In WW I, the United States faced a dilemma with draftees deserting in the midst of their service. General Pershing’s proposed solution certainly took a more stringent, deterrent-based approach to put it lightly. While the threat of death may prove to be effective initially, I feel that the change would prove to be short-lasting. In fact, some soldiers may make the conscious choice to die a more humane death from their superiors, instead of the risking dying at the hands of their enemies.
I think the problem lies with force. Even with all its power, the military cannot force someone to do something, let alone fight for their country, if they do not truly have the will do so. I feel that behavior modification can only come with the change of
will. I feel rather than fear, the armed forces should have emphasized the comradery of the military. Each servicemember served an integral part in the battle. While some draftees may never have believed in the fighting the war itself, I feel that some may feel a duty to the fellow servicemembers. A sense of responsibility to their unit instills both a sense of purpose for their actions and forms a support system. I would like to think that people would be likely to fight knowing that the survival of others depends on them. If someone was to begin talking of deserting, perhaps if they were forced to look into the eyes of their unit, they would recognize the reaction to their decision. While this certainly may be an idealistic approach, I would like to think that a sense of community may prove to be far more motivating than fear.
The mannerisms, attitudes, and background of the American and British soldiers contrasted greatly. The values held by the individual soldiers of the two armies differed. American soldiers had a tendency to think on their own accord and often with liberty in mind (143). In contrast, the British soldiers held the values that their army held (144). American soldiers often fought with the same men from their town or village (142). The British soldiers, however, were pulled from society and isolated from it (144). During the time of the British soldiers’ isolation, they were tightly disciplined and rigorously trained (144). This too shows a contrast between the British and American soldiers. British soldiers underwent a stricter regimen of training while the training Americans had was more informal. The commanding men of the armies, the officers, were different as well. The British officers held themselves aloof from war and quite distant from their men (145). British officers were also much harsher on their men and trained them more effectively (136). The American officer sought to achieve the refinement of the British officers but often failed in achieving it. (145). The training American officers gave to their men was also not as cohesive like the
In 1960, at the age of twenty-four, Philip Caputo enlists in the United Sates Marine Corps in hopes of escaping his relaxed lifestyle in the quaint town of Westchester, Illinois. Caputo is interested in proving himself a man and earning respect in response to President John F. Kennedy’s Inaugural Address to the nation. “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country” are the famous words that pushed many young men into the patriotic world of enlistment, in order to defend American ideals. Caputo’s expectations of the war in Vietnam are to achieve heroic acts, finish his missions quickly and efficiently, get out in one piece, and return home to a supportive country interested in his heroic adventures.
When political leaders frame an unjust war as a morally just war, though, these same soldiers might have second thoughts about their decision to become part of a military machine that is prosecuting an unjust war because their leaders lacked the authority to absolve them from their personal accountability. In this regard, McMahan makes the interesting point that, “What unjust combatants are commanded to do as agents of the state – fight, in an unjust war – is not something that their state, or its leaders, have a claim right to do, or to delegate to others”
Each soldier carries many things, both physically and mentally, during times of war and strife. For the war, the United States implements a draft in which young men are drafted and forced to go into the military for the war. Many of these soldiers are young, immature, and escaping adulthood, yet there is one phase of life that cannot be avoided: death. Cross felt responsible for the younger kids’ death because he felt it was his job to protect the innocent.
Under United States draft law, certain guidelines must be followed to allow men to be...
Many people in the 1960s and early 1970s did not understand why the United States was involved in the Vietnam War. Therefore, they had no desire to be a part of it. The Selective Service System, which was used to conduct the draft, had aspirations of directing people into areas where they were most needed during wartime. However, people took advantage of the draft system’s deferment policies to avoid going to war. Others refused induction or simply did not register. There were also people who left the country to escape the draft. The Vietnam War proved to be an event that many Americans did not agree with, and as a result, citizens took action to elude the draft entirely or to beat the draft system.
Although there are many contributing factors to this atrocity, when combined with the stresses of war, ordinary people can become agents of significant hostility. This is the underlying lesson to Milgram’s experiment and likely the underlying cause for the transformation of the seemingly normal soldiers of My Lai. When even the destructive effects of their actions become clear and they are asked to continue with this action, even though it is obviously incompatible with their fundamental standards of morality, few have the wherewithal to resist the desires of authority.
Kennedy, C. Robert. “How To Escape The Draft.” New York Times: On This Day. accessed September 12, 2013. http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/harp/0801.html.
