He may believe in the legitimate authority of his government to wage such a war, even if he disagrees with it. There have been many times where I have been represented in government by someone whose views I abhor, and whom I know without a doubt will be re-elected every cycle. Nonetheless, I still participate in the political process, hoping that one day my vote will make a difference and acknowledging the legitimate authority to make law of the person elected.
It seems to me that fulfillment through the achievement of a superior's goals is too much like the Eastern religions and their notions of caste, vicarious salvation (to which Christians certainly admit one exception), and possibly reincarnation. Even the Russian Orthodox have had tinges of this in the past, and there are certainly instance of God punishing or blessing people for the actions of others in the Old Testament.
It's complicated, and I haven't justified my position nearly enough, but I've got church services in a few minutes.
I am sympathetic to the soldier who has doubts about his mission. A soldier is trained to give up much of his "individuality" to serve in the disciplined environment of the armed forces. In the event of war, an army cannot succeed if the soldier does not follow orders. Whether a soldier has doubts about his mission or whether he fully believes in his mission he is a true soldier if he carries out his mission. I believe one has to understand this culture when one voluntarily enlists. If one does not believe in a mission and does not want to carry it out, that is OK, but they should not be in the military and, therefore, cannot be properly considered a soldier - that is their choice. They must realize they should be doing something else. The military cannot succeed if the soldier wakes up every day with the privilege of deciding on his own how he is going to pass the next 24 hours.
I think it is human nature for people to question the wisdom of others' commands -- and at least if it isn't necessarily human nature, it seems to be American nature these days. Serving honorably would seem to entail following orders despite any doubts one might have -- just as it is often moral to overcome a desires that might lead one astray.
But I am and have always been a civilian. I have an enormous respect for those who serve in the armed forces, but I cannot claim to know what goes on in their heads as well as they do themselves.
I am really approaching this looking in from the outside. I have in my mind a notion of the perfect soldier, and judge accordingly.
It may well be that our(the American)cultural, political constitution precludes the realization of what is to my mind the perfect soldier; soldiers do vote after all. And that might be a good thing, though I doubt an entirely good thing.
By the way, as a Muslim waging jihad for G-d, are you not a soldier by definition? In case it's not clear, I mean that question with nothing but respect.
I think your question, naftali, would be more correctly titled "What is the definition of a Soldier?" You gave a series of statements, in which you said 'this is not a soldier'. It would be better, perhaps, if you stated clearly what you think the definition of a soldier entails.
The four traditional professions (trades are something else) are the clergy, medicine, law, and the military. In each of these, one of the hallmarks is that professional ethics may not be the same as personal ethics. Confidentiality privileges (and responsibilities) between confessor and priest, patient and physician, and client and attorney are well-recognized in our society. I submit that soldiers (including sailors, Marines, airmen, etc.), in a similar way, have a subordinate-commanding officer privilege/responsibility.
It should be noted that, at least in the cases of medicine and law (I don't know about clergy), there are certain circumstances where this special privilege can, and sometimes even must be abrogated. In law, for example, a lawyer is required to disclose any information given to him regarding a client's future criminal plans.
To my mind, this is why warfare does not count as a violation of the commandment against murder, but it is often still right to try combatants for war crimes (and the United States, in effect, even does this against our own troops when they err badly enough).
When viewed as a profession, rather than an occupation, trade, or even duty, I believe soldiering makes more sense.
Doubt is not a reason to cease service or ignore commands.
There have been times I have doubted even God's wisdom in a particular matter, but it does not alleviate me of duty, come hell or high water.
As an individual you simply have to realize that there are moments when you do not know as much as those superior to you, as much as the movement of history, as much as God, as much as others. You are after all, only an individual, and as such your understanding will always be established on that Nexus of Information, Intelligence, and Data to which you are privy, and you also have to remember that your understanding is also colored by that huge Cloud of Unknowing to which you are individually subject, precisely because you are an individual.
In America we worship individuality, and with that comes the faulty assumption that individual liberty brings naturally and intrinsically a singular wisdom which is necessarily measured as equal to our rights. Wisdom is based upon an understanding that we as individuals, whereas not lacking in rights, do lack for an understanding which is greater than that of our own experience, knowledge, foresight, and even moral clarity. We have our own wisdom, but we do not have all Wisdom, and as such should always remain skeptical of our own assumptions, even if we feel those things to be morally true.
So it is never enough to say simply, "I feel, I think, I reckon I understand," and then proceed from that point, and that point alone, to make individual judgments on collective matters. Individuality is a starting point regarding historical and collective and even moral matters, but it can never be the end-point because no individual ever knows enough to understand everything that goes on around him/her. So the soldier, the cop, the fireman, they understand this and are willing to risk their lives on the assumption of a common cause and goal which endangers their physical existence and calls into question their own assurance of their own judgment. If left to the devices of our own judgment in all matters, and if left to a decision based merely upon personal risk, then perhaps far fewer of us would ever dedicate ourselves to ideals and dangers greater than our own existence.
