Ok so regarding my thoughts on morality.
My hope is that the training period will give me the perspective that allows me to make judgement calls if I'm in the moment where I need that.
Eg: I encounter an unexpected unknown/possible enemy and have to react quickly and decisively.
I believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt, so my idea is that those who are commanding me and giving me orders know that we are doing the 'right' thing with our actions as a unit: that I won't get an order that I know is wrong.
Now if that does happen, I hope that I will be allowed to express my thoughts.
Eg: if I see our company doing something I know is wrong because of the information that I have available to me, then I would hope I could say "Is this what we are supposed to be doing? What about X information which I know because of Y?" And I would be told further information based on that discussion.
As a member of the military I represent (to an extent) our citizens and peoples. Society depends on some members of the military domestically (for sure) and abroad (I hope so). Domestic issues are natural disasters and matters of national security, and I cannot think of a situation where I would question that in any way, shape, or form. Abroad? I could foresee that being an issue. Sometimes the locals do not want a military presence. NATO and the UN make choices based on the information available to them, and sometimes that information can be biased or outright incorrect, and if that happens and the situation on the ground is vastly different from command's understanding of the situation beforehand I would want to be able to communicate that in the fastest manner, especially when I am not experienced enough to understand what would need to change to accommodate the new situation that has arose.
What about killing someone?
I can honestly say that if I know that someone wants me dead I will not hesitate to stop them at any cost. That looks different in the field, because you don't know everything, and you have to make quick decisions that will have eternal (permanent) consequences. Another fact is if I am protecting someone from an aggressor, or possible aggressor, I do believe that there is no reason for there to be any doubt if I am seeing something "unexpected."
A man shows up somewhere he should absolutely not be at that time and refuses to communicate or back down? There should be a process that he has ignored deliberately and if he has gone that far than I am only retaliating to what he has already done as a conscious choice. I do not think I would hesitate if I knew that the safety of my company would be in danger if I did not take action.
My exposure to the world has taught me that people are not always to be trusted, and if someone has trusted their life (safety) in my hands then I should not doubt my own decisions to accomplish our goals with the greatest care and diligence.
I've beaten around the bush enough, if I saw someone with a weapon I would shoot first if I thought I had enough information to know that they are my enemy (they have made a conscious decision to A: have a weapon (implies readiness to kill, main, and destroy), and B: be in an area where they will find soldiers with the intention of ambushing/assaulting them, lastly C: having no identity aside from the weapon, this would apply to uniforms or marking designating friendlies). I would shoot to kill.
My goals are for everyone on earth to live in such a way where they do not fear for their lives as they move around the environment they are born into. Sometimes there is an unavoidable danger (dark street at night) that will be unavoidable no matter where you are located geographically, but that does not change my goal of basic human rights for life.
I do wonder about the motivations of those who find themselves in a 'War-Zone.' Obviously there are no real chcoices in that, if they could leave they would have, and if there is no other portion, I'm sure they would fight for their lands/families/ideology if that was the only option presented to them.
But when it turns to crimes against humanity? Treating prisoners like criminals? Killing civilians without any semblance of morality? Child soldiers? Ambushing enemies without any decision making or goal?
Those are things I disagree with wholeheartedly.
And if those doing these things were on my 'team?' Would I be able to stand in front of them and tell them that they cannot go through with what they wanted to? To physically try to stop them? I hope so.
What about the goals of the 'state' and the allies of our country (the western world, UN, NATO, and America foremost)? Do I think that everything the country does is right and am I comfortable with being only a pawn in those goals?
My thoughts are that I hope that those placing the orders understand that they may not have all the information, and if they make a decision without all the information it could end up being the wrong one. Once the correction is made and more information has been gathered being able to change to the right choice is a hard one, and I hope it would be pursued and not ignored. Again I've kinda talked about this already, but just not agreeing with going along with something that is absolutely wrong, and being able to communicate why it is based on the real and true information.
I think something I'm thinking about is that the soldiers are not just 'warm bodies,' but that they are thinking, rational, knowledgeable human beings, and they can contribute to the choices that affect the world around them. Obviously there is a reason for the chain of command and those with experience and knowledge will be able to contribute more than those without.
That's all for now.
No comments:
Post a Comment