When considering how to view soldiers, it is important to look at both why they join, what they do, and what their nation asks of them. A soldier who joins in expectation that he is putting his life on the line for protection of others should be given credit for that willingness to sacrifice, even if the nation for which he serves uses him for unsavory purposes. A soldier who knowingly commits acts of atrocity should be scorned even if he did so for supposedly noble purposes or at the orders of a superior. In no case should a soldier be “worshiped” or considered to be above reproach, but neither should they be condemned purely because you disagree with policy decisions by their nation.
It is often hard to determine why someone joins the military. Someone who is forced to join to escape prison though clearly isn’t doing so out of an interest in serving others by putting their life on the line. Many people who join militaries do so though in the belief that doing so will protect the safety or liberty of their family, friends, or neighbors. Even if one believes this motivation is naive, the sacrifice it implies is significant. The Bible indicates that there is no greater love than to lay one’s life down for another. Someone who joins purely out of a desire to inflict harm on others though is not worthy of respect for their joining a military. Most who would call for soldiers to be honored likely would NOT call for them to be honored if it was known that they had done so purely out of a blood lust.
A soldier potentially takes that risk in joining a military. Of course, the above quality could potentially also apply to people we might consider terrorists, to those who commit war crimes, or to those who otherwise engage in acts that are unsupportable. No soldier who engages in improper conduct should be honored. The question of what consitutes “improper” is probably the biggest concern for those who oppose honoring troops. Is engaging in an unjust war improper? What about torturing an enemy who has critical information? Some might argue that there are no rules in love or war, and that any action that helps one achieve their goals is acceptable. This is generally the idea behind the view that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. In fact though, each man is responsible for his own actions and cannot beg off on having been given orders to engage in wrongful behavior.
The specifics of what is considered wrongful behavior are likely to be an area of contention, but I would not hold a soldier responsible for actions outside their direct control. This would include decisions like where their military is fighting and with what operational goals. An individual soldier cannot necessarily be expected to be familiar with the larger details of a conflict they are engaged in, or to refuse to be deployed to a given conflict. (That said, a military ought to strive to keep soldiers informed and to allow them to opt out of conflict if they feel strongly that it is unjust.) They do have control over their direct actions, and should not deliberately target civilians or engage in deliberate torture of enemies (regardless of legal combatant status). Targetting soldiers (who have not surrendered) in the case of a war for legitimate reasons is acceptable, since those soldiers have specifically identified themselves as targets.
The final condition to be considered is the cause of the nation for which a soldier fights. It is illegitimate for a soldier to intentionally join a military which they know exists for immoral purposes. If I know my nation is engaging in a genocide, I should not join its military. This raises the question of what constitutes “legitimate” use of a military. The only legitimate use of a military is to remove physical threats to oneself or others. It is always morally legitimate to respond with lethal force if someone is threatening your life or that of a non-aggressor party, regardless of whether one is in a police or military force. If someone points a gun at my wife, I’ll kill them. I can also do this if someone is threatening my neighbor with lethal force. Nations (as gatherings of people) have the right to do the same thing.
You may also be interested in:
A necessary article, especially in companion to last week’s on Poppy Day. I generally can agree with all of it, but I’d probably take it a little further:
Obviously, once a soldier has signed a contract with the military, they can’t always get out if the military decides to wage an illegitimate or unjust war. But this is why it is so important, as I said in my article on Christians and Employment, for Christians to thoroughly vet the contracts they make, lest they find themselves in a bind where their obligations to God and man are in direct conflict. But we are talking about all soldiers here, in which case, I would go a step further and suggest that unless people can sign contracts where they are exempt from being forced to fight, kill or torture others (so that they can make a judgement call if they are asked to so do) then they should not join the military in a combat role. The fact of the matter is that the military is not a particularly consistent organisation when it comes to enforcing the protection of human rights, justice and morality. It is pottential folly to make a covenant with such an entity.
