I've been thinking about Lt.Col. Martala's visit last week and how reasonable it was. That makes it sound like I'm surprised, but really, I'm not. What I find surprising is that officers are expected to break down the rules of war into a small set of rules of engagement for the little guys. Instead of teaching them the nuances, they go for the black and white. I see two major purposes in this: (1) soldiers can sleep at night knowing that they followed those rules and (2) court martials are made a little bit easier because it is known precisely what the rules were for that soldier. Of course, the facts will change and the soldiers mens rea will be up for disagreement, but having a strictly applied set of rules helps.
BUT! We expect 18 year olds to understand AND abide by these rules. I'm quite a bit older than that and I still can't follow rules unless I'm convinced as to their purpose and logic. No, I'm not projecting (well maybe a little), but I find it really difficult to swallow that the international norms as applied to states could be processed rationally in a the short period between "shoot" or "don't shoot." Here's where the individual lessons of our mothers enter in. We wouldn't throw snowballs at a person without two arms and hands, because he cannot fight back. That's not an int'l norm, that's schoolyard fair play and something our mothers are responsible for teaching.
So, does our military have testing procedures to determine social fitness of a soldier? a manner of testing his innate or practiced response to stimuli? I don't think we do. But, if we rely on the child to fight wars, then maybe we should.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I also was comforted to know that there are people like Lt. Col. Marttala in the services who not only understand the complexities of the rules of war, but also conduct training exercises with their troops to teach them to react appropriately for any given situation, especially for those vague incidents that their ROE doesn't explicitly outline. It would be great if there were more officers like Marttala who went beyond handing out some black and white ROE and tried to encompass some of the grey areas.
Granted, I usually think some things through too much, but especially after this class, I don't know if I could go into battle, be told to shoot or not shoot and not have all these questions about the grey areas. So I wonder what a class like this, that makes you think about all the complexities, loopholes and consequences, would do to the ordinary soldier. Would they become more cautious and discriminating before they attack? Or would they become ineffective as soldiers because their actions become delayed due to this thinking process?
Re: wanderingcrabb's comment--
I think if I were a soldier who took our class, I would be completely paralyzed in a military operation. Then again, I'm assuming that I would be the same person and hold the same beliefs as a soldier as I now do as a civilians. I'm willing to bet, now that I think about it, I wouldn't be as wishywashy about things as a soldier like I am as a civilian.
I think everyone brings up really interesting points. As someone who studies a lot about humanitarian intervention, I'm often left questioning who are the soldiers who would be willing to intercede to stop a genocide/ethic cleansing etc. I'm not in the military, nor do I ever plan on being involved in any type of conflict where I have to take up arms. So in some ways, it is absurd that people who will never fight are the ones making policy about the people fighting. It is easy to say that something should be done, but once you realize that you are putting people in harm's way to achieve these goals, the solution becomes much more difficult.
Having said that, the military still confuses and bewilders me. It's an organization I'm so unfamiliar with and yet it is so important to my line of work. It amazes me that people chose to be soldiers. In some ways I have the the utmost respect for people who join the military because they want to defend their country. But having said that, it seems that once you are in the military, you lose all choice over what "defend your country" means and in what situations it is applicable. You can't pick and chose your battles (as Lt. Watada found out) and you don't make the rules. Yet we sit around talking about the rules that other people have to follow knowing that most of us will never be in their shoes.
So anyway, that eats away at me sometimes. All of this is so easy on paper and so foggy in "real life."
Post a Comment