Dodged a bullet today

[marcus]

Yes, that is what I believed. I was just arguing that "soldiers who blindly follow any order" has nothing to do in a well composed military where soldiers are able to think for themselves.

Indeed. One can think of many instances in which orders should not be followed blindly. The movie Dr Strangelove comes to mind And these idiots who flew live nuclear warheads over the US a few months ago does as well

[Cygnus X1]

You cannot hope to win against an enemy who has no morals until you "stoop to their level". You can't clean crusty turds out of a dirty toilet with a firm anti-turd policy, a handful of flowers, and a couple squirts of 409. You have to get face to face with the bowl using a tool that can break those turds down, with the full intent of scraping those turds off, and the full understanding that you're going to get dirty doing it.

There is no better way to put it. That has to be the best analogy I have ever seen to justify the defense of freedom against those who would take it away, whatever the stripe.

Oustanding, Newc, you rock.

[hippietim]

Newc I'm not sure what astounds me more - your ignorance about the military or your cavalier attitude. You've got no skin in the game at all and it's clear you get your sense of military code from the PS/2 games you buy at Walmart .

[24seven]

I would not be able to join the army cause i can't take orders!
and as we would say in my home town...DUCK!
you al'right duck?

[Bengal]

Newc I'm not sure what astounds me more - your ignorance about the military or your cavalier attitude. You've got no skin in the game at all and it's clear you get your sense of military code from the PS/2 games you buy at Walmart .

Ouch...

[Rsmacker]

I didn't mean to say that any and all soldiers should start philosophing about war and justice while they're being shot at. But the SS troops burning villages in France sure as hell were not shot at while hanging poor ol' Jacques.

- Not so, one of the most notorious atrocities comitted in France, the Oradour massacre, was perpetrated exactly because ol' Jacques and co were shooting at Das Reich division making painfully slow progress up to engage the Allies in Normandy.
The Maquis resistance sniped at them, blew railway lines and hindered their passage North, and came close to capturing a town before Das Reich saved the day.
However, the Germans discovered mutilated corpses of their comrades who had surrendered, and were delayed further whilst they searched for a popular unarmed NCO who had been captured by the Resistance.
Intelligence led to Oradour and when they searched and found ammunition, Das Reich troops carried out the infamous atrocity.

Not justifying that action in any way shape or form, but let's say your mates have been mutilated by the enemy fighting a guerilla war. What do you do?
Think rationally about the futility of war and engage in sensible discussions over your differences? Or go looking for him at home, and if he's not in, retaliate against his family and burn his house down? Maybe call up a Napalm strike on Charlie hiding in a ville, or maybe an F20 airstrike to flatten the part of Fallujah the insurgents are hiding in?
I know what I'd do, so I don't actually get the bloodlust and pull the trigger myself, but I make sure the cunt who killed my buddies is vapourised. Oh, yeah, along with the families he's hiding behind. Ah well, never mind, collateral damage, payback's a bitch, ain't it? Better them than me and mine.

More than ever today the military can't even begin to "philosophise about war and justice", because they are not in a stand-up fight against uniformed troops across the battlefield. They are fighting insurgents/partisans/terrorists/freedom fighters/resistance (delete according to your viewpoint) in frustrating conditions.

As Newc says, war is a shitty business, it's the lowest, nastiest, most evil thing man can do to other men, but once you've made that decision to wage war, you can't take the moral high ground, you have to immerse yourself in the shite and make sure you win.
And winning is not about cleanly damaging a few military bunkers and then asking if the enemy wouldn't mind awfully not being beastly to us again, and in return we won't be beastly to them, and we'll build them a school and give their children sweets.

No, sooner or later you get a disgruntled resistance to deal with and more of your friends die. (see Iraq today for details- If they had been totally beaten they would be too scared to come out of their fucking houses, let alone set fire to Warrior armoured cars and throw stones at patrols.)

The only way to really win is to crush the enemy completely, squeeze from him the last thought of dissent. Then, after he is subjugated, you can loosen your grip, let him rebuild his society, under your watchful gaze. Not nice, but then nor is war.

Too many people think that warfare is about surgical precision strikes and limited damage, it's not. It's about anger, hatred, irrational acts, violence, destruction, dehumanisation, blood, snot, tears, shit and the stench of dead men, women and children. It always has been and always will be, it is unavoidable.

Scorched earth is a term that was coined at the eastern front

Maybe, but not the Eastern Front in WW2! Armies have been burning their retreats since the dawn of time, Darius the Great was beaten by the Scythians after they burned crops and poisoned wells during their retreat onto the Steppes. More of Darius' men died as a result of being denied supplies than in battle.
Although the Romans burned and salted the ground at Carthage to prevent it ever being useful to the subjugated people, I believe the term "scorched earth" was first used during Napoleon's advance on Moscow, which left his Grand Armee up shit creek without a paddle. Their own tactic of burning towns left them fucked when Winter set in and they had no firewood! (A mistake repeated at Stalingrad by Von Paulus)

As for the use of the tactic in WW2, remember it was Stalin who ordered the policy first in 1941 to deny the Germans any useful supplies. "Angry Ivan" wasn't angry because he wanted payback (there's that word again!), I'm sure he would have rather just gone home and got on with life. His march Westwards and grip on the other Eastern Bloc countries was successful though - very few of them took up arms to oust him. Ivan had plenty of breathing space for his family whilst he kept his neighbours under the thumb. Germany was resoundingly beaten in 1918, yet we didn't have the stomach or resources to keep them under the thumb. Result? Mr