However that being said the individual should not and cannot be asked to risk his life for no reason, for unjust or faulty causes, or for no reward other than a vague concept. So personally I see it as incumbent upon every man or woman bent upon collective service to remain skeptical of the fact that their mission is absolute and always clear (history is rarely that way), and that it cannot be executed in a more favorable and efficient way. The mission may in fact even be in error.
But there is a remedy to these kinds of wrongs which does not require abandonment of the mission. It is simple, and it is this. Say for instance that you were tasked with some specific mission and you had grave doubts about how it was to be executed or even the overall goal. In that case rather than abandon the mission expressing something easy and soothing to your own non-desire to risk yourself for something not envisioned as worth your while, you could simply transform the mission. You could set better objectives, you could devise better ways to execute your mission, you could learn lessons from error, experiment with new techniques, try things you've never done before. You can do this both from the command structure and in the field. You could ask of your superiors (if you have cooperative and innovative superiors) or you could take the personal and individual initiative (assuming you accept the risk - but then again risk is not only the job of the solider, it is his underlying and primary function, his general duty) to execute transformation. Transforming vague and unproductive tasks for concrete, achievable, and even more moral objectives.
I think, and it has been my experience, that often when it comes to dissatisfaction with tasking, mission assignment, the way a case is pursued or executed, unrealistic goals, etc. that far too many individuals approach their particular problem, be it professional, person, moral or otherwise as Either/Or. They do not wish, or simply do not consider, that failure to achieve a mission objective is an entirely different matter than failure to Achieve Mission.
Missions, like warplans, rarely survive their first, second, or even last encounter with reality. But is this a reason to give up or surrender? No, it is an opportunity to adapt and overcome. To refine the mission, to improve the outcome, to achieve a fluid and ever changing Victory, rather than a stagnant and collapsed one. You see Victory is not just a goal, it is a process. And if the goal bothers you as an individual combatant, soldier, agent, or whatever the case might be, then work to expand the goal, broaden the objectives, and refine the process. Rather than simply saying, "this is impossible" (and let's be honest, most people who complain about moral reservations in undertaking any endeavor are really complaining because of lack of progress in their mission, if their mission succeeds most people rarely complain about it being "too easy" - that is, people rarely say, "this is so easy that I now have great moral qualms") say, "this is damned difficult and I doubt it can work this way, so what can I do to fix it?"
With the American military I think there is a great and demonstrable tradition over time of attempting to achieve and secure basically moral goals (most of the time), though not always easy ones, or ones that can be achieved without compromise. This does not mean however that this general approach is an excuse not to attempt the better objective with the better method. That is to say that the American military should always be seeking to improve (and make more moral and effective) both their overall objectives and their methodologies of achieving those goals.
But the military is not an Academy of Intellectuals (thank God - most Academies of Intellectuals shouldn't be just Academies of Intellectuals) or an academic exercise. One simply does not have the time or resources to devote to constantly questioning mission and expending energy on bitching when instead those same doubts, that same energy, those same resources could much better be employed actually problem solving. Achieving. Doing. Accomplishing. It is not that soldiers should be free of thought (quite the contrary), but rather that their thoughts have some meaning and purpose other than mere self-concern.
And this is where the individual is indispensable to the military collective. In problem solving, achieving, doing, improving. (All innovation is really individual innovation. That is, some individual observes a problem and conceives an innovative, and hopefully successful solution.) After all mission improvement is like invention. Nobody gives a crap about a problem until somebody starts to give a crap about a problem and that's where dissatisfaction and discontent becomes extremely valuable. Soldiers should bitch, complain, agitate, demand improvement, better mission objectives, better equipment, better support, more innovation. That is part of their job, and it is wise to do so, in the right way and with the right intention. In these matters it is imperative that a successful and moral military agitate, because to do anything else is to become stale, complacent, static, self-absorbed, inefficient, immoral or amoral, and ultimately weak and ineffective. But individual gripes are not an excuse to quit, or to surrender. They are an impetus and motivation to improvement and to better security for our nation, our allies, and eventually the entire world.
Is it an easy thing to reach a compromise between individual concerns and collective demands? Hell no, it ain't. Is it a demanding thing, a risky thing, a dangerous thing, a bone weary exhausting thing, at times a demeaning and even lethal thing to attempt? Yes it is. Is it also though a noble thing, a good thing, a worthwhile pursuit, and a basically selfless and honorable act? God knows, that if executed properly, then it certainly is.
