Misguided Loyalties and the Military

[TMC]

This thread is intended to move a conversation that was begining in the War on Terror forum but which had be moved as it drifted off of any actual news story.

I am trying to continue the conversation because there are some interesting issues here. The Mod there suggested this would be the right place.

The OP in the old thread made these points:

1-That we do not derive our freedom from the military
2-The military is subserviant to the political sector
3-The Military has done good and bad things
4-Some people in the military are bad, some truely good, and some between the two

Several objected to #1, but the real objection (I think) was to the perception that the OP was anti-military.

I would say that I agree with all of these points. The military safeguards our freedom in a unique and irreplacable way, but our freedom is in-born, and the military cannot do its part without others doing their part.

I would say that I may differ from the poster that made this list in that I am willing to presume that the individuals in the military are acting morally unless it is manifest that they are not.

I would also say that I think that many, if not most, wars are ill-advised and many, if not most, are immoral. But the morality of the individual soldiers actions, or even the institutional morality of the Army (if there is such a thing) does not necessarily depend on the wisdom or morality of the war they are fighting. (There may be times when it does, of course.)

The value and meaning of the personal sacrifice of life and limb in a cause believed to be right, cannot be reduced by a later determination that the cause was wrong. If anything, we owe more to those we have asked to pay the price of our folly more than those that have paid a bill that must needs have been paid.

Any thoughts? What is the proper attitude toward the military?

 

[manualman]

The ultimate source of our freedom is our identity as children of God, made in His image and likeness. So #1 is technically correct.

But in a world of fallen humans, the dignity and freedom of the human person is generally NOT respected unless there is a source of temporal and civic power which guarantees it.

Our armed forces can be legitimately criticized for things they have done wrong over the decades. What is harder is to appreciate the injustices and horrors that would exist in this world if thugs and warlords were allowed to prey without serious opposition (both at home and abroad). Critics of the military usually take the world as it is for granted and focus only on the crimes committed by soldiers without giving them credit for their part in the wonder of modern western civilization.

 

[steveandersen]

The notion of the military as the safeguard of freedom is a very culturally and situationally dependent.

In many places and for much of history an army has been merely one more tool for the fat guy in the palace to keep the skinny guy out working in the field.

Stalin, Hitler, et al could field very large militaries
(and to quote Stalin “How many divisions does the Pope have?”)

Militaries are the product of the nation that raises them. They can be nothing else.

Having a military that is subordinate to the civilian government is essential (look at Pakistan or Turkey as examples of places where the military hold themselves as the final arbiter of power) but the nature of that government is going to decide the nature of the military.

Putting together an army is always problematic. You want to have the best that it can but by definition an army is what you can afford to loose to defend the core of your society.

 

[Fred_4]

The ultimate source of our freedom is our identity as children of God, made in His image and likeness. So #1 is technically correct.

But in a world of fallen humans, the dignity and freedom of the human person is generally NOT respected unless there is a source of temporal and civic power which guarantees it.

It is not incorrect to state that the United States military preserves and protects our freedom. In doing so, it can be truly said that they are doing God’s work. We ought to thank our Lord, and the men and women who serve us in this capacity, for blessing our nation with our military.

Civilian control of the military is another tremendous blessing we enjoy. It is also a grave responsibility for us civilians. It is we, through our elected representatives, who send them to war or not.

The presence of bad people in the military seems a bit of a “DUH!” point to me. There are good and bad people in most organizations whether that’s a corporation, a PTA, a city council, a boy scout troop, or even among the people of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ. To point out that there are bad people in an organization the size of the U.S. military, IMO, warrants only a, “No [stuff], Sherlock!”

 

[manualman]

It is not incorrect to state that the United States military preserves and protects our freedom. In doing so, it can be truly said that they are doing God’s work.

Agreed. But read the OP carefully. The question is whether our freedom DERIVES from the work of the military. They surely have a major role in preserving and protecting it. But it does not derive from them.

 

[gilliam]

Our right to political and religous freedom comes from God. As the founding fathers of the USA stated:*We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.*also see:
Religious freedom is the first of our freedoms and lies at the heart of human rights from the perspective of Catholic teaching. Faith is oriented to the ultimate concern and purpose of human life. To deny religious freedom is to rob human persons of the ultimate meaning and direction of their lives. Constraining religious liberty diminishes our humanity.

Letter to Representative Smith on the 2006 Annual Report on Religious FreedomBishop Thomas Wenski, December 20, 2006

Also see the Catholic Catechism section 2273

In some countries those rights are defended by the military, and in some countries they are not. In the US, the military defends the Constitution of the United States. The wordings of the current oath of enlistment and oath for commissioned officers are as follows:

“I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that 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. So help me God.” (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).**“I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.” (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

 

[vern_humphrey]

Agreed. But read the OP carefully. The question is whether our freedom DERIVES from the work of the military. They surely have a major role in preserving and protecting it. But it does not derive from them.

