Why in the world, in this **all volunteer military**, would someone join if he/she is sincerely opposed to war at all cost?! Further, why should our military even ALLOW such a person to join???
The primary purpose of our Armed Forces is to defend our nation - which unfortunately may mean armed conflict.
These people can only be joining to reap the benefits of military service without the obligation of risk. Prior to acceptance into the service, each and every recruit should be required to sign a sworn statement that they are aware of the possibility of being ordered into combat and agree to the risk.
I can't even begin to describe the problems this would cause with unit cohesion and readiness. A person has to understand that joining the military involves voluntarily limiting some of your choices.
If you truly cannot stomach a particular war then you can refuse to deploy or go AWOL. The consequence for both of those actions is incarceration, but hey, buy the ticket, take the ride.
I suppose you could always grab the commander's ass and ask him if he wants to go for a drink. With this new Republican congress, Don't Ask, Don't Tell may be your fastest ticket home. I may be wrong, but I believe that being gay gets you a general discharge.
Peter, when I joined (early 70's) I seem to remember signing such an affidavit.
So the question remains; why then, as in now, can people attempt to gain objector status. It might have been justified in the days of the draft, but in no way is it now. Yet the process still exists.
So if I were 18 and wanted to support the effort in Afghanistan but thought Iraq was a sham, you would refuse my service all together -- just tell me not to join?
Let's say I was still in the Air Force and I just got back from a deployment. My phone rings and it's the First Sergeant.
Him: 'Sergeant Charvella, I realize you just got back from Abu Friggin' Dhabi five minutes ago, but Sergeant Numbnuts objects to our military operations in Elbonia. Since your shop only has 15 people in it and every other NCO in it is deployed in Patagonia I'm going to need you to get back in your car, head to the airport and spend another six months in the desert. Your country appreciates it.'
Me: 'Yes, sir. I may be a few minutes late though. I have to stop at Sergeant Numbnuts' house, tear off his arm and beat him to death with it.'
Him: 'What you do in your free time is your business.'
Howard, I sincerely hope that you made that statement simply to fuel discussion. YOURS is the statement is the one that is truly ridiculous.
You are advocating a military in which an individual can decide which orders he or she will comply with, and which ones he cares not to.
The military defends our republic - it is not privileged with the concept of personal choice or democratic process.. When an order is issued, you follow that order. Immediately. You may SILENTLY question the wisdom or correctness of that order, but you comply.
This is not a civilian job in which if you strongly object to your superior's demands you have the option to follow it or not - and risk termination.
The military MUST operate in this manner. A "softer, gentler" military such as you describe would undoubtedly cost our nation its freedoms and independence in very short order.
You must understand - military life is, in many ways, 180 degrees out from civilian life. It CANNOT be any other way. You are either in or out. No what ifs, no choices, no questions.
Bob, Chris, I'm a veteran. I'm fully aware of military life.
Iraq was a crime. A military person should be able to object to deployment there based on that criteria. If a person feels a war is a crime, it is immoral to make that person fight that war.
It is also contrary to a military unit's best interest to require somebody to fight in a war they find objectionable.
Why would you want somebody in a fox hole with you who didn't believe in and fully support the mission?
Howard, you were a cop in the Air Force IIRC. There are tons of cops in the Air Force.
My final job in the Air Force was in crash recovery and flight control rigging for the U-2's. At any given time there are about 30 people ON PLANET EARTH who are qualified to do that job. Also, at any given time, most of them are somewhere overseas supporting real world intel operations.
If a couple of them decide that they're going to take a certain war off, they cripple U-2 readiness ALL OVER PLANET EARTH. Get it?
Howard, I stand by my statements above. In my humble opinion, your viewpoint is not just ridiculous, it is dangerous.
Your side note on Iraq is equally preposterous. I am far from defending the action, but if a crime were committed, why are not the entire Bush administration, the (democratically controlled) congress, and the heads of state of the scores of nations that supported/participated in it not on trial?
Granted, very poor intelligence gathering and interpretation were at fault - but a crime? no way.