Agreed, of course. The problem is that unless they have been explicit with their contract, then they may be bound by their own word to do these things. In other words, if they freely signed up with a military in such a way that leaves a gaping door open for them to engage in these kinds of immoral activities, then they are responsible, even when they did not have direct control over the policy decisions – they had direct control over whether they agreed to carry out potentially unjust decisions.
This is a fair thing to remember. Soldiers are not responsible for policy. people need to be held accountable for their own actions (above case excepting). I would just suggest that unless the military can be petitioned for a contract that prevents soldiers from violating morality and the human rights of others, it is an organisation best to avoid.
I dunno…how many 18 year old boys are really thinking about the moral issues surrounding their decision to join the military? I mean, it would be nice if they were considering that, but I know from my own experience – I was considering the military when I was a young thing. I was thinking about the self-improvement potential…could I handle the discipline? The physical demands? Would they help me with my college expenses? I guess we were sort of between wars at that time, so maybe that’s why I didn’t really considering the actions of my military. My decision not to join had nothing to do with morality. And, in my personal case, it probably would have been more self-less and respectable for me to have joined. All I have is my own experience. And I can’t say that I understand in the least how the average 18 year old boy/man thinks.
I was thinking along the lines of what Tank just said, too. Back in the olden days, when I was young and Pluto was a planet, and maybe even more so when my parents were young, men joined the military to be respectable, to have a chance to grow up, to get some job training, because they couldn’t get a job, because their parents expected them to, because that is what all young men did straight out of high school, because not everyone went to college, because they wanted a chance to get out of their small town, etc.
Things changed during the Vietnam war, I guess. But anyway, they were mostly practical reasons, with not much thought about what being a soldier really means.
Tank and Thainamu:
Do we really think anyone joins a military without being aware that they may be putting their life on the line, or that many do so without believing what they are doing is at least at some level noble? There are a lot of other options, and many even pay significantly better.
After I graduated college and was having trouble finding a job right away, I briefly considered signing up as a civilian to drive transport trucks in Iraq. They were providing full training and $150,000 / year, with the only requirement being a clean driving record and ability to pass a trucker training course. (I believe the specific position I was considering was with Haliburton.) There are very definitely better options out there for people just looking to improve their financial status and willing to take physical risks to do so.
I’m not saying that recruits put a lot of deep thought into the morality of their decision, but at least at some level I think they do so believing that they are protecting their homeland. Most national militaries don’t pay enough to create a purely financial incentive (which is why private military companies like Blackwater exist). Some level of “patriotism” and “giving back” play into such decisions too.
When I was considering “the military for smart people” as a career option, despite my already deeply sceptical feelings about the government, there was a lot of thoughts in the back of my mind about how getting this position would actually test me and improve me as a person. I was never challenged about the morality of it, except by a few lone voices on this board (and that not in any reference to my specific situation). I imagine it is the same thing with joining the marines or army out of high school – no one is sceptical about the morality of the military, and I think most kids view it as some kind of proving ground for themselves:
This kind of thing.
I think if the military were thought of much like drug-dealing (very rarely and occasionally can be helpful, but most of society sees it as nefarious and immoral) then these thoughts of challenge, discipline and adventure (as indeed, is the case with the incentives to deal-drugs – along with the common financial desperation incentives) would be put in some kind of context. As it is right now, the military is glorified in places where it should be the most feared (churches, patriotic organisations, the media, high schools).
“the military is glorified in places where it should be the most feared (churches…”
Hmm, I thought God told us not to fear the authorities.
That’s true. We shouldn’t fear earthly authorities. God is sovereign, omnipotent, and faithful, so there is no need to fear anything on earth. But I don’t think that’s the kind of fear that Colin meant.
Darius, is it your position that churches should not fear the military even though it is an abusive violator of human rights because we should not fear suffering in this world?