So in my opinion there you go. The good Soldier, hell, the good Servant of any kind understands that the game is not all about him or his concerns and yet he also knows that his discontent is the most likely and best path towards general improvement of any situation over time, if instead of abandoning duty due to hardship and obstacles and doubts he refines his goals, improves his methods, and demands of himself and his fellow man progress towards some better and more noble end. But one must always remember that some things, especially large and sweeping historical enterprises take time, patience, sacrifice, life, death, blood, and hardship. It is just the nature of the beast.
That sure ain't the easy answer, and it sure can be discouraging from time to time, even sickening and desperate from time to time, but then again, that's life. We weren't created just to endure and complain about it, but to conquer and improve upon it. Because that's part of our duty.
Yes I do strive to be loyal to God, though I sometimes question the wisdom of certain Muslim leaders who claim to interpret God's will. I think similarly it is possible for soldiers to be quite loyal to the US but to question the wisdom of certain commands of US military or political leaders (but if they are good soldiers they will obey even the commands they deem unwise; that is, of course, unless they think the commands are not only unwise but also illegal -- those they have a moral and legal obligation to disobey.)
What I"m hearing is that people are making a distinction between deed and heart, saying that a
good soldier can soldier in deed while remaining distant at heart from the mission as defined by the chain of command.
I"m saying that a full soldier is one who is one with the mission in deed and heart, and that, therefore, one who lacks the heart is not fully a soldier.
If one will concede that there is a soldierly heart in addition to soldierly deeds, he would have, I think, to concede that a soldier laking the heart, for what ever reason in the world whether good or bad, is less soldierly than his counterpart who has the heart.
I think HokiePundit's take on 'profession' is very close to the mark. When one takes an oath, one knowingly (in the ideal world) gives up certain rights in order to achieve a particular end.
An individual soldier does not give up his right to think his superior officer's order might be mistaken. He does, however, give up his right to act upon that belief--unless that order is otherwise immoral or unlawful. He can question authority (through the proper channels). He can refuse an order (through proper channels and in anticipation of the consequences of his act). He cannot decide he knows better and act upon his own belief while still being a 'soldier' in spirit. That is, at the least, dereliction of duty; at worst, treason.
By taking oaths or vows, we curtail the suite of rights we might have as independent human beings. That applies to marriage as well as the military. Soldiers operate under an abridges suite of rights so that the military justice system is not the same as the civil justice system.
Similarly, the justice system has to do more with law than with justice or fairness, generally speaking. You can have a lawful result that is sometimes unfair, but we still have to live with the result and its consequences.
If one will concede that there is a soldierly heart in addition to soldierly deeds, he would have, I think, to concede that a soldier laking the heart, for what ever reason in the world whether good or bad, is less soldierly than his counterpart who has the heart.
Naftali,
For me it is the recognition that one can be a soldier, even a good soldier (serving one's country well and honorably), without being a perfect soldier. It is the sort of thinking I apply to everyday life -- good people often fall short of the ideal, but it does not mean they are not at root good -- not every one is a saint (and even saints can be troubled by doubts).
The flip side of this is the Hope Solo / Women's World Cup team. She doubted her superiors decisions, believed truthfully that her choice would have been the wiser (perhaps in absolute she is even correct). And yet, how does her actions since that decision was made help her or her team to achieve their immediate (WC) or long term goals (2008 Olympics and beyond)?
Excuse the interruption. Coaching error functionally destroyed this women's
team's goal, unless of course third place is an option worthy of attempt, secondary to leaving a goalie in to complete a 4-Nil loss without substitution. Coach Ryan kept the goalie in for 4 goals in a seriously important game. That is called gutless.
The very fact that her teammates banished her for whatever demonstrates that the coach isn't in control, refused to take control and condoned teammate actions indicates that coach Ryan doesn't understand the psychology of the game nor that of unique personalities of goal-keepers and that he ruined this team chances by changing goalies in an important game.
The deplorable words of Coach Greg Ryan,
"I don't want to speak for Hope, but I think she understands she lost this team."
Those very words to find a scapegoat in Hope Solo indicates Coach Ryan needs replacement and is unworthy to coach on an international level.
I will never recognise anyone as a soldier who does not represent a recognised government, or political movement and wear upon their person a distinctive mark of that government so as to permit them to be recognised as such.
Religions are not recognised as lawful governments, therefor they cannot have "soldiers"
Those fighting for such causes, and without the recognised marks, emblems, and/or uniforms or distinctive clothing of said government are no better than thugs, gangsters, mafiosii, etc.
In the United States, all persons entering the military swear an oath to the Constitution, not to any government official, officer, political party or cause. In fact, that oath binds them to defend the Constitution against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic. It also binds them to follow all LEGAL orders given to them by those appointed over them, and during boot camp, especial instruction is given to them as to what constitutes legal orders, and what does not, and how to address those issues when they arise.