What do you mean by “derive?”

If we had no military, we would have no freedom, that’s for sure.

 

[manualman]

Vern, let’s say you and I live in a pre-firearms era and I’m bigger and badder than you (just for discussion, of course!) I’m hungry and you have a nice fat cow.

Does your ownership of that cow DERIVE from the fact that there is a constable that lives in the house between ours or is it something in fact deeper? If the constable is away and I come over and beat you up and take your cow away, is it mine now?

The US military does honorable work in preserving dignity and rights that are inherently and fundamentally ours. That’s different than GIVING those rights.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Vern, let’s say you and I live in a pre-firearms era and I’m bigger and badder than you (just for discussion, of course!) I’m hungry and you have a nice fat cow.

Does your ownership of that cow DERIVE from the fact that there is a constable that lives in the house between ours or is it something in fact deeper? If the constable is away and I come over and beat you up and take your cow away, is it mine now?

Do we live in the real world or the imaginary world?

In the real world, while you might be punished after death by a just God, you would get away with it in life. And your heirs and their heirs would enjoy the benefits of my cow and her progeny. And by and large, society would recognize that as legitimate – because society would be controlled by bigger, stronger people.

And that’s how it would be until some force arose that would overthrow the ruling class and allow establishment of a more just society.

The US military does honorable work in preserving dignity and rights that are inherently and fundamentally ours. That’s different than GIVING those rights.

While God gives rights, in most societies those rights are not recognized or honored. If they are to be restored, they are most often restored through defeating the oppressors with the same means they use – force.

And once restored, they must be defended – often by force.

 

[manualman]

Whether rectified or not, an injustice is an injustice. Morality transcends culture. It does not matter if an injustice is codified and universally accepted, which is precisely why abortion (for example) will always be immoral.

To muddy the difference between the SOURCE of our freedom and the protectors of it is mistake, though it may not seem so to pragmatists.

 

[markomalley]

Note: Please take my comments below as from somebody who did 21 years in the USAF, so some of my opinions may be colored from that experience…

This thread is intended to move a conversation that was begining in the War on Terror forum but which had be moved as it drifted off of any actual news story.

I am trying to continue the conversation because there are some interesting issues here. The Mod there suggested this would be the right place.

The OP in the old thread made these points:

1-That we do not derive our freedom from the military

We do not, in fact, derive our freedom from the military. We derive our freedom from God.

2-The military is subserviant to the political sector

The military is subservient to the civilian government. The commander in chief of the military is the President. The National Command Authority consists of the President and the Secretary of Defense.

3-The Military has done good and bad things

True. In some cases, the military was ordered to good things and ordered to do bad things. In some cases, individuals in the military did so on their own, without any orders one way or the other.

4-Some people in the military are bad, some truely good, and some between the two

The majority are in the third category you listed.

Several objected to #1, but the real objection (I think) was to the perception that the OP was anti-military.

I would say that I agree with all of these points. The military safeguards our freedom in a unique and irreplacable way, but our freedom is in-born, and the military cannot do its part without others doing their part.

Actually, our freedom is not innate. Our freedom comes from God, through what Christ accomplished in His Passion, Death, and Resurrection.

More later on this subject…

I would say that I may differ from the poster that made this list in that I am willing to presume that the individuals in the military are acting morally unless it is manifest that they are not.

Members of a trained, organized, and disciplined military follow the orders of their commanders, up to and including the commander in chief. There are exceptions, in regards to the Law of Armed Conflict, but, in general, the assumption is that they carry out their orders. If that act in a manner that is not in accord with established law, regulation, and orders, they should expect to be disciplined in accord with the law. (That should universally be true, not just of our military in the US. However, that is not universally true, as there are a number of world militaries that are not properly organized, trained, and have no external source of discipline (and, in some cases, discipline from within, either).

I would also say that I think that many, if not most, wars are ill-advised and many, if not most, are immoral. But the morality of the individual soldiers actions, or even the institutional morality of the Army (if there is such a thing) does not necessarily depend on the wisdom or morality of the war they are fighting. (There may be times when it does, of course.)

All war is ill-advised. All war is immoral. Period.

However, the question comes up with where that immorality comes. Who was ill-advised in making war?