We should not fear the military or government because, by and large, it punishes evildoers, not those who don’t break the law. This was the point of Romans 13:3. And if you think that no longer applies, I would suggest looking at what the Roman Empire was capable of at the time those words were written. We shouldn’t fear the State except in regards to oppression due to our faith. And in that case, we don’t have to fear it because we’re not to fear those who kill the body but He who can destroy the soul.
That said, we’re also to be wise as serpents, so we should have a healthy “fear” of all government intrusion into public life.
But getting back to Colin’s comment… I guess I don’t see why the military (at least, the American one) should be feared by any American citizens. What the Church SHOULD fear is idolatry and a misplacement of loyalties and citizenship priorities.
I presume you don’t support regime change then, as it goes against this interpretation of Romans 13?
Fair question. First, the American military is not in a special military category – there is nothing morally inherent about the American military that makes it more good (or more evil) then any other military. My criticisms are with “the” military as an institution – that is, what a state military is by definition.
Because the institution of the military is the arm of enforcement of the un-Christian and immoral goals of the state (but also any “moral” goals of the state – leaving the debate out about whether these exist), it should be viewed with suspicion and care commensurate with its pottential (high) for abuse of both human rights and Christian morality. A Christian shouldn’t fear the military’s worldly consequences in any special way – we endure suffering, injustice and persecution for all kinds of places. But it should be assigned it’s proper role amongst other similar institution which we “fear” in this way – currently, many in the church seem to place the military at varying degrees of moral elevation. This is dangerous and, I think, unwise.
But we should be wary of the military’s pottential to enforce immorality and undertake immoral policy. Both the empirical history of militaries and the purely abstract theory behind a military, requires that it be an abuser of human rights and (almost always, if not always) come into conflict with Christian principles as part of its very nature.
The purely abstract theory of militaries is that they are used to protect a group of people from physical aggression from their neighbors. This is a goal which is both compatible with human rights and with Christian principles. The primary advantage of a standing military is that it provides the group sustaining it with a highly trained and efficient protection from their enemies.
Military history has proven that a well trained and disciplined fighting force will almost always defeat opposition, even against extremely adverse odds, making having a standing military extremely important to prevent physical aggression from enemies. Throughout history, any group of people WITHOUT the ability to defend themselves HAVE been oppressed by less scrupulous neighbors.
Even your anarchist morality allows for the protection of others human rights, whether or not those people can afford to pay for such protection. It might not mandate such protection, but it allows for it. I understand that non-voluntary funding for a military is undesirable, as is any aggressive use of force. “Regime change” of a physically oppressive government is plausibly an act on behalf of the people being oppressed, though military force should not be used to tell those people what kind of government to enact. Militaries are without question a highly abuse prone institution, but are in no way inherently immoral or un-Christian.
Atanamis, yes a purely defensive military can be morally neutral. However my point is this:
I would be tough pressed to find a military in empirical history which did not violate human rights or Christian principles via (among numerous other things): adherence to authority, conscription, killing non-combatants, killing in anything other than self-defence, plundering, vengeance, stealing, lies (such as that which takes place in espionage), rape, torture. And I am not just talking about rouge individuals in militaries, but action as a matter of policy – including a lack of policy and enforcement.
Second, the “theory” of a military requires that, aside from the one exception of a purely voluntary defensive collaboration of free peoples acting in resistance to a violent aggressor, some degree of basic rights violation occurs. I would suggest that human rights come into conflict with a military (other than the exception) before Christian principles, but these do not lag far behind.
Of your concerns, most are only accurate when looking at historical militaries, and those which remain are nothing near as clear cut as you suggest.
Let’s take them one by one:
“adherence to authority”
The authority to which US soldiers are expected to adhere is constrained by what is lawful. The US Supreme court has repeatedly held that illegal orders can result in penalties for the soldier following them. Arguably lawful isn’t the same as moral, and rules aren’t the same as practice, but the rules are that soldiers ARE responsible to determining the legality of the orders they have been given.