Does one need a government stamp of approval to "wage war" against poverty by volunteering at homeless shelter or "wage war" against sin by struggling to live a moral life? I think you grossly misunderstand the point Naftali makes when he says he is "a soldier in the army of Hashem." That he drew an analogy between being a soldier in the US army and being a soldier for God does not mean he equates the two in some simplistic fashion. But I suppose Naftali can speak for himself.
It sure would be nice if Naftali actually did define just what he means by soldier vs a person committed to a cause.
Certainly, Mother Teresa was not a soldier. Whether she is a saint remains to be seen. Actually, saint is a descriptive applied to a human being who's life actions are notable beyond the ordinary and accepted as such, not that they were perfect.
I reject wholeheartedly such comparisons, in the same manner that i reject the concept of the song "Onward Christian Soldiers", etc.
Soldiering is the profession of arms and tactics. I abhor the term "soldier" when it is bandied about by politicians, clerics, and athletes. I am insulted by hearing an athlete equating "going to war" with taking the field with his team. I reject such simplistic terms as the "war on poverty" or the "war on drugs", etc. It is not war by any definition, nor are those last two even winable. Jesus himself has been alledged to have said "The poor ye shall have always". OT, yes, but why should christians attempt to eradicate that which their own god says will never go away?
Having said that, I, too, volunteer three days a week at our local soup kitchen, as well as in our local schools.
The army is a body of men dedicated to overcoming all obstacles standing in front of the realization of a goal defined by the king. The army consists in a rigid hierarchy embodied in a correspondingly rigid chain of command. Any soldier willingly gives his life and all his resources, including his time, to the pursuit of victory, meaning the fulfillment of his orders received through the chain of command. The soldier wants to be nothing but a tool in the hands of the King to achieve victory as defined by him. A soldier has no identity outside that of the army. A soldier is a soldier when he sleeps, when he eats, and when he breathes. The soldier is a slave in every way except for that he wants this identity with all his depths. One cannot be a soldier without an army.
As is now evident, I unfortunately cannot yet distill my conception of army and soldier into a satisfactorily rigid definition. But I hope something came of the previous paragraph.
For me it is the recognition that one can be a soldier, even a good soldier (serving one's country well and honorably), without being a perfect soldier.
I am not terribly happy by declarations of "war" on poverty, terrorism, etc. as well, both because I think such declarations are cliched and because the enemy is too nebulous to be able to be defeated, and thus these declarations are largely empty of real meaning and have more value as political slogans.
Nonetheless, the call to wage spiritual warfare against the baser self (perhaps also a hopeless quest) has an old pedigree, at least as old as the Desert Fathers of early Christianity. And this notion found a home in Islam as well. Here is al-Ghazali's formulation:
For the carrying on of this spiritual warfare by which the knowledge of oneself and of God is to be obtained, the body may be figured as a kingdom, the soul as its king, and the different senses and faculties as constituting an army. Reason may be called the vizier, or prime minister, passion the revenue-collector, and anger the police-officer. Under the guise of collecting revenue, passion is continually prone to plunder on its own account, while resentment is always inclined to harshness and extreme severity. Both of these, the revenue-collector and the police-officer, have to be kept in due subordination to the king, but not killed or expelled, as they have their own proper functions to fulfil. But if passion and resentment master reason, the ruin of the soul infallibly ensues... The aim of moral discipline is to purify the heart from the rust of passion and resentment, till, like a clear mirror, it reflects the light of God.
I am not against this type of war fought for the sake of God.
my aim in putting up this post was to point out that there is nothing at all wrong with a person making declarations as to who is and who is not a soldier according to his understanding of the concept. It is mainly to repudiate the sick claim that one has to be 'sensitive' to commonly accepted conceptions or those of any other kind, even when they conflict with what he has come to understand.
Your view on my mandate is exemplary of the freedom of thought (and speech) that I am advocating for.
Hello, everybody. Back from a long absence. It's a long story. Log onto Rosemary's site and read all about it.
-------------------
I've often related on these pages how I was a soldier once (and as young as a fella could be and still sign on to be a soldier). Some of you could say:
"Well, this old guy was just playing at being a soldier, because he did all his service stateside."
And there's some truth to that.
Except that when I took that oath and joined the US Army as an enlisted reservist in summer 1952, I agreed to follow all orders I received, regardless what duties I was assigned to, and regardless where I was sent to perform those duties.
At first, soldiering for me was attending drills in an armory on Chicago's far north side. Then, after call-up to active duty, it was a short-term stay at Fort Sheridan, Illinois, then long-term duty at large training centers in Indiana and Colorado. I had no choices. Which was okay, because I had expected none and asked for none.
I wasn't getting shot at. But somebody in the system could have cut orders, before the war ended to Korea, to send me into combat. (I learned later that was in the works for a lot of us. But those plans got scrubbed when the war ended in Korea in July 1953, and they needed fewer overseas replacements.)
