FeatherFall Posted February 22, 2009 Report Share Posted February 22, 2009 A friend of mine has been involved in the US military since 2002, including a second tour in Iraq. Currently, he is trying to get reassigned to a different unit because he believes the Iraq war is immoral -- immoral on the grounds that it is not a war fought with US interest in mind. In other words, because it is an altruistic war. The story can be found here. He isn't pursuing status as a conscientious objector because (as he says here) the military defines conscientious objectors as being opposed to war in all of it's forms. He opposes this war on the grounds that the military's proper purpose is to defend the US, and that the contract he signed with the military is to defend the US. Anyway, this situation has me thinking about the role of military obligation. Should the military allow for conscientious objection? If so, should that standard be set at opposition for war in all of its forms, or should it be broad enough to allow for objections to specific wars? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greebo Posted February 22, 2009 Report Share Posted February 22, 2009 (edited) Should the military allow for conscientious objection? No. The military is an organization that exists for the purpose of fighting. The military allowing conscientious objectors to be in the ranks would be like ARI hiring a 'spiritual adviser'. There are rational reasons to fight - the primary being fighting for ones freedom, or for the freedom of others. The CO puts survival over freedom, puts living in peace above living free, puts slavery over revolution. The CO rejects man as a rational being. A CO who joins the military is acting stupidly at best. The military should treat any person who declares themselves a CO as a person who has perpetuated fraud against them, joining under false pretenses. In this specific case, because he agreed to join and to fight, he is contractually obligated to do so, and should do so. He should also make his chain of command know clearly that he is fighting because he has to, not because he believes in the cause. His attempt to get reassigned is good, it means he's trying to deal with his situation within the bounds of his contract. If so, ... It is not so, so no further explanation is required. However, I will say that if the military allowed objections to *specific* wars, they'd be a terrible fighting force. Few soldiers *want* to be in battle. They have to be there, so they do the job. Give them an option to get out by objecting to the war in question and they'll come up with millions of reasons they object to the specific war but not war in general. Edited February 22, 2009 by Greebo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wilicyote Posted February 22, 2009 Report Share Posted February 22, 2009 It is important to not confuse the military we have at present, with an ideal objectivist government's military. They are very different things. I would argue that your friend is confusing the two. He did not join, e.g. legally sign a binding committment, the objectivist military. He agreed to join the present one, which does not give him the option to choose which wars he wants to fight. Actions have consequences, it is the law of causality. He took an action, now he is committed to accept the consequences of those actions, both legally and morally as an Objectivist. Let this be a warning to anyone considering enlistment, be sure you understand what you are agreeing to. If it is acceptable -- then accept it. If not, don't join the military. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SD26 Posted February 22, 2009 Report Share Posted February 22, 2009 (edited) Let this be a warning to anyone considering enlistment, be sure you understand what you are agreeing to. If it is acceptable -- then accept it. If not, don't join the military. Exactly. First, one commits. It's not a normal job that one "applies to", nor is it the Boy Scouts where one "joins" for a membership fee. And the oath is: I DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR (OR AFFIRM) THAT I WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC; THAT I WILL BEAR TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE SAME; AND THAT I WILL OBEY THE ORDERS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE ORDERS OF THE OFFICERS APPOINTED OVER ME, ACCORDING TO REGULATIONS AND THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE. SO HELP ME GOD. Regardless of one's individual thought of whether it is in the interest of the US, it can be in the interest of the President. Or an action can be in the interests of officers above one's rank. Edited February 22, 2009 by SD26 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted February 22, 2009 Report Share Posted February 22, 2009 He agreed to join the present one, which does not give him the option to choose which wars he wants to fight.In addition, no sane military would give you the option to drop out if you were unhappy with the particular war or working conditions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted February 22, 2009 Report Share Posted February 22, 2009 And the oath is: I just want to note that this part of the oath of office is optional. I've enlisted, commissioned, and promoted without saying it. I agree with your comments, I just don't want any of the younger readers thinking they have to swear god-belief in order to join the military. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve D'Ippolito Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 A lot of people think that "so help me god" is part of the oath for the presidency, and it isn't, according to the Constitution. It's customarily tacked on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.