Refusing to fight

There was the results of an online vote in the paper today and I thought it might spark a debate around here

What should the Canadian military (or any military really) do with soldier who refuses to fight?

Put them in jail
Send them to the front lines anyways
Give them a dishonourable discharge
Let them serve the remainder of their tour in the reserves


(results best as I can remember:
20-some-odd %: toss 'em in jail
7%: send 'em to the lines anyways
40-some-odd %: dishonourable discharge
remainder: spend the tour in the reserves)

 

I would put them in jobs such as maintenance and truck drivers, or desk jobs.

 

Now this in an interesting debate.

The obvious answer is "They joined the army, what did they expect?"

But then there was a little thing called the Nuremburg Trials, at which it was ruled that soldiers cannot hide behind the excuse of 'I was obeying orders' and should therefore use their conscience when deciding what to do.

Hmm...

 

I really think that obeying orders is a perfect reason. How many here has been in the shoes of a soldier answering to a superior?Not many i guess. During those times,to use the conscience would mean getting themselves shot. They really weren't given much of a choice unless they enjoyed going about those orders.

 

The principle on which every professional army rests is that soldiers never question the orders of their superiors, in return for which the officers carry a responsibility to make sure that the orders they give are sensible, morally just and do not expose their men to unnecessary risks. Of course, this is only the ideal, and it is very hard to bring it into practice; still, nothing would remain of the purpose and coherence of an army if either the soldier's obedience or the officer's responsibility was seen as anything but absolute.

 

I do agree with both Kaiser and Roel's statements. However, the legal precedent set at Nuremburg is a fact. If a soldier feels that he (or she) cannot morally or ethically comply with an order then they should not follow it.

Precedents stand regardless of whether they are sensible or not.

 

Then you will have an army of educated people constantly questioning their superior's orders. Something my armed forces is facing due to the new generation of smart conscripts faced with bosses with barely an O'level pass.

i digress.

But i do feel that,as a men on the field, you cannot question every order.It's not fair for the soldier to disobey what he feels as wrong and then be shot for it.

Britain used to be an absolute monarchy and so does aevery country in this world. It's a precedent,but is it something we would want or agree with?i think not.

 

If you go to war go to total war. There is no room for people to be thinking about the people there shooting at, it can cost them theres life.

Its not a good thing, but gets the job done and the soldiers home faster.

 

I don't think I go as far as jail or send 'em to ther front lines.

Jail is pointless, it removes soldier who could be making a difference from the battlefield (perhaps we'll debate the usefulnes of an individual soldier in an operation some other time)
As for sending them forward? Frankly, I'd rather have some one who either wants to be there or doens't really care one way or another than someone who keep bitching about being there.....the former (I think) would be more apt to remain focused on their priorities- keeping us alive and following our orders.

Although one guy I was talking about this with mentioned the early 19th century when firing squads were a common practise with deserters....or the back of a barn and an officers pistol (heard that story somewhere)

I dunno, really, what did they expect? Generally speaking, a soldiers job is to fight. If you didn't want to fight, why would you have enlisted (excluding those that had the misfortune to be conscripted/drafted)

 

I do agree. The whole point of the modern military structure is discipline and following orders. However, in their eagerness to convict German soldiers for atrocities the Nuremburg Judges opened a big can of worms...

Not quite the same - I'm discussing a legal precedent, and almost all law is based on precedent. For example, did you know that Purchase Laws in Britain all date back to a transaction involving a field of wheat in the 17th Century?

 

we , in the west havent been in actual total war ,war of ethnic survival , for centurys . this is why we are such pc namby pambys about modern cowardice in battle . ....russia and germany were in such a war some 60 years ago . both countrys delt with dereliction and cowardice in very swift and harsh ways . if ever we ARE in total war again , we will revert to those meaningful punishments that help focus a weak soldiers attention
..a roman legion that displayed bug-outitus in battle could be punished with decimation , now there was a punishment that really got the message across to the whole army ...men , line up here and count off by ten...

 

We regularly shot men for desertion & cowardice in WW1. Sometimes wrongfully, it is argued.

What made it worse was that the rest of the unit had to do the killing.

 

We actually had a 'demonstration' of the so-called 'centurians cut' used by roman commanders in church .....shove the sword in ther guys side, sweep around and let his guts fall out.....nasty way to die

 

Not in the US. Obedience is not absolute. If orders are unlawful not only should you not obey but you are duty bound to disobey. Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice one is required to obey "lawful" orders.

 

If we don't count Germany as part of the West (which seems really weird to me), when have we ever been in a war for ethnic survival?

 

OH Woody. Did you forget ww2, ww1, and all wars in 19th century (napoleonic wars, italian wars, wars against Turks...) and before that 18 century wars ( all over europe) and 30 years war in 17'th century that basicly destroyed entire europe (and anihalated large percentage of population)... If you across the pond didn't have a "decent" war since 1864 that doesn't mean others were so fortunate.

 

you missed 9/11 and the War on Terror Tiso.

 

9/11 was 1 (one ) attack. I grant you on the big scale but still one attack. You didn't have enemy tanks rolling across your border.

 

But still Grieg, you have been a soldier before. In the heat of battle where the most unlawful decisions MAY be made, soldiers are pressured to do or die.It's good that there is such a law in the US to protect the common soldier's rights.But whether it is feasible during combat is always another thing.And i somehow doubt it. Of course in modern westernised armies, this would seem possible because of your culture. But for alot of other armies ,i would doubt it.

 

exacttly my point tiso , if we or the uk had tanks rolling across our turf then we would be back to shooting deserters and those accused of cowardice ..as did the germans and the russians by the thousands in ww2 ...