And all I could do is what almost any other many of my generation would have hoped under similar circumstances, that I would not have disgraced my sense of self, my uniform, and above all, the men with whom I served, by running away from duty. Even if they had sent me to Hell.
One of the reasons I always have been hesitant about joining the crowd of angry voices nagging at President Bush to pull the plug on the Iraq mission is that I would see this the ultimate slap in the face of those men -- and women -- who have sacrificed their young years, not infrequently parts of their bodies, and for almost 4000 of them, their lives in service on behalf of the United States in that mission.
We would be saying to them:
"You were suckers for believing in the armed forces of the United States. And in the end, they deserted the mission they sent you out to fight."
Sure, the war has largely been an expensive, badly planned fiasco. But the Americans who signed on to fight it didn't think they were volunteering to go to war on befalf of a fiasco.
So, despite all that has happened, I want to see the United States set the situation right. Not just for the Iraqis -- or for the sun'a and shi'a Arabs and the Kurds, if Senator Joseph Biden's death wish for unified Iraq comes true. But for the Americans who put their lives on the line for our country in time of war. And yes, for the many more Americans who wear the uniform, serve their country and do their duty far away from any combat zone. One way or another, they all serve.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
10.1.2007 7:29am
Commenting on Dean's World is a privilege, not a right. Dean is your host, you are his guest, and you should behave in that fashion. Dean is not your babysitter, nor is he your punching bag. Please remember this. In general, you are free to disagree with anyone on any subject you wish, but abusive behavior will not be tolerated.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.
It seems to me that fulfillment through the achievement of a superior's goals is too much like the Eastern religions and their notions of caste, vicarious salvation (to which Christians certainly admit one exception), and possibly reincarnation. Even the Russian Orthodox have had tinges of this in the past, and there are certainly instance of God punishing or blessing people for the actions of others in the Old Testament.
It's complicated, and I haven't justified my position nearly enough, but I've got church services in a few minutes.
I think it is human nature for people to question the wisdom of others' commands -- and at least if it isn't necessarily human nature, it seems to be American nature these days. Serving honorably would seem to entail following orders despite any doubts one might have -- just as it is often moral to overcome a desires that might lead one astray.
But I am and have always been a civilian. I have an enormous respect for those who serve in the armed forces, but I cannot claim to know what goes on in their heads as well as they do themselves.
this seems to me to be a tautology. "If I define a soldier as x, anyone not fully x is not a true soldier."
I am really approaching this looking in from the outside. I have in my mind a notion of the perfect soldier, and judge accordingly.
It may well be that our(the American)cultural, political constitution precludes the realization of what is to my mind the perfect soldier; soldiers do vote after all. And that might be a good thing, though I doubt an entirely good thing.
By the way, as a Muslim waging jihad for G-d, are you not a soldier by definition? In case it's not clear, I mean that question with nothing but respect.
You are correct.
I judge the outside world according to my understanding of the concepts embedded therein.
The validity of my understanding lives or dies according to validity of it's underlying premises and the accurate drawing of conclusions from them.
Then an actual debate can proceed.
It should be noted that, at least in the cases of medicine and law (I don't know about clergy), there are certain circumstances where this special privilege can, and sometimes even must be abrogated. In law, for example, a lawyer is required to disclose any information given to him regarding a client's future criminal plans.
To my mind, this is why warfare does not count as a violation of the commandment against murder, but it is often still right to try combatants for war crimes (and the United States, in effect, even does this against our own troops when they err badly enough).
When viewed as a profession, rather than an occupation, trade, or even duty, I believe soldiering makes more sense.
Doubt is not a reason to cease service or ignore commands.
There have been times I have doubted even God's wisdom in a particular matter, but it does not alleviate me of duty, come hell or high water.
As an individual you simply have to realize that there are moments when you do not know as much as those superior to you, as much as the movement of history, as much as God, as much as others. You are after all, only an individual, and as such your understanding will always be established on that Nexus of Information, Intelligence, and Data to which you are privy, and you also have to remember that your understanding is also colored by that huge Cloud of Unknowing to which you are individually subject, precisely because you are an individual.
In America we worship individuality, and with that comes the faulty assumption that individual liberty brings naturally and intrinsically a singular wisdom which is necessarily measured as equal to our rights. Wisdom is based upon an understanding that we as individuals, whereas not lacking in rights, do lack for an understanding which is greater than that of our own experience, knowledge, foresight, and even moral clarity. We have our own wisdom, but we do not have all Wisdom, and as such should always remain skeptical of our own assumptions, even if we feel those things to be morally true.