One thing that a lot of civilians do not understand is the fundamental ammorality of the military. The military is not a force for good. It is also not a force for evil. It is simply an instrument of national power for the State, along side of other instruments, such as economic power and diplomatic power. How any of those instruments are used is up to those who make the decisions on their use, not up to the instruments themselves. Those individuals who decide to use an instrument of national power, including the military, can use that instrument for good or for evil. Take, for example, the fire bombings of Dresden and Hamburg (evil) or providing emergency food assistance or rescuing a country from a dictator (good).

(more continued)

 

[markomalley]

continued…

The value and meaning of the personal sacrifice of life and limb in a cause believed to be right, cannot be reduced by a later determination that the cause was wrong. If anything, we owe more to those we have asked to pay the price of our folly more than those that have paid a bill that must needs have been paid.

Any thoughts? What is the proper attitude toward the military?

In regards to professional military organizations (as opposed to a rabble), I think they should be judged on their degree of training and discipline (as institutions) and their effectiveness in accomplishing their assigned missions. The wisdom of those missions and the “goodness”/ “evilness” of those missions should be adjudicated against those who direct those missions.

As to the people in military organizations, I would use the almost cliche expression from the Gospel According to John: Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. Military people, on a whole, voluntarily ‘lay down their lives.’ They, for the most part, do a very, very difficult, very dangerous job for very little. They work hard and long hours, they are institutionally treated as numbers, they sacrifice. And, for the most part, they do so on wages that would qualify for food stamps and subsidized housing.

As do their families. Their spouses give up careers (for the most part). Their children do not, for the most part, grow up in stable environments (they move every 2-4 years). They stay behind and keep the world together while their spouses are off gallivanting in lush garden spots like Kenya, Iraq, and Columbia for sometimes more than a year at a time (and, while people fall over themselves thanking military members for their service, the spouses generally get ZERO recognition for their sacrifices).

Most of the military folks I know would, I think, agree with the concept that what is asked in return is respect from the folks served. I don’t know ANYBODY in the military who wishes to be “protected” or “coddled.” Anybody I know who has been in the service and who currently are in the service just want to be given the tools to do the job, the authorization to do that job, and then to get the job done. And, agree or not with that job, the recognition that the job got done and done well.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Whether rectified or not, an injustice is an injustice. Morality transcends culture. It does not matter if an injustice is codified and universally accepted, which is precisely why abortion (for example) will always be immoral.

To muddy the difference between the SOURCE of our freedom and the protectors of it is mistake, though it may not seem so to pragmatists.

The original term was not “source” but “derive.”

 

[TMC]

We do not, in fact, derive our freedom from the military. We derive our freedom from God.

Actually, our freedom is not innate. Our freedom comes from God, through what Christ accomplished in His Passion, Death, and Resurrection.

All war is ill-advised. All war is immoral. Period.

However, the question comes up with where that immorality comes. Who was ill-advised in making war?

One thing that a lot of civilians do not understand is the fundamental ammorality of the military. The military is not a force for good. It is also not a force for evil. It is simply an instrument of national power for the State, along side of other instruments, such as economic power and diplomatic power. How any of those instruments are used is up to those who make the decisions on their use, not up to the instruments themselves. Those individuals who decide to use an instrument of national power, including the military, can use that instrument for good or for evil. Take, for example, the fire bombings of Dresden and Hamburg (evil) or providing emergency food assistance or rescuing a country from a dictator (good).

As to the people in military organizations, I would use the almost cliche expression from the Gospel According to John: Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. Military people, on a whole, voluntarily ‘lay down their lives.’ They, for the most part, do a very, very difficult, very dangerous job for very little. They work hard and long hours, they are institutionally treated as numbers, they sacrifice. And, for the most part, they do so on wages that would qualify for food stamps and subsidized housing.

I think I agree with everything you said. The quote above is put together from your two posts just to highlight a couple of things.

I agree that our freedom comes from God, and did not mean to suggest otherwise by describing it as innate. I think that our innate characteristics all come from God, unless you consider Original Sin to be innate. I would suggest, however, that our freedom stems from the Creation, and was realized, redeemed, or liberated by Christ.

The two things that really interest me and that caused me to move and restart this thread (the original OP has not joined us, BTW) relate to the morality of warfare and the morality of actions in war.

I think that war is never good, and rarely if ever moral. But it may sometimes be the best among many bad choices.

At the same time, I agree that the individuals that choose to put their lives at risk, and to agree to give their lives for others are making the ultimate sacrifice. That seems like an absolute good. Yet it is most often done as part of, and even in furtherance of, an endeavor that is fundamentally immoral.

There is a contradiction there that reveals something about the nature of morality and man, I think. Or maybe I’m just over thinking it.

 

[markomalley]

The two things that really interest me and that caused me to move and restart this thread (the original OP has not joined us, BTW) relate to the morality of warfare and the morality of actions in war.

