~~~~
Of course a no-preemptive-strike policy limits options and confines strategy and makes less philosophic warriors moan in frustration. Since the ethical warrior's position requires someone to break Waite's dictum, in some ultimate sense, the ethical warrior always plays defense. More traditional fighters will call this approach impractical. What they mean by "impractical" is that they are initially placed in a vulnerable position. This presents real practical problems for the warrior that should not be minimized. The point is to plan with this constraint in mind, not to abandon the principle. We have often limited our strategic first-strike options in the past without serious harm. In many cases, by so doing, we have avoided harm not only to innocent people but also to ourselves.
~~~~
I don't see where you're going with this, Karl. You've wandered off point to discuss the pros and cons of a no-preemptive strike policy. We need to discuss the warrior's contractual agreement to forfeit his future right to decide if a proposed war is moral or not.
I am not on board with some of the other things you have stated earlier in the book either, and this makes my discomfort more intense as I read this part of the book.
If it is true, as you claim, that humans have an innate savage nature that comes out when violence is demanded by leaders of nations, and that in truth all humans are endowed with the inner savage and get pleasure out of extreme violence that wreaks havoc and chaos and kills wantonly, and later, after returning to normal society, they say in reflection, "I loved it" and "I wish I could be there" when a new war is started", then is it not likely that those who elect to make a career out of the military do it in hopes of more such opportunities? This is a frightening thought.
My experience suggests that you are wrong about this savage personality lurking inside of all human beings. I think that military training is intended to short circuit the normal superego's messages and produce a wanton thrill killer mentality because that is the most expedient way to "git "er'done". And to hell with the rampant PTSD that ensues when the warrior goes home.
Your thesis focuses on trying to eliminate the PTSD without addressing the criminality of elected leaders who have no moral scruples and are permitted to commit us to endless wars of no moral purpose.
I think that you are right about what happens to contract warriors when the contract has been fulfilled and they return to civilian society. Many, maybe most, do return with PTSD. And when the war is perceived by society as an unjust war the returning warrior does not encounter a grateful nation. Under the assumption that the President, an elected official, by definition can do no wrong it would be right to expect the nation always to be grateful to returning warriors. But this assumption is wrong as history has proven.
It would be unfair to condemn the returning warriors for the atrocities they committed in the war, because they believed the cleverly concealed fact that the President may be wrong when they signed their military enlistment contract. They were naà �ve and perceived their enlistment to be a noble sacrifice that, although it might get them killed, was proof of their patriotism. That was the result of a wrong and cruelly fraudulent public policy based on "Father knows best."
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
2