So it is never enough to say simply, "I feel, I think, I reckon I understand," and then proceed from that point, and that point alone, to make individual judgments on collective matters. Individuality is a starting point regarding historical and collective and even moral matters, but it can never be the end-point because no individual ever knows enough to understand everything that goes on around him/her. So the soldier, the cop, the fireman, they understand this and are willing to risk their lives on the assumption of a common cause and goal which endangers their physical existence and calls into question their own assurance of their own judgment. If left to the devices of our own judgment in all matters, and if left to a decision based merely upon personal risk, then perhaps far fewer of us would ever dedicate ourselves to ideals and dangers greater than our own existence.
However that being said the individual should not and cannot be asked to risk his life for no reason, for unjust or faulty causes, or for no reward other than a vague concept. So personally I see it as incumbent upon every man or woman bent upon collective service to remain skeptical of the fact that their mission is absolute and always clear (history is rarely that way), and that it cannot be executed in a more favorable and efficient way. The mission may in fact even be in error.
But there is a remedy to these kinds of wrongs which does not require abandonment of the mission. It is simple, and it is this. Say for instance that you were tasked with some specific mission and you had grave doubts about how it was to be executed or even the overall goal. In that case rather than abandon the mission expressing something easy and soothing to your own non-desire to risk yourself for something not envisioned as worth your while, you could simply transform the mission. You could set better objectives, you could devise better ways to execute your mission, you could learn lessons from error, experiment with new techniques, try things you've never done before. You can do this both from the command structure and in the field. You could ask of your superiors (if you have cooperative and innovative superiors) or you could take the personal and individual initiative (assuming you accept the risk - but then again risk is not only the job of the solider, it is his underlying and primary function, his general duty) to execute transformation. Transforming vague and unproductive tasks for concrete, achievable, and even more moral objectives.
I think, and it has been my experience, that often when it comes to dissatisfaction with tasking, mission assignment, the way a case is pursued or executed, unrealistic goals, etc. that far too many individuals approach their particular problem, be it professional, person, moral or otherwise as Either/Or. They do not wish, or simply do not consider, that failure to achieve a mission objective is an entirely different matter than failure to Achieve Mission.
Missions, like warplans, rarely survive their first, second, or even last encounter with reality. But is this a reason to give up or surrender? No, it is an opportunity to adapt and overcome. To refine the mission, to improve the outcome, to achieve a fluid and ever changing Victory, rather than a stagnant and collapsed one. You see Victory is not just a goal, it is a process. And if the goal bothers you as an individual combatant, soldier, agent, or whatever the case might be, then work to expand the goal, broaden the objectives, and refine the process. Rather than simply saying, "this is impossible" (and let's be honest, most people who complain about moral reservations in undertaking any endeavor are really complaining because of lack of progress in their mission, if their mission succeeds most people rarely complain about it being "too easy" - that is, people rarely say, "this is so easy that I now have great moral qualms") say, "this is damned difficult and I doubt it can work this way, so what can I do to fix it?"
With the American military I think there is a great and demonstrable tradition over time of attempting to achieve and secure basically moral goals (most of the time), though not always easy ones, or ones that can be achieved without compromise. This does not mean however that this general approach is an excuse not to attempt the better objective with the better method. That is to say that the American military should always be seeking to improve (and make more moral and effective) both their overall objectives and their methodologies of achieving those goals.
But the military is not an Academy of Intellectuals (thank God - most Academies of Intellectuals shouldn't be just Academies of Intellectuals) or an academic exercise. One simply does not have the time or resources to devote to constantly questioning mission and expending energy on bitching when instead those same doubts, that same energy, those same resources could much better be employed actually problem solving. Achieving. Doing. Accomplishing. It is not that soldiers should be free of thought (quite the contrary), but rather that their thoughts have some meaning and purpose other than mere self-concern.
And this is where the individual is indispensable to the military collective. In problem solving, achieving, doing, improving. (All innovation is really individual innovation. That is, some individual observes a problem and conceives an innovative, and hopefully successful solution.) After all mission improvement is like invention. Nobody gives a crap about a problem until somebody starts to give a crap about a problem and that's where dissatisfaction and discontent becomes extremely valuable. Soldiers should bitch, complain, agitate, demand improvement, better mission objectives, better equipment, better support, more innovation. That is part of their job, and it is wise to do so, in the right way and with the right intention. In these matters it is imperative that a successful and moral military agitate, because to do anything else is to become stale, complacent, static, self-absorbed, inefficient, immoral or amoral, and ultimately weak and ineffective. But individual gripes are not an excuse to quit, or to surrender. They are an impetus and motivation to improvement and to better security for our nation, our allies, and eventually the entire world.
Is it an easy thing to reach a compromise between individual concerns and collective demands? Hell no, it ain't. Is it a demanding thing, a risky thing, a dangerous thing, a bone weary exhausting thing, at times a demeaning and even lethal thing to attempt? Yes it is. Is it also though a noble thing, a good thing, a worthwhile pursuit, and a basically selfless and honorable act? God knows, that if executed properly, then it certainly is.
