For the day

[nancylebov]

It's armistice day, and there are a lot of posts about how bad it is and was to be a soldier.

That hell was imposed by soldiers on soldiers, but the talk is about heroism, mourning, and suffering. The bombs and the bullets are in the air, with no hint that someone was pulling the trigger.

There isn't much at any time about the civilians who had the misfortune to be living where someone else decided to have a war. Soldiers are supplied, armed, organized, and paid. None of those four are likely to be good most of the time, but think about how much worse it's likely to be if you don't have any of the them.

I bet all of us have some refugees in our ancestry as well as the soldiers we're encouraged to identify with. The refugees survived (or at least those we're descended from did), didn't cause much harm in the process, and get remarkably little notice. After all, they weren't identified with big impressive organizations and they weren't killing anyone.

Comments

[dcseain.livejournal.com]

One of my great-grandfathers used to tell me stories about fighting in WWI. It was not a nice time in the least.

Why does no one here sell poppies any more? Used to be you could buy them easily from mid-October to now.

[redbird]

I have more refugees than soldiers in my ancestry, I suspect. For the most part, both they and the soldiers suffered because of decisions made and orders given by men who were safely away from the pain they caused.

Something to think about

[zenlizard]

>Soldiers are supplied, armed, organized, and paid.

Yes, but by whom? Ultimately, by the same societies that eventually produce the refugees you mention. And in many cases, by the self-same people who subsequently became refugees.

Now, I really need to be carefule here-I am *not*, despite appearances, trying to fall into the "blame the victim" mentality. I am most certainly not saying that the refugees deserve to be refugees, or that they are responsible for the wars that make them refugees in the first place.

What I am saying is that there is an interesting moral dilemma at the heart of your post. Unfortunately, I can't elaborate at the moment, as I have to run off to work. I'll probably be back to elorabate later.

[sturgeonslawyer.livejournal.com]

Whoa, no. Can't keep silent on this one.

You want someone to blame for the Hell soldiers and civilians go through in war, don't blame the soldiers. They don't start the wars. Blame the politicians.

Historically, in the US anyway, politicians who haven't been soldiers are much more likely to start wars than ones who have been. This is extraordinarily visible right now; may I direct you to this posting (http://www.livejournal.com/users/sturgeonslawyer/37381.html) for clear evidence.

[supergee.livejournal.com]

Agreed. Eisenhower got us out of Korea and kept us out of Vietnam because he had nothing to prove.

[zenlizard]

In some ways, that's where I was going with my earlier post.
But more broadly:

In general, line soldiers have reflected the policies and attitudes of the powers that be, whether or not those powers have been soldiers themselves. This is a rule which seems to apply accross cultures and timelines.

The moral dilemma comes from this principle. Wherein lies the ultimate guilt? To whit:

You & I walk into a room. In this room are six items of relevancy: you, me, a knife, a gun, a chair and a third person. The third person is securley tied to the chair. I'm holding the gun. The knife is on the floor near the third person. I'm at a distance such that you can't strike me or run away before I can shoot you.

I tell you to pick up the knife, and slit the throat of the third person. If you refuse, I will shoot you in such a way that it will be painful, but not prevent you from slitting the other person's throat. Further, I will shoot the third person to death in a lingering, painful fashion.

Now, in this scenario, assume you do kill the third person. Who bears the moral responsibility? After all, you willfully killed another human being. This is murder, according to the legal definition of the term. However, a legitimate argument can be made that in this scenario, you did so under extreme duress, and that you acted to save someone from a much nastier form of suffering.

OK, now let's change the scenario slightly: I remove the threat to kill the third person, and merely direct the threat of lingering, painful death at you? Are you now more or less culpable than you were before?

Let's change the scenario again: now, since you have comitted murder, I destroy your home, your livelyhood, and exile you? Does this exculpate my guilt in the scenario?

Let's change the scenario again: If I didn't have the means to enact the scenario, then one or two people are alive who otherwise wouldn't be. So, now let's make you the manufacturer of the knife, the gun, and the ammunition I use to enact it. Now, how much guilt attaches to me, and now much to you?

Always happy to privide moral relativism,

me.

[(Anonymous)]

You can multiply these and similar scenarios endlessly, I'm sure. I've never had Jesuit training; I don't pretend to be able with "cases of conscience."

But, never say I backed off a challenge.

You & I walk into a room. In this room are six items of relevancy: you, me, a knife, a gun, a chair and a third person. The third person is securley tied to the chair. I'm holding the gun. The knife is on the floor near the third person. I'm at a distance such that you can't strike me or run away before I can shoot you.

I tell you to pick up the knife, and slit the throat of the third person. If you refuse, I will shoot you in such a way that it will be painful, but not prevent you from slitting the other person's throat. Further, I will shoot the third person to death in a lingering, painful fashion.

We walked in together, ergo we are close together. I will pick up the knife and try to stab you in your gun arm. If that doesn't work, perhaps your throat. And if you vary it by putting us farther apart, I'll throw the knife, or dive and roll to get to you, depending on the rest of the situation -- and hope for the best.

OK, now let's change the scenario slightly: I remove the threat to kill the third person, and merely direct the threat of lingering, painful death at you? Are you now more or less culpable than you were before?

Unclear what you mean here -- I'm guessing you mean that your threat is now simply "kill Third Person or I will cause you painful, lingering death." My choice is as above.

Let's change the scenario again: now, since you have comitted murder, I destroy your home, your livelyhood, and exile you? Does this exculpate my guilt in the scenario?

