@Eaglebauer Said
But doesn’t that argument in and of itself seem to suggest that war is the only valid reaction to atrocity? Acting on atrocity does not (I think in most cases should not) equate to waging armed conflict. We can act on atrocities and try to stop them as best as we can without having to calcutle the cost of warfare, but I think it’s also unrealistic to assume that such actions will always be sufficient.
It is reckless to engage in a war without an understanding of what you wish to achieve because of it, how much force you will need to do it, and what the field will look like afterwards. The realities of war do not change simply because we wage a 'noble' one.
Quote:
Should a formidable military force enjoy impunity for violating treaties and killing innocents? Simple enough question, and I believe the answer is no, but where we stick is on the question of what action is appropriate. When that same force has shown time and again that they will not listen to diplomacy and will continue ignoring agreements and slaughtering civilians, I don’t believe it is moral to do nothing...and diplomacy that has already failed is tantamount to nothing.
Are your principles worth someone else's life? I fully admit that sometimes, no matter what the other party asks of you to end conflict, it is something that you are either unwilling or unable to give up. The question we should always ask ourselves, however, is 'Is this worth my life? Theirs? An innocent's?' The thing about fighting based on principle is that it never ends. Even almost 80 years into the future, Nazism and other white supremacy doctrines are still causing problems. Americans like to say that you can never kill the idea of freedom because someone else will always want it. That same principle applies to every other doctrine.
War is not a game. It is not pageantry. It is not two armies lining up in rows to civilly kill each other away from others. War is ugly. It devastates land and cities. It causes famines. It takes the lives of innocents in the name of collateral damage. It leaves a lot of angry orphans looking for answers. It deserves the consideration of the massive weight of it's consequences, and that means that we cannot afford to engage in wars of ideology where we ignore the calculus of war.
Quote:
What is your opinion of a police officer defending a person’s right to peaceable assembly and free speech in the face of a violent opposition? Should a racist police officer have been expected to defend a civil rights assembly in 1964? He is after all a police officer by choice and sworn to uphold laws that he may or may not agree with. Should he simply stand aside if someone else decides he does not like what the assembly has to say and becomes violent? They aren’t HIS ideals or HIS goals are they? So those assembling shouldn’t expect him to place himself in danger to protect or save them from violence? Assuming a voluntary military, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to make the analogy. I also think it’s interesting to note that most people who make the argument you’re making don’t seem to be a part of a voluntary military and those that are a part of one largely don’t seem to have the issue you’re raising. At least not as far as I can tell.
There is a difference between choosing to die for another and being expected to die for another. Should we expect a police officer to die for another? What of all these incidents of accidental shootings, in which the officer believes themselves in danger and thus justified in shooting a suspect? Should they instead not have done that, and risked their own lives in order to better understand the situation at hand? Same with soldiers. Think back to Benghazi. Remember how some people believed that we should have sent more troops into Benghazi in order to help the ones already being attacked? Would that have been the right call?
Police officers and soldiers trust their superiors and commanders not to send them to their deaths without an extremely good and practical reason. Yes, they acknowledge that they can die in the line of duty and they each deal with that reality in their own ways. However, that does not mean that they agree personally with the reasons for every action. I think the reason we don't see much soldier or police outcry in regards to wars or laws is because, at the end of the day, a very large percentage trust their superiors to look out for and protect them, no matter what.