Howard,
It is a little like when you were in law enforcement. A cop can't decide not to enforce drug laws just because he doesn't think drug use should be a crime, or not make a DWI arrest because he thinks the .08 limit is to high.
You either want to be a cop and enforce even the laws you don't agree with, or don't join the department.
I hate to say it Howard but I agree, you are made fully aware what is expected of you upon joining and from MEPS to Bootcamp there are lots of ways to get out if it's not what you expected it to be. After that you want out, you pay the cost to get out IE awol or whatever.
However as I have found out in Today's military they are VERY particular and scrutinize every volunteer, make them jump through hoops and require college before letting them join. Several of my stepson's friends have come to me, having been in the service and having a good number of friends still in. I have been shocked that even the guard and marines have become extremely selective in who they let in. Its not just put a rifle in your hands and shoot at the enemy job anymore.
There's a huge moral difference between enforcing a law you disagree with (say, marijuana possession) vs. taking the life of another human being in a war you disagree with.
Taking life is the ultimate human decision and should be accorded the the respect of individual moral conscious.
Further, I fall back on the security and unit cohesion issues -- the military's own best interest, the country's own best interest -- to fully take into account each individual's own moral compass.
Nobody has answered my question, "Why would you want somebody in a fox hole with you who didn't believe in and fully support the mission?"
"Why would you want somebody in a fox hole with you who didn't believe in and fully support the mission?"
Because when somebody is trying to kill you and the other guy in the foxhole, his 'moral compass' gets tossed until he's been guaranteed an opportunity to continue breathing for a few more years.
Short version: He'll return fire in order to survive.
I don't understand the need for a "conscientious objector" status in an all volunteer military. There are plenty of non-combatant jobs to be filled in all branches. I get what you're saying Howard, but if you object that strongly, then take the consequences for refusing to deploy. Since wwe're on the subject, I'd like to float a totally non-libertarian point of view. Why not bring back the draft? But expand it to other types of national service as well. I think it would be good for our young people and good for the country.
Bob "but if a crime were committed, why are not the entire Bush administration, the (democratically controlled) congress, and the heads of state of the scores of nations that supported/participated in it not on trial?"
That's a good question, I'd support it.
When these adults sign up for the military they know and understand they are enlisting in a time of war. Since the revolutionary war, the U.S. military has been and always will be in the killing business. People may not be fully aware of what they are getting into when they join, but have to have some sort of clue.
Now I have no problem with a true conscientious objector (one who opposes all wars), but this whole I will go here but not there is insane. I believe that if this was changed, so many people would use it as a way to cowardly avoid deployments that would otherwise be an inconvenience to thier personal lives. However when the training trip to Australia comes up for 2 weeks, these will be the first ones to throw their hat in the ring to go.
Dave, I also support bringing back the draft, despite its non-libertarian taint.
I think if we are going to fight a war, it needs to be more of a national sacrifice than the current deployments. It's too easy for us to have an "out of sight, out of mind" attitude about war under current circumstances.
No doubt Howard, if the Senators who voted Bush the power to start this war thought that their children or worse, the children of their campaign contributors might have to go, it'd be over. Like what happened with Vietnam.
Also, I think a draft could involve other things than the military; hospitals, libraries, police departments, schools, nursing homes, TSA the list goes on and on, could all use temporary help from a 2 year enlistment. I think we'd see a lot more unity and national pride.
I think its an absolute disgrace to even consider allowing conscientious objectors into the military. The very fabric of command, trust, and comaraderie are at risk. The implications are enormous.
Although I have never served in the military, I have a special place in my heart, and the utmost respect for those that did. These men and women, living and dead, gave everything in defense of this country. It would be a proverbial slap in the face to the comitment and sacrifice they have given.
With Veterans Day being tomorrow, it reminds me of the words, inpart, of its creation. To honor the grave sites of our nations "slain defenders", to "let no wanton foot tread rudely on such hallowed grounds".It brings a solumn tear to my eye just thinking about it.