“conscription”
The modern US military is 100% volunteer. While I would agree that nobody should be forces to serve against their will, I would suggest that being willing to submit to conscription can be a valid price to put on citizenship. As you know from past discussions we have had, I do not believe citizenship should be an “automatic” thing, but one that comes from explicitly agreement between an individual and a government. Conscription of someone who does not WANT to be a citizen is indeed immoral (though not currently done in the US military).
“killing non-combatants”
Killing non-combatants is sometimes unavoidable, particularly when fighting an opponent who deliberately places non-combatants in harm’s way. The fact that an enemy tank contains prisoners should not prevent a military from defending itself. While non-combatant casualties should be avoided wherever necessary, collateral damage will happen. Non-combatants shouldn’t be targeted though. Again, I am not aware of the US military having deliberately targeted non-combatants, though if it has happened those responsible should be made to answer.
“killing in anything other than self-defence”
In a mutually declared war, anyone wearing the opposing side’s uniform is deliberately trying to kill you. Would you also agree though that killing is legitimate in defense of a third party? If someone has a gun to my wife’s head, may I use lethal force or only she? Again, a hostile military force that is killing innocents is a legitimate target on the basis that the uniform IS a symbol that all those wearing it have the same goal. This is why it is especially important for a military to hold its members to a high standard of behavior.
“plundering, vengeance, stealing”
All banned by modern military codes of conduct.
“lies (such as that which takes place in espionage)”
And yet Rahab was saved from destruction directly due to her lies, and the Hebrew midwives in Egypt were blessed for their lies. The Biblical commandment is specifically about giving false testimony in court, while other commands are to have your word be as reliable as an oath. When people’s lives are on the line, there is strong Biblical evidence that dishonesty is at least permissible if not outright required.
“rape, torture”
Banned by military codes of conduct and international law. In the US, the only real question is what constitutes “torture”. This is a debate in itself, but to my knowledge there is no real support for interrogation techniques that cause permanent physical damage. Techniques like water boarding are designed to be terrifying, but physically harmless. They may still be immoral, but there is widespread agreement that torture as a category is wrong.
What Atanamis said. Colin, you’re confusing individual human fallenness with military ethics and responsibility. Just because some idiots at Abu Graib decided to have some “fun” with the inmates doesn’t make the American military evil or responsible (in fact, it shows just how good it is when the army punishes those who don’t follow the rules… the truly evil militaries of history have not done so… the Soviet Red Army comes to mind). This is another example where libertarianism doesn’t appreciate the concept of original sin or properly grasp its interaction with life.
Yeah, but shouldn’t there be room to examine the military’s role in creating the situation and condition that allowed the Abu Graib abuses to happen? The military as an institution doesn’t get a free pass just because the individual members are responsible for their own actions.
Darius, my blog was discussing militaries in general, not just the US military or any other military you and I might find moral. We need to look at what makes for a just military on consistent grounds, and not just on whether they happen to be on our side.
As Jew pointed out, the US military is fully responsible for creating a situation that allowed for abuse. Despite its many critical flaws, the Stanford prison experiment strongly suggests that random people of the street will become brutally abusive to one another if put in the wrong situation. In fact, I’d suggest that the military as an institution is responsible for either (1) putting psychotic people in a position of power, or (2) putting normal rational people in a position that caused them to behave in inhumane ways. Either way, the military MUST take responsibility for what happened.
Part of my response was pointing out that the REASON it is valid to attack people with an enemy uniform is that we assume that all people wearing the uniform are imposing the will of their masters using force. If we are going to exempt ourselves from taking responsibility for Abu Graib, we end up also having to ask each enemy soldier whether they support their regimes policies or are acting on orders before engaging in acts of war against them. I don’t believe that the military MEANT for Abu Graib to happen, but they definitely allowed it to happen. Doing gave legitimate reason for enemies to attack US soldiers (though not for attacking civilians).
The military is responsible in a way and yet not responsible for Abu Graib. Either way, they TOOK responsibility by punishing those who were at fault.