Since in the above scenarios, the only one I could have killed is you, then either the situation doesn't exist, or you're dead so you can't do any of these things. 8*)

Let's change the scenario again: If I didn't have the means to enact the scenario, then one or two people are alive who otherwise wouldn't be. So, now let's make you the manufacturer of the knife, the gun, and the ammunition I use to enact it. Now, how much guilt attaches to me, and now much to you?

You're talking to a Bill of Rights fundamentalist, here. I have no intention of blaming the manufacturer of a useful object for the way people abuse it. The fact that an object can be used illegitimately does not illegitimate its legitimate uses, or the creation or possession of that object with its legitimate uses in view. If it did, there is hardly an object in the world that you could legitimately create or possess.

One of the things you didn't vary, by the way, was who was tied to the chair. What if it was Pol Pot (or someone like that)? A small child? Would either of these affect my/your moral obligations and culpabilities in the situation?

[nancylebov.livejournal.com]

It would certainly be possible to set up a scenario so that the person doing the threatening did it at a distance, whether by threatening your family or by having previously attached a remote control bomb to you.

In any case, a closer scenario is two remote threateners and two people with guns being forced to have a fight on terrain which includes non-combatents.

[nancylebov.livejournal.com]

The major point isn't about ultimate guilt, it's about partial guilt.

Also, if soldiers have enough agency to be heros, don't they also have enough agency to be in some part responsible for the damnage they cause?

[zenlizard]

Well, the question I was trying to bring up had exactly to do with the whole idea of guilt: whether partial, ultimate or absolute.

The reason I was using scenario-driven illustrations is that you're right, english doesn't have a good way of attaching ideas of partial responsibility or guilt to many actions.

Do soldiers have enough agency to be in some part responsible for the damage they cause? Within the context of military thought, indoctrination, training and orders *within the US military*, the answer is most certainly yes.

Here's another set of scenarios to illustrate the point:

A US soldier, in a war zone is given a direct order to destroy a village. He has little choice in the matter: he is like the "you" in the scenario I described above. If he refuses the order, it is virtually certain that another soldier will carry out the order, and it is certain that he will be harassed and subjected to the worst sort of hazing his immediate superior can think of. It is almost certain that he will be deprived of his freedom. It is likely that he will be dishonorably discharged from the military after he is deprived of what little freedom he has within the system. This will most likely deprive him of the opportunity to earn a livelyhood later in life. There is also a small possibility that he will be accused of treason and executed for deliberate refusal of orders.

Again, now change the scenario slightly. Few orders in the US military are phrased in such absolutes. Most often, the soldier isn't ordered to "Destroy the village". Most often, the orders are generalized: "Secure the area". If the soldier then secures the area by destroying the village, the single most likely response from his superior officers is praise for carrying out his orders quickly and effeciently.

Either way, the village is destroyed, the population is still homeless and without livelyhood, and the refugees are most likely still ignored (which is, of course, a large part of your original question).

But to my way of thinking, a lot more of the responsibility for the destruction and suffering attaches to the individual soldier in the second of the two scenarios I just outlined.

[nancylebov.livejournal.com]

Do you think soldiers have *nothing* to do with war happening?

More generally, I don't think English has a good way to talk about responsibility. Most events (and certainly big ones like wars) involve the actions of many people, but apparently the easy way to talk about these things is either to be totally at fault or totally innocent.

I don't know whether there are any languages or culrures which have a more sophisticated approach.

[nancylebov.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the list. I wonder if veterans are generally less warlike than civilians.

Still, I was talking about soldiers on the field, not those who are pursuing later careers.

I'm not saying that soldiers like war. I'm saying that they *do* war.

[sturgeonslawyer.livejournal.com]

If a billboard blocks your view of the scenery, do you blame the carpenter, the wood, or the advertising agency?

[mishalak.livejournal.com]

The scenario is not clear. It does imply things, but there are facts not in evidence and a reasonable person would not make a rush to judgment either way.

Did the "carpenter" somehow put the "advertiser" in his position, maybe by voting for him? Is the erection of the billboard itself an illegal act? Does the carpenter realize this? Does the lumber company make a habit of promoting its products in morally grey markets or even worse actually knowingly selling its products in such a way that they will be misused the majority of the time?

Oh indeed it could be just as clear as you suggest. The advertisers are the only ones to blame, and their action is perfectly legal, the carpenter was just following orders, and lumber is often put to to honest and good uses. But I rather suspect that it is not a good parallel with wars.

[sturgeonslawyer.livejournal.com]

The parallel with war comma cause thereof comma is indeed limited: my point is simply that responsibility (or "blame") lies with the people who make the decision.

Those who carry it out also bear responsibility to the extent that they have a choice in the matter: once in the military, of course, their options are limited; therefore, to examine the responsibility of the soldier one must inquire into why the soldier joined the military in the first place (modulo the All Volunteer Army, of course; in a situation where the gummint is drafting people, the choices frequently reduce to "army or jail and a criminal record for life"). Very few soldiers join the military to kill; some do. Some join because they expect adventure. Most young folks, however, join for one or both of two reasons: they want to serve and protect their country, and trust the government to use the military appropriately (thus, since the invasion of Iraq, recruitment has dropped); or they perceive their occupational/educational/economic opportunities as severely limited and the military as a way of improving those opportunities.

The army. It's not just a job ... it's an indenture.

[lisajulie.livejournal.com]

And then there's a casualty associated with the refugees - the way of life in those lands _before_ the war.

Sarah Smith wrote A Citizen of the Country about life in the country of French Flanders - a way of life that was completely obliterated by the War. It is a book well worth reading, although one does need to read the two books preceding it, The Vanished Child and A Knowledge of Water. No real hardship, I find these immensely readable.