So in my opinion there you go. The good Soldier, hell, the good Servant of any kind understands that the game is not all about him or his concerns and yet he also knows that his discontent is the most likely and best path towards general improvement of any situation over time, if instead of abandoning duty due to hardship and obstacles and doubts he refines his goals, improves his methods, and demands of himself and his fellow man progress towards some better and more noble end. But one must always remember that some things, especially large and sweeping historical enterprises take time, patience, sacrifice, life, death, blood, and hardship. It is just the nature of the beast.
That sure ain't the easy answer, and it sure can be discouraging from time to time, even sickening and desperate from time to time, but then again, that's life. We weren't created just to endure and complain about it, but to conquer and improve upon it. Because that's part of our duty.
Someone is clearly not a real soldier if they failed to complete basic training, like Jessie Macbeth.
Yes I do strive to be loyal to God, though I sometimes question the wisdom of certain Muslim leaders who claim to interpret God's will. I think similarly it is possible for soldiers to be quite loyal to the US but to question the wisdom of certain commands of US military or political leaders (but if they are good soldiers they will obey even the commands they deem unwise; that is, of course, unless they think the commands are not only unwise but also illegal -- those they have a moral and legal obligation to disobey.)
I will take into account your good advice.
good soldier can soldier in deed while remaining distant at heart from the mission as defined by the chain of command.
I"m saying that a full soldier is one who is one with the mission in deed and heart, and that, therefore, one who lacks the heart is not fully a soldier.
If one will concede that there is a soldierly heart in addition to soldierly deeds, he would have, I think, to concede that a soldier laking the heart, for what ever reason in the world whether good or bad, is less soldierly than his counterpart who has the heart.
An individual soldier does not give up his right to think his superior officer's order might be mistaken. He does, however, give up his right to act upon that belief--unless that order is otherwise immoral or unlawful. He can question authority (through the proper channels). He can refuse an order (through proper channels and in anticipation of the consequences of his act). He cannot decide he knows better and act upon his own belief while still being a 'soldier' in spirit. That is, at the least, dereliction of duty; at worst, treason.
By taking oaths or vows, we curtail the suite of rights we might have as independent human beings. That applies to marriage as well as the military. Soldiers operate under an abridges suite of rights so that the military justice system is not the same as the civil justice system.
Similarly, the justice system has to do more with law than with justice or fairness, generally speaking. You can have a lawful result that is sometimes unfair, but we still have to live with the result and its consequences.
Naftali,
For me it is the recognition that one can be a soldier, even a good soldier (serving one's country well and honorably), without being a perfect soldier. It is the sort of thinking I apply to everyday life -- good people often fall short of the ideal, but it does not mean they are not at root good -- not every one is a saint (and even saints can be troubled by doubts).
Excuse the interruption. Coaching error functionally destroyed this women's
team's goal, unless of course third place is an option worthy of attempt, secondary to leaving a goalie in to complete a 4-Nil loss without substitution. Coach Ryan kept the goalie in for 4 goals in a seriously important game. That is called gutless.
The very fact that her teammates banished her for whatever demonstrates that the coach isn't in control, refused to take control and condoned teammate actions indicates that coach Ryan doesn't understand the psychology of the game nor that of unique personalities of goal-keepers and that he ruined this team chances by changing goalies in an important game.
The deplorable words of Coach Greg Ryan,
"I don't want to speak for Hope, but I think she understands she lost this team."
Those very words to find a scapegoat in Hope Solo indicates Coach Ryan needs replacement and is unworthy to coach on an international level.
I will never recognise anyone as a soldier who does not represent a recognised government, or political movement and wear upon their person a distinctive mark of that government so as to permit them to be recognised as such.
Religions are not recognised as lawful governments, therefor they cannot have "soldiers"
Those fighting for such causes, and without the recognised marks, emblems, and/or uniforms or distinctive clothing of said government are no better than thugs, gangsters, mafiosii, etc.
In the United States, all persons entering the military swear an oath to the Constitution, not to any government official, officer, political party or cause. In fact, that oath binds them to defend the Constitution against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic. It also binds them to follow all LEGAL orders given to them by those appointed over them, and during boot camp, especial instruction is given to them as to what constitutes legal orders, and what does not, and how to address those issues when they arise.
respects,
Does one need a government stamp of approval to "wage war" against poverty by volunteering at homeless shelter or "wage war" against sin by struggling to live a moral life? I think you grossly misunderstand the point Naftali makes when he says he is "a soldier in the army of Hashem." That he drew an analogy between being a soldier in the US army and being a soldier for God does not mean he equates the two in some simplistic fashion. But I suppose Naftali can speak for himself.