The issue of morality, concerning absolute obedience within the military, has been debated inside courtrooms and all areas of society for decades. Is it possible for there to be positive and negative acts of blind obedience? In his article “The Perils of Obedience,” Stanley Milgram administers an experiment in order to understand the negative side of blind obedience (Milgram 77-89). His findings prove that people display a higher probability of hurting others when ordered to act out. Likewise, in his article “The Genocidal Killer in the Mirror,” Crispin Sartwell explains to his readers the cause of a “moral hero,” and he conveys why normal people display the capacity to commit heinous acts (Sartwell 117-119). Finally, examining the positive
...itary conscription in the name of freedom is an illegitimate, criminal organization. A government that is willing to enslave people cannot be trusted to protect your liberty. A government that forces people to fight for its goals, its protection, and its benefit has created a morally perverse situation where there is no free society left to defend” (Boldin). Another thing we must look at is without an overflow of troops; “unpopular wars are very difficult to fight. The ability to use conscription actually encourages politicians to wage even more wars;the massive resources are a temptation that is hard for the war-lover to resist. When the draft was finally undermined in the 1970′s, for example, the Vietnam War ended” (Boldin).
Canada over the years have made itself known with it’s aspect of military combat. It’s soldiers have proven themselves undoubtedly strong willed and the prowess of Canadians shown bright in the battlefields of WWI and WWII. However, the brilliance of the Canadian forces was not without its own indigenous faults. In WWI alone, there have been 100,000 men conscripted into the armed forces, upping the count to meet the number Robert Borden, the PM at the time’s promised 500,000 by 1917. Simple math presents that over 20 percent of the men that then made up of Canada’s armed forces were conscripts, and the men were unwilling to do battle. Out of the French, 93% of those who were enlisted had applied for exemption. The lack of discipline out of the French Canadian soldiers even resulted in riots in Quebec. The savagery of the riots shocked conscripts and volunteers alike, and lowering the morales of both Conversely, the majority of soldiers who applied for the exemption of the military did not receive their goal. Nevertheless, those men still found other ways to avoid the frontlines, by assuming non-combat roles with duties of cleaning and other labour. While these militia servants were frowned upon, and even harassed by other soldiers, it did not stop the population of conscripts from ...
In closing, W.D Howells is successful in his use of these methods of argument. “Editha” paints a clear picture of the men who must fight and the people who casually call for war. He proves Editha’s motives are unworthy of devotion. After all, it is easy to sit back and call for war when it will be the common enlisted man who will die to provide this luxury. In the end, Howells made his point clear. War never comes without sacrifice or consequence.
In A Few Good Men, marines Dawson and Downey choose to obey their superiors and carry out the Code Red. In the article, “The My Lai Massacre,” Herbert C. Kelman and V. Lee Hamilton described a situation during the Vietnam War where a platoon ransacked an entire village while under orders by their superiors. “Disobedience as a Psychological and Moral Problem” explains that in order to go further in one’s life, he or she must be disobedient; however, the article recognizes the power of a situation and its effect on a decision to obey or to disobey. Lance Corporal Harold Dawson and Private First Class Louden Downey decide to obey their superiors because they have extensive training in following orders, they are required to obey all lawful orders,
Throughout time, there has been debate about security and liberty. Many would agree that having both is vital to having a democracy. However, during desperate times, the government might place security or liberty on a higher pedestal and this can be beneficial or detrimental to the society. In the particular case where a country goes to war and the government orders a draft, the true significance of the debate between security and liberty is brought to light. Especially, in a circumstance where the government enacts laws ordering those who protest anti-war and anti-draft views to be thrown in jail, facing long jail sentences. In this case, the government is placing the security of the citizens above their liberties. If this is the right decision for the government to make and if this will have negative consequences on the society is what is being considered. Security is necessary, especially when a country is at war, but ignoring the people’s liberties is placing the values and principles in which democracy was built, at risk. In addition, placing security above liberty causes chaos, rebellion, and riots within the country and the last thing a country needs while trying to fight a war is chaos within their country. People in society with restricted liberties will begin to feel fear, anger, and hatred for the country. As a result, they become disloyal. A combination on disorder and disloyalty can be detrimental in times of war. Therefore, while security is imperative, undermining citizen’s liberties threatens the structure of the democracy by creating chaos and disloyal citizens.
have no backbone. If a Soldier or civilian has no self-discipline then they are failing