Betrayal by the Brass: Dereliction of Duty, Part Two, by Robert Gore
The Army Oath of Enlistment qualifies the duty to follow orders. It’s subject to the Constitution and to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. If it weren’t, the oath would be a Nuremberg defense, a defense the US and its allies rejected after World War II. No one can abandon the requirements of morality simply because they’ve been ordered to do so. Yet that is what the military leadership has done these many years, with disastrous consequences for the country they’ve sworn to defend.
This is an excerpt. For the complete article, please click the above link.
This is an excerpt. For the complete article, please click the above link.
Although moral abdication does start at the top without the consent and participation of the governed very little destruction could take place. It takes a village (country) to create destruction on a mass scale otherwise Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung (enter any name here) would have been isolated idiots on a corner trying to convince others of their ideology.
There was a naval pilot named Stockdale who had been on a flight over the Gulf of Tonkin when radio distress calls came in from an American ship that claimed it was being attacked. He flew over the area and could not find any attacker. The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution would be exposed many years later with the release of the Pentagon Papers but even then the fact that it was a ruse did not deter the continuance of the war. Suppose the pilot would have returned to the carrier and refused to carry out any subsequent bombing missions? What if the captain of the carrier had followed the same moral suit? Would the war have been averted when the public became aware of the deception? I think it is unlikely. They would have demanded the prosecution of those involved for dereliction of duty. We can't know for certain because it didn't happen that way. Instead the pilot went on in his career. Dropped bombs on targets killing people because he was 'ordered' to and retired as an admiral with a nice pension.
Duty and faith are two of the most destructive concepts of man and were conceived probably at mans first ability to conceptualize as a method of controlling the behavior of others. For some reason humans feel that disobeying an authority figure is worse than murder, looting and violence of any kind.
Although the oath taken by the military (or by judges or others who take it) would seem to present a method for refusing to commit immorality it realistically endorses the most inconceivable acts of terrorism and violence in the name of 'the greater good, protecting the state and preserving freedom, etc.' and the vast majority of the mob goes along with it.
While it is moral to defend oneself from harm and violence I can't find a single war or authorization of violence by an authority that actually fits this category. The current war is no exception. While most people believe it started at a single point on a September morning and there was no provoking or harming of the other side who decided to strike for no reason it is not true. America had been meddling in the affairs of the middle east for 50 years installing and supporting dictators such as the Shah of Iran, Saddam Hussein, etc. and some of the people there didn't like it!
Osama was a megalomaniac and wanted to destroy the great Satan and be recognized and worshiped as a hero. I suspected he was being used when he was fighting the Russians in Afghanistan and America was supplying him. Even then he said America would be his next target. When he truck bombed the trade towers the first time America never took any opportunity to get rid of him, instead it continued to provoke him. He bombed the Kobe Towers killing 200 Marines America killed a few of his terrorists in their camps. He blew up some embassies America hit his camps. He organized the bombing of the USS Cole America hit his camps. I predicted to my children that this would continue until he did something big enough to turn the public in favor of war with the suspension of constitutional protections in the name of protecting the public from harm. I told them the Trade Towers would still be a likely target for him because he thought a single blow there could financially cripple the country. Then 9/11 happened, the Patriot Act happened, the NSA began spying on Americans and building a super computer in Utah to keep records of everything and watch everyone, the DHS was formed, secret courts where you can be charged with being a domestic terrorist and imprisoned without being tried and no one would be notified of your departure.
All of this because humans believe in being subject to authority and subjugating any morality to immorality in the name of DUTY.
Just in case anyone is wondering I do not accept any of the 'truthers' or Loose Change's ideas on what they think is proof that the president was involved. In fact physics disproves everything they think is proof of a conspiracy.
Therein lies the key to a long term reduction in the terrorist threat--quit mucking around in their home territories. Blowback is a real and powerful phenomenon. We make war on them in their territory; they make war on us in ours. We'll never significantly reduce the threat of terrorism in the Middle East until we withdraw from the Middle East.
An extreme analogy is people who think President Trump should be removed from office on account of mental incapacity. That is clearly wrong.
I wish we could limit presidents' power to get us into war. Asking generals to safeguard against unconstitutional wars is asking a lot.
The political right and probably the average person could express that one but the left, those not particularly conscious, feel that morality is fluid and relative.