In my opinion, you can't get much ruder than a conscientious objector serving our armed forces, hand in hand with those committed to the cause.
I think this really only has any real importance if there's a draft. But I think Howard makes a good point. It's not necessarily that his question of allowing a soldier to object to one war and not another may lessen the amount of people going to that war, it may also work the other way. For instance I was accepted into Platoon Leaders Course this summer for the USMC (didn't wind up going due to injury), but would likely not ever commission because I can't in good conscious support the war in Iraq, just as I wouldn't have been able to support the war in Vietnam.
Also I can't fathom why conservative Americans are in favor of re-instituting a draft.
Howard,
Unit cohesion is one reason why the rule should not change. A tank crew trains today in California for Afghanistan, 4 people. Then at the last moment, Pvt. Snuffy decides the war is bad and doesn't want to go. The crew has to take on a new person they don't know well and have not trained with; not a great idea.
John, your hypothetical is faulty because if the military allowed a person already trained to suddenly become a conscientious objector, then it doesn't matter if the definition includes "all wars" or only "select wars," because if Pvt. Snuffy has a change of heart, he could do it just as easily for "all wars." Which is why these are issues usually decided before service begins.
Howard,
But that is the issue. People who have joined, trained and then decide one war or another is "unjust" or some other reason and didn't want to go. There should be no change for them.
Frank,
Other than Howard, the only person I have heard support the draft coming back is a liberal NYC congressman during the Bush administration. There may be some conservatives who thinks the draft is a good idea, but I bet there are no more of them than liberals who do.
But if we can meet our manpower requirements with a volunteer military, why have a draft? Historically, the draft has only been used when enlistments failed to meet the need.
What conservative American's are in favor or advocate reinstating the draft?
If you could not in good conscience support a war in Iraq just as you wouldn't have been able to support the war in Vietnam why would you be interested in pursuing the Platoon leaders course? There are other programs that could afford you the opportunity to serve your country with out having to take up arms. Why not the Peace Corps?
Frank,
Och. When you don't commission, the ROTC usually will insist you pay back any tuition they paid, or put you on active duty for 2 years as an enlisted member. Good luck.
Jeremiah, sorry I think I just assumed that the person saying it was conservative. I could be wrong. I assumed based on the general population of Batavia.
And John, luckily the PLC isn't the same as ROTC and I have no obligation. I was initially interested because it pays well and I thought being a marine officer would be a cool job. And I think it probably still would be, just not for me.
There may very well be conservatives that would like to see the draft reinstated. Just as there are liberals that would like to see it reinstated as well.
From my personal experience reinstating the draft would be a disaster for our armed forces. There is no problem with getting people to join, even with a war going on, the Marine corps had a goal of growing their end strength to 200,000 by 2012. The recruiting command accomplished that goal in 2009 having started the growth process in 2007.
Frank,
What will you receive a degree in once you complete your current schooling?
Taking into account your opposition to the current wars you might be better off joining the peace corps or Americorps. that would give you the opportunity to serve your country. Just not in armed conflict. Depending on your degree one of those two organizations might even give you some valuable practical experience.
And just so you know being a Marine officer is NOT a "cool job." It's a responsibility.
I'm aware of what being a Marine Officer entails, and I have no intention of doing it any longer. I was going to do the program this summer, but I'm trying to go to Cairo for a Critical Language Scholarship instead.
Since joining the military is
Since joining the military is voluntary, what is the need? Just don't join if you feel it is wrong.
Why in the world, in this
Why in the world, in this **all volunteer military**, would someone join if he/she is sincerely opposed to war at all cost?! Further, why should our military even ALLOW such a person to join???
The primary purpose of our Armed Forces is to defend our nation - which unfortunately may mean armed conflict.
These people can only be joining to reap the benefits of military service without the obligation of risk. Prior to acceptance into the service, each and every recruit should be required to sign a sworn statement that they are aware of the possibility of being ordered into combat and agree to the risk.
No, absolutely not. I can't
No, absolutely not.
