations where there is a significant chance that they might lose their lives knows something about "Leadership" that you might be missing.

If you have a problem with the US military and their use then I'd suggest you direct that opinion to the President, your Senators, and your Congressman. I looked over your press page and didn't catch anything even remotely connected to the current wars. Nothing. Is that the "leadership" you teach?

The problem isn't the military. It's the civilians that send them over to do a job they aren't willing to do.

You're a part of that problem whether or not you acknowledge it. You earned a degree from an institution that participated in the development of the atomic weapon. You are currently a part of an institution (NYU) that serves as a feeder for the NSA via the Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences. You're a part of the problem. How can you continue to be a part of an academic environment that refuses to acknowledge its contribution to the "corporate interests" that push us into war?

Don't forget that when a nation goes to war, it represents a FAILURE of the civilians of each of those countries to reach a peaceful compromise. It's YOUR failure, not that of the military. The military by itself does not go out and start wars. The bravest soldiers I know wish for NOTHING but peace. Go ahead and ask them. The biggest doves in the whole country work at the Pentagon.

Do yourself a favor and speak to a few veterans this Memorial Day. Like them, I know people who lost their lives during our more than decade-long wars. Ask them if they are regretful or angry. Ask them if they feel like they were taken advantage of. Spend some time getting to know people who wrote this country a blank check to include their own lives if necessary. They volunteered to serve. You didn't. Try and understand what motivates that kind of personal sacrifice. You might learn something.

Enjoy your day off.

I thought soldiers had a little more self-respect than describing themselves as dumb tools used by others. No mind of their own, just following the civilians orders?

Soldiers choose to shoot or not to shoot, and risk getting shot, getting their buddy shot, getting court martialed and/or PTSD if they choose wrong. But soldiers do not choose whether or not their country invades another country.

I'd say Ehren Watada did. If enough had done the same, who would've invaded?

They do get to choose whether to sign up to a volunteer military that's engaged in an existing war. It's very weird the way some paint US soldiers as a sort of Hero Innocent, absolving them of any sort of moral culpability.

> They do get to choose whether to sign up to a volunteer military that's engaged in an existing war.

There's been 2 very short "wars" and then 2 very long counter-insurgency campaigns.

E.g. with Iraq: Even if you just flat-out assume that the U.S. invasion was completely unjustified, a soldier signing up to join could still have a positive role to play in helping the new government, and the Iraqi people, establish the basic trappings of security needed for any modern society to function. After all, the reason that the UN (and all its associated aid agencies) pulled out in 2003 was because of the security failure that led to their special rapporteur being murdered in a bombing.

I mean, we've experimentally verified after the U.S. left that the mere military presence alone wasn't what was causing bombing attacks, as Iraq still has to fight through those even today.

Would it have been better not to be going to Iraq in the first place? Absolutely, but the soldiers joining in 2004 didn't get to decide on the 2003 invasion, only on whether they can help on America's behalf to help the Iraqis with the damage inflicted.

I think this is an extremely disrespectful and kneejerk reaction to a very thoughtful comment on the parent article.

One factor that contributes to the readiness of the United States to go to war that escaped your analysis is that any critique, however mild, of the armed forces is met with furious moral indignation.

> I think this is an extremely disrespectful and kneejerk reaction to a very thoughtful comment on the parent article.

I disagree, given that the comment was in keeping with the spirit of the parent comment (i.e., using the opportunity presented to hack in and tear away at the topic being presented).

> that any critique, however mild, of the armed forces is met with furious moral indignation.

The best possible way to "support the troops" is to not send them to war in the first place, is it not? I'll disagree with a "blame the victim" mentality everywhere I see it, and you should too.

For instance, let's consider a fictional city (perhaps Gotham). Cities need firemen, even though we all hope that our stringent building codes will keep fires from starting (or at least, keep them from spreading), improved safety technology helps people put out their own fires, etc. But none of these are foolproof, and the idea of an uncontrolled fire spreading through densely-constructed buildings is so horrific that we have no choice but to maintain a cadre of firemen. OK.

But eventually our building codes and safety technologies become so good that Gotham realizes that the biggest risk of a large conflagration is actually from a fire starting in the border city opposite, so Gotham signs up their firemen for "mutual assistance" and helps put fires out in their neighbors, under the catchphrase "better to fight the fire there than have to fight it at home!". The logic seems to work, despite the number of firemen who die fighting these fires each year, and our neighboring cities are doing better at stopping fires too, so we sign up for mutual assistance with cities further and further away.

But larger and larger fires start to break out and worse, there are nasty and persistent rumors that those fires are actually being started by Gotham leaders, and even some of the firemen. Yet no one has completely solved the issue of fighting fires in Gotham, so the need to have some people with the training and skill to fight fires at home remains. And yet we don't like the idea of shady people doing shady things to start fires abroad.

So who do you blame, the people who signed up to fight fires (possibly abroad, with good reasons), or the people starting the fires?

> So who do you blame, the people who signed up to fight fires (possibly abroad, with good reasons), or the people starting the fires?

What if they're the same people?

What if the dog is phone? What if the sky were buttery?

Or, how do you think it works? Week 3 of basic training at the Gotham Fire Academy, and the drill is to go over to Buckytown and set a random building on fire?

Because you're blaming the WRONG PARTY.

It's not the Armed Forces that should receive the criticism. It's the government and the civilians that push for them to go abroad and carry out their wishes.

How is that not something you understand?

Why is this downvoted exactly?

Because it goes against the orthodoxy here. Namely: the USG is a hegemon that exerts a disproportionate and negative influence on the world and is hypocritical in its foreign relations.

Of course, these opinions are maintained by people who never risk their lives, their income, or their social strata to effect change. They don't vote. They don't lobby their representatives. I'm willing to bet that a bunch aren't even American and are simply using this forum to air their opinions on US foreign policy.

"Ask them if they feel like they were taken advantage of." ... Not sure what is your point here ? Because, there are lots of angry veterans out there who don't receive the support and help they should get.

I'm sure spodek meant no disrespect to Admiral McRaven by referring to him as "the UT guy." Likewise I'm sure you didn't intend to show disrespect for Dr. Spodek by referring to him as "Joshua."

I actually do believe that he intended to show disrespect.

And I call all of my friends by their first name EXCEPT when I speak about them in the third person or in the presence of subordinates. Since I don't believe in academic titles inasmuch as they don't confer in him any measure of respect that I am not entitled to, he's "Joshua" to me.

See how that works? I'm at least acknowledging that he is an individual with a name and not that "NYU guy".

So what? You have met a single guy with an eccentric minority view about the military. For every ex-military person with similar views, there are dozens, if not hundreds, of people who have been in the exact same military, and who have reached completely opposite conclusions.

Telling a story about a single persons's opinions is not a convincing argument about "what's wrong with the military", and his conclusions certainly don't make him braver or smarter than any other member or ex-member of the U.S. armed forces who thinks differently.

The impression I get from this is that you were anti-military long before you have met this "friend", and that his is the only opinion you consider "brave" because it's the only one that conforms to, and reinforces, your already pre-existing world view.

When you are thrown in the mud and choose either to sing or quit - it's YOUR spirit, and YOUR decision, not corporate control over you.