- Daniel
Certainly, Mother Teresa was not a soldier. Whether she is a saint remains to be seen. Actually, saint is a descriptive applied to a human being who's life actions are notable beyond the ordinary and accepted as such, not that they were perfect.
I reject wholeheartedly such comparisons, in the same manner that i reject the concept of the song "Onward Christian Soldiers", etc.
Soldiering is the profession of arms and tactics. I abhor the term "soldier" when it is bandied about by politicians, clerics, and athletes. I am insulted by hearing an athlete equating "going to war" with taking the field with his team. I reject such simplistic terms as the "war on poverty" or the "war on drugs", etc. It is not war by any definition, nor are those last two even winable. Jesus himself has been alledged to have said "The poor ye shall have always". OT, yes, but why should christians attempt to eradicate that which their own god says will never go away?
Having said that, I, too, volunteer three days a week at our local soup kitchen, as well as in our local schools.
respects,
This is the way I see it:
The army is a body of men dedicated to overcoming all obstacles standing in front of the realization of a goal defined by the king. The army consists in a rigid hierarchy embodied in a correspondingly rigid chain of command. Any soldier willingly gives his life and all his resources, including his time, to the pursuit of victory, meaning the fulfillment of his orders received through the chain of command. The soldier wants to be nothing but a tool in the hands of the King to achieve victory as defined by him. A soldier has no identity outside that of the army. A soldier is a soldier when he sleeps, when he eats, and when he breathes. The soldier is a slave in every way except for that he wants this identity with all his depths. One cannot be a soldier without an army.
As is now evident, I unfortunately cannot yet distill my conception of army and soldier into a satisfactorily rigid definition. But I hope something came of the previous paragraph.
I agree.
I am not terribly happy by declarations of "war" on poverty, terrorism, etc. as well, both because I think such declarations are cliched and because the enemy is too nebulous to be able to be defeated, and thus these declarations are largely empty of real meaning and have more value as political slogans.
Nonetheless, the call to wage spiritual warfare against the baser self (perhaps also a hopeless quest) has an old pedigree, at least as old as the Desert Fathers of early Christianity. And this notion found a home in Islam as well. Here is al-Ghazali's formulation:
I am not against this type of war fought for the sake of God.
my aim in putting up this post was to point out that there is nothing at all wrong with a person making declarations as to who is and who is not a soldier according to his understanding of the concept. It is mainly to repudiate the sick claim that one has to be 'sensitive' to commonly accepted conceptions or those of any other kind, even when they conflict with what he has come to understand.
Your view on my mandate is exemplary of the freedom of thought (and speech) that I am advocating for.
That's pretty much my thoughts on the subject you present as well. It's fairly obvious, there is no message here.
BTW, there doesn't seem to be a Tom either.
-------------------
I've often related on these pages how I was a soldier once (and as young as a fella could be and still sign on to be a soldier). Some of you could say:
"Well, this old guy was just playing at being a soldier, because he did all his service stateside."
And there's some truth to that.
Except that when I took that oath and joined the US Army as an enlisted reservist in summer 1952, I agreed to follow all orders I received, regardless what duties I was assigned to, and regardless where I was sent to perform those duties.
At first, soldiering for me was attending drills in an armory on Chicago's far north side. Then, after call-up to active duty, it was a short-term stay at Fort Sheridan, Illinois, then long-term duty at large training centers in Indiana and Colorado. I had no choices. Which was okay, because I had expected none and asked for none.
I wasn't getting shot at. But somebody in the system could have cut orders, before the war ended to Korea, to send me into combat. (I learned later that was in the works for a lot of us. But those plans got scrubbed when the war ended in Korea in July 1953, and they needed fewer overseas replacements.)
And all I could do is what almost any other many of my generation would have hoped under similar circumstances, that I would not have disgraced my sense of self, my uniform, and above all, the men with whom I served, by running away from duty. Even if they had sent me to Hell.
One of the reasons I always have been hesitant about joining the crowd of angry voices nagging at President Bush to pull the plug on the Iraq mission is that I would see this the ultimate slap in the face of those men -- and women -- who have sacrificed their young years, not infrequently parts of their bodies, and for almost 4000 of them, their lives in service on behalf of the United States in that mission.
We would be saying to them:
"You were suckers for believing in the armed forces of the United States. And in the end, they deserted the mission they sent you out to fight."
Sure, the war has largely been an expensive, badly planned fiasco. But the Americans who signed on to fight it didn't think they were volunteering to go to war on befalf of a fiasco.
So, despite all that has happened, I want to see the United States set the situation right. Not just for the Iraqis -- or for the sun'a and shi'a Arabs and the Kurds, if Senator Joseph Biden's death wish for unified Iraq comes true. But for the Americans who put their lives on the line for our country in time of war. And yes, for the many more Americans who wear the uniform, serve their country and do their duty far away from any combat zone. One way or another, they all serve.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.