I can't even begin to describe the problems this would cause with unit cohesion and readiness. A person has to understand that joining the military involves voluntarily limiting some of your choices.
If you truly cannot stomach a particular war then you can refuse to deploy or go AWOL. The consequence for both of those actions is incarceration, but hey, buy the ticket, take the ride.
I suppose you could always grab the commander's ass and ask him if he wants to go for a drink. With this new Republican congress, Don't Ask, Don't Tell may be your fastest ticket home. I may be wrong, but I believe that being gay gets you a general discharge.
Bob, They don't allow them to
Bob,
They don't allow them to join. When I signed up they asked me several times if I was an objector.
Peter, when I joined (early
Peter, when I joined (early 70's) I seem to remember signing such an affidavit.
So the question remains; why then, as in now, can people attempt to gain objector status. It might have been justified in the days of the draft, but in no way is it now. Yet the process still exists.
So if I were 18 and wanted to
So if I were 18 and wanted to support the effort in Afghanistan but thought Iraq was a sham, you would refuse my service all together -- just tell me not to join?
How does that make sense?
Here's how Howard. Let's say
Here's how Howard.
Let's say I was still in the Air Force and I just got back from a deployment. My phone rings and it's the First Sergeant.
Him: 'Sergeant Charvella, I realize you just got back from Abu Friggin' Dhabi five minutes ago, but Sergeant Numbnuts objects to our military operations in Elbonia. Since your shop only has 15 people in it and every other NCO in it is deployed in Patagonia I'm going to need you to get back in your car, head to the airport and spend another six months in the desert. Your country appreciates it.'
Me: 'Yes, sir. I may be a few minutes late though. I have to stop at Sergeant Numbnuts' house, tear off his arm and beat him to death with it.'
Him: 'What you do in your free time is your business.'
Howard, I sincerely hope that
Howard, I sincerely hope that you made that statement simply to fuel discussion. YOURS is the statement is the one that is truly ridiculous.
You are advocating a military in which an individual can decide which orders he or she will comply with, and which ones he cares not to.
The military defends our republic - it is not privileged with the concept of personal choice or democratic process.. When an order is issued, you follow that order. Immediately. You may SILENTLY question the wisdom or correctness of that order, but you comply.
This is not a civilian job in which if you strongly object to your superior's demands you have the option to follow it or not - and risk termination.
The military MUST operate in this manner. A "softer, gentler" military such as you describe would undoubtedly cost our nation its freedoms and independence in very short order.
You must understand - military life is, in many ways, 180 degrees out from civilian life. It CANNOT be any other way. You are either in or out. No what ifs, no choices, no questions.
Bob, Chris, I'm a veteran.
Bob, Chris, I'm a veteran. I'm fully aware of military life.
Iraq was a crime. A military person should be able to object to deployment there based on that criteria. If a person feels a war is a crime, it is immoral to make that person fight that war.
It is also contrary to a military unit's best interest to require somebody to fight in a war they find objectionable.
Why would you want somebody in a fox hole with you who didn't believe in and fully support the mission?
Just abolish the military and
Just abolish the military and the question is moot. Plus the budget is balanced. You can't have war without warriors. Make love, not war.
Howard, you were a cop in the
Howard, you were a cop in the Air Force IIRC. There are tons of cops in the Air Force.
My final job in the Air Force was in crash recovery and flight control rigging for the U-2's. At any given time there are about 30 people ON PLANET EARTH who are qualified to do that job. Also, at any given time, most of them are somewhere overseas supporting real world intel operations.
If a couple of them decide that they're going to take a certain war off, they cripple U-2 readiness ALL OVER PLANET EARTH. Get it?
Howard, I stand by my
Howard, I stand by my statements above. In my humble opinion, your viewpoint is not just ridiculous, it is dangerous.
Your side note on Iraq is equally preposterous. I am far from defending the action, but if a crime were committed, why are not the entire Bush administration, the (democratically controlled) congress, and the heads of state of the scores of nations that supported/participated in it not on trial?
Granted, very poor intelligence gathering and interpretation were at fault - but a crime? no way.
Howard, It is a little like
Howard,
It is a little like when you were in law enforcement. A cop can't decide not to enforce drug laws just because he doesn't think drug use should be a crime, or not make a DWI arrest because he thinks the .08 limit is to high.
You either want to be a cop and enforce even the laws you don't agree with, or don't join the department.
I hate to say it Howard but I
I hate to say it Howard but I agree, you are made fully aware what is expected of you upon joining and from MEPS to Bootcamp there are lots of ways to get out if it's not what you expected it to be. After that you want out, you pay the cost to get out IE awol or whatever.
However as I have found out in Today's military they are VERY particular and scrutinize every volunteer, make them jump through hoops and require college before letting them join. Several of my stepson's friends have come to me, having been in the service and having a good number of friends still in. I have been shocked that even the guard and marines have become extremely selective in who they let in. Its not just put a rifle in your hands and shoot at the enemy job anymore.
So the question is becoming a moot one.
There's a huge moral
There's a huge moral difference between enforcing a law you disagree with (say, marijuana possession) vs. taking the life of another human being in a war you disagree with.
Taking life is the ultimate human decision and should be accorded the the respect of individual moral conscious.
Further, I fall back on the security and unit cohesion issues -- the military's own best interest, the country's own best interest -- to fully take into account each individual's own moral compass.
Nobody has answered my question, "Why would you want somebody in a fox hole with you who didn't believe in and fully support the mission?"
"Why would you want somebody
"Why would you want somebody in a fox hole with you who didn't believe in and fully support the mission?"
Because when somebody is trying to kill you and the other guy in the foxhole, his 'moral compass' gets tossed until he's been guaranteed an opportunity to continue breathing for a few more years.
Short version: He'll return fire in order to survive.
I don't understand the need
I don't understand the need for a "conscientious objector" status in an all volunteer military. There are plenty of non-combatant jobs to be filled in all branches. I get what you're saying Howard, but if you object that strongly, then take the consequences for refusing to deploy. Since wwe're on the subject, I'd like to float a totally non-libertarian point of view. Why not bring back the draft? But expand it to other types of national service as well. I think it would be good for our young people and good for the country.
Bob "but if a crime were committed, why are not the entire Bush administration, the (democratically controlled) congress, and the heads of state of the scores of nations that supported/participated in it not on trial?"
That's a good question, I'd support it.
When these adults sign up for
When these adults sign up for the military they know and understand they are enlisting in a time of war. Since the revolutionary war, the U.S. military has been and always will be in the killing business. People may not be fully aware of what they are getting into when they join, but have to have some sort of clue.
Now I have no problem with a true conscientious objector (one who opposes all wars), but this whole I will go here but not there is insane. I believe that if this was changed, so many people would use it as a way to cowardly avoid deployments that would otherwise be an inconvenience to thier personal lives. However when the training trip to Australia comes up for 2 weeks, these will be the first ones to throw their hat in the ring to go.
Dave, I also support bringing
Dave, I also support bringing back the draft, despite its non-libertarian taint.
I think if we are going to fight a war, it needs to be more of a national sacrifice than the current deployments. It's too easy for us to have an "out of sight, out of mind" attitude about war under current circumstances.
No doubt Howard, if the
No doubt Howard, if the Senators who voted Bush the power to start this war thought that their children or worse, the children of their campaign contributors might have to go, it'd be over. Like what happened with Vietnam.
Also, I think a draft could involve other things than the military; hospitals, libraries, police departments, schools, nursing homes, TSA the list goes on and on, could all use temporary help from a 2 year enlistment. I think we'd see a lot more unity and national pride.
I think its an absolute
I think its an absolute disgrace to even consider allowing conscientious objectors into the military. The very fabric of command, trust, and comaraderie are at risk. The implications are enormous.
Although I have never served in the military, I have a special place in my heart, and the utmost respect for those that did. These men and women, living and dead, gave everything in defense of this country. It would be a proverbial slap in the face to the comitment and sacrifice they have given.
