Is it fair to demonise a soldier who acts upon the orders of his/her country's government?

[shaz619]

There are obviously soldiers out there who go beyond their assignment and commit some heinous crimes and they deserve to be vilified in that regard.

But does the standard soldier deserve to be demonized based on what he is ordered to do which may or may not be politically correct or something which you don't agree with given the collateral damage involved ?

This Soldier could be Pakistani, British, American, Indian or Israeli for example. The one thing they all have in common is that they have to follow orders, doesn't the concept itself throw who is right and wrong in terms of your personal beliefs out of the window ? because say for example you don't agree with a Pakistani soldier's actions, that same soldier could act in your favour if such an order was made and in the end they are nothing more then puppets irrespective of what you deem to be good or bad.

Also, while patriotism is one of the reasons folk tend to enlist it's not always the case. Often it's out of desperation, who'd want to put their life at risk if things were going so well ? and life in the forces is not exactly pleasant and usually you need to commit to a very long service; and when you're done, it's tough to adjust to civilian life and you're never quiet the same again. We often tend to be sympathetic towards those who commit civilian crimes given their circumstances and need to provide for their family's, does the same apply here ? although in the soldiers case it is a job in itself rather then a crime.

Can it be said that soldiers are just a gun which is fired upon the will off their country's governance and aimed at those whom are off interest to fulfil a specific goal.

 

[vagabond007ti]

Have you watched movie a few good men? Brings up similar point. Its complicated. I feel a soldier has to be convinced that what he/she is doing is right thing. You should not expected complete loyalty from a solder if he/she has any doubt about what is being asked to do.

 

[KingKhanWC]

I believe everyone is answerable for their own decisions in life.

Most nations today do not force their population to join the armed forces, this is often a choice which the individual takes upon themselves. It's a very serious choice as you may be called to take someone life and taking a life is the most serious act someone may do.

So you have to be sure you are not taking the life of an innocent. Some may believe they are merely following orders but in this day and age it's not difficult to determine a just force or if you are targeting an innocent.

 

[shaz619]

I believe everyone is answerable for their own decisions in life.

Most nations today do not force their population to join the armed forces, this is often a choice which the individual takes upon themselves. It's a very serious choice as you may be called to take someone life and taking a life is the most serious act someone may do.

So you have to be sure you are not taking the life of an innocent. Some may believe they are merely following orders but in this day and age it's not difficult to determine a just force or if you are targeting an innocent.

The thing is, a Soldier can be commanded to do things which you agree with and things which you do not, there are times they may get involved with wars you deem unjust whilst other times assist people during a natural disaster or help prevent a genocide or an oppressive opposing force. So am not sure if there is any force out there which can be deemed just entirely and collateral damage is a byproduct of war regardless of who is fighting it for any one reason.

But it's a question which deserves to be asked because Soldiers generally get as much heat as the people who command them and no one is understanding when it comes to looking beyond the deed which is done itself so they are criticised on a level playing field as their country's leaders

 

[shaz619]

Have you watched movie a few good men? Brings up similar point. Its complicated. I feel a soldier has to be convinced that what he/she is doing is right thing. You should not expected complete loyalty from a solder if he/she has any doubt about what is being asked to do.

No, will watch it soon. Yeah it's a very complex and controversial subject generally speaking

 

[KingKhanWC]

The thing is, a Soldier can be commanded to do things which you agree with and things which you do not, there are times they may get involved with wars you deem unjust whilst other times assist people during a natural disaster or help prevent a genocide or an oppressive opposing force. So am not sure if there is any force out there which can be deemed just entirely and collateral damage is a byproduct of war regardless of who is fighting it for any one reason.

But it's a question which deserves to be asked because Soldiers generally get as much heat as the people who command them and no one is understanding when it comes to looking beyond the deed which is done itself so they are criticised on a level playing field as their country's leaders

Sure the leaders are the most responsible but why cant a solider make his/her personal decision as per the situation at hand? Soldiers are not robots, they have their own mind and I'd rather take disciplinary rather than killing or hurting someone who I know for SURE is innocent. If a soldier truly feels he/she is attacking an enemy combatant then of course the intention isn't bad so there is no blame.

 

[cricketjoshila]

No, will watch it soon. Yeah it's a very complex and controversial subject generally speaking

Read through the nuremberg trials.This very issue was dealt in details as most Nazi Army officers were just obeying orders.

 

[shaz619]

Sure the leaders are the most responsible but why cant a solider make his/her personal decision as per the situation at hand? Soldiers are not robots, they have their own mind and I'd rather take disciplinary rather than killing or hurting someone who I know for SURE is innocent. If a soldier truly feels he/she is attacking an enemy combatant then of course the intention isn't bad so there is no blame.

The Soldier is always going to act based on the orders which he's given regardless of whether or not the end result is something we agree with, it's the nature of the job in the end when it comes to a specific mission

 

[Black Zero]

Depends on the result of the conflict.

 

[KingKhanWC]

The Soldier is always going to act based on the orders which he's given regardless of whether or not the end result is something we agree with, it's the nature of the job in the end when it comes to a specific mission

I have read many accounts of soldiers refusing orders. Even British soldiers refused to kill Nazi's. I understand your point, one of the main roles of a soldier is to follow orders. I would have loved to be a solider in special forces but I would not kill an innocent person even if ordered to do so. It's God who I ultimately will have to answer to.

 

[Robert]

No, will watch it soon. Yeah it's a very complex and controversial subject generally speaking

One if my favourite films. I watch it about once a year. Cruise, Bacon, Nicholson, Sutherland all superb. "You can't handle the truth" is one of the greatest lines in cinema.

Anyway re: the OP it depends. Deliberately following orders to commit murder as did the Nazi extermination camp guards is unjustifiable.

But to an extent it depends who wins. Had the Axis won, Churchill and Harris would have been tried at Nuremberg instead of Hess and Goering.

 

[Pakistanian]

Tell that to the innocent people that were killed and tortured by these soldiers.

 

[kingusama92]

Sure the leaders are the most responsible but why cant a solider make his/her personal decision as per the situation at hand? Soldiers are not robots, they have their own mind and I'd rather take disciplinary rather than killing or hurting someone who I know for SURE is innocent. If a soldier truly feels he/she is attacking an enemy combatant then of course the intention isn't bad so there is no blame.

I agree.

A soldier has to recognize the importance of his/her position. Blindly following orders is neither patriotic nor appropriate in any circumstance.

Unfortunately, a lot of soldiers ignore this and do as they're told leading to countless atrocities around the world.

 

[yasir]

This is the problematic part with Soilders of all kind, you are following orders not using your brain. Weather you do it for your country, race, religion and what not, its all because somebody brain wash you enough to follow their order. Off course in many cases its part of your job, why we glorify it, so that you can keep recruiting soldiers??

Also, on the same token, should we also glorify them, since they were doing it on somebody else's order?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I don't think it's fair to demonise a soldier, but by the same token, they can't have a free pass to do whatever they want otherwise how would you punish those that indulged in rape, murder or torture? There are codes of conduct in war and most soldiers should be following those. If they are given orders which go against those codes then their superiors should be questioned.

 

[shaz619]

I don't think it's fair to demonise a soldier, but by the same token, they can't have a free pass to do whatever they want otherwise how would you punish those that indulged in rape, murder or torture? There are codes of conduct in war and most soldiers should be following those. If they are given orders which go against those codes then their superiors should be questioned.

I was asking the question based on those codes of conduct in war being maintained, off course those who go beyond that are justifiably punished