I think that war is never good, and rarely if ever moral. But it may sometimes be the best among many bad choices.

At the same time, I agree that the individuals that choose to put their lives at risk, and to agree to give their lives for others are making the ultimate sacrifice. That seems like an absolute good. Yet it is most often done as part of, and even in furtherance of, an endeavor that is fundamentally immoral.

There is a contradiction there that reveals something about the nature of morality and man, I think. Or maybe I’m just over thinking it.

Before condemning all or even most, military actions as evil, I would ask you to consider a couple of examples:

• Would it be immoral to defend your country against a foreign invader? yes. immoral means could be used in doing so, but is the end inmoral?
• Would it be immoral to defend a State that requested our assistance in its defense against an invasion?
• Would it be immoral to stop two warring tribes in a civil war? (Like Rwanda)
• and so on.

I agree with you that war is never good. But sometimes in this world, the use of a militay is warranted to establish justice in the cause of peace. would that it were not necessary. But unfortunately, not all of the world’s leaders have an attitude that would allow for a general stand-down.

There will come a day that all of the world’s swords can be beaten into plowshares…and that the world will know war no more.

But that day is not now. And that day will take divine intervention, and that hasn’t happened yet. It is good to pursue peace. It is good to see results. But I do not expect 100% until God puts it right. Until then, a military is a needed instrument for national leaders to have in the support of peace.

 

[steveandersen]

What do you mean by “derive?”

If we had no military, we would have no freedom, that’s for sure.

lots of societies have militaries
not all of them have freedom
an army is a tool that can be used for good or ill

 

[txsoldier94]

Just my 2¢ as a Soldier.

The military, any military, is just a tool for the leadership of the country, be it civil or military. Here in the US, our military is bound to the Constitution, which, in turn, is bound to the ideas that human rights derive from our Creator.

We don’t grant freedoms.

We don’t give rights.

If you’ve never read it, you ought to read Tommy by Rudyard Kipling.

He presents a most accurate description of Soldiers…

For the record, Tommy is the nickname of British Soldiers from time immemorial (Much like Joe for US troops).

 

[IvanKaramozov]

This thread is intended to move a conversation that was begining in the War on Terror forum but which had be moved as it drifted off of any actual news story.

I am trying to continue the conversation because there are some interesting issues here. The Mod there suggested this would be the right place

Yes, sorry, I’v been a bit absent lately, thank you for preserving the thread.

.

The OP in the old thread made these points:

1-That we do not derive our freedom from the military
2-The military is subserviant to the political sector
3-The Military has done good and bad things
4-Some people in the military are bad, some truely good, and some between the two

Several objected to #1, but the real objection (I think) was to the perception that the OP was anti-military.

Yes, I knew when I made the thread that some would see it as anti-military, however I am not, and never said anything anti-military in the thread.

I listen to talk radio quite a bit and constantly hear things like “Thank God for the soldiers who give us our right, protect our rights etc”

and there was the poster who was offended as a future soldier and someone from a military family, I’, not sure what the qualifications are to be from a military family but I think I am from one considering the large numbers of soldiers and officers in my family, and I have grown up in the most militarized district in the US, and spent a good deal of High School takeing road trips to Ft. Brag and Jackson for competitions

My point is the idea that me or my thread are anti military is misguided.

 

[rlg94086]

Yes, sorry, I’v been a bit absent lately, thank you for preserving the thread.

.

Yes, I knew when I made the thread that some would see it as anti-military, however I am not, and never said anything anti-military in the thread.

I listen to talk radio quite a bit and constantly hear things like "Thank God for the soldiers who give us our right, protect our rights etc"

and there was the poster who was offended as a future soldier and someone from a military family, I’, not sure what the qualifications are to be from a military family but I think I am from one considering the large numbers of soldiers and officers in my family, and I have grown up in the most militarized district in the US, and spent a good deal of High School takeing road trips to Ft. Brag and Jackson for competitions

My point is the idea that me or my thread are anti military is misguided.

I’ve never heard anyone on talk radio claim that the military gives us our rights or our freedom. However, they correctly state that the military protects our rights and our freedoms. That is their primary purpose. They put their lives on the line when it is necessary.

I thank those in uniform for their self-sacrifice on our behalf. Even if they were drafted or chose to serve for school benefits, they still put their lives on the line.

 

[vern_humphrey]

lots of societies have militaries
not all of them have freedom
an army is a tool that can be used for good or ill

Nobody would disagree with that.

But this nation would not exist but for the men who sacrificed their lives to bring it about.

Do you know why there’s a city in Ohio named “Cincinnati?”