With Veterans Day being tomorrow, it reminds me of the words, inpart, of its creation. To honor the grave sites of our nations "slain defenders", to "let no wanton foot tread rudely on such hallowed grounds".It brings a solumn tear to my eye just thinking about it.
In my opinion, you can't get much ruder than a conscientious objector serving our armed forces, hand in hand with those committed to the cause.
I think this really only has
I think this really only has any real importance if there's a draft. But I think Howard makes a good point. It's not necessarily that his question of allowing a soldier to object to one war and not another may lessen the amount of people going to that war, it may also work the other way. For instance I was accepted into Platoon Leaders Course this summer for the USMC (didn't wind up going due to injury), but would likely not ever commission because I can't in good conscious support the war in Iraq, just as I wouldn't have been able to support the war in Vietnam.
Also I can't fathom why conservative Americans are in favor of re-instituting a draft.
Howard, Unit cohesion is one
Howard,
Unit cohesion is one reason why the rule should not change. A tank crew trains today in California for Afghanistan, 4 people. Then at the last moment, Pvt. Snuffy decides the war is bad and doesn't want to go. The crew has to take on a new person they don't know well and have not trained with; not a great idea.
Frank, Who said conservatives
Frank,
Who said conservatives are in favor of the draft?
John, your hypothetical is
John, your hypothetical is faulty because if the military allowed a person already trained to suddenly become a conscientious objector, then it doesn't matter if the definition includes "all wars" or only "select wars," because if Pvt. Snuffy has a change of heart, he could do it just as easily for "all wars." Which is why these are issues usually decided before service begins.
I think I may have been
I think I may have been unclear. I meant "that there are conservatives who do support the draft", rather than that "conservatives support the draft".
Howard, But that is the
Howard,
But that is the issue. People who have joined, trained and then decide one war or another is "unjust" or some other reason and didn't want to go. There should be no change for them.
Frank,
Other than Howard, the only person I have heard support the draft coming back is a liberal NYC congressman during the Bush administration. There may be some conservatives who thinks the draft is a good idea, but I bet there are no more of them than liberals who do.
But if we can meet our manpower requirements with a volunteer military, why have a draft? Historically, the draft has only been used when enlistments failed to meet the need.
Frank, What conservative
Frank,
What conservative American's are in favor or advocate reinstating the draft?
If you could not in good conscience support a war in Iraq just as you wouldn't have been able to support the war in Vietnam why would you be interested in pursuing the Platoon leaders course? There are other programs that could afford you the opportunity to serve your country with out having to take up arms. Why not the Peace Corps?
Frank, Och. When you don't
Frank,
Och. When you don't commission, the ROTC usually will insist you pay back any tuition they paid, or put you on active duty for 2 years as an enlisted member. Good luck.
Jeremiah, sorry I think I
Jeremiah, sorry I think I just assumed that the person saying it was conservative. I could be wrong. I assumed based on the general population of Batavia.
And John, luckily the PLC isn't the same as ROTC and I have no obligation. I was initially interested because it pays well and I thought being a marine officer would be a cool job. And I think it probably still would be, just not for me.
There may very well be
There may very well be conservatives that would like to see the draft reinstated. Just as there are liberals that would like to see it reinstated as well.
From my personal experience reinstating the draft would be a disaster for our armed forces. There is no problem with getting people to join, even with a war going on, the Marine corps had a goal of growing their end strength to 200,000 by 2012. The recruiting command accomplished that goal in 2009 having started the growth process in 2007.
Frank,
What will you receive a degree in once you complete your current schooling?
Taking into account your opposition to the current wars you might be better off joining the peace corps or Americorps. that would give you the opportunity to serve your country. Just not in armed conflict. Depending on your degree one of those two organizations might even give you some valuable practical experience.
And just so you know being a Marine officer is NOT a "cool job." It's a responsibility.
I'm aware of what being a
I'm aware of what being a Marine Officer entails, and I have no intention of doing it any longer. I was going to do the program this summer, but I'm trying to go to Cairo for a Critical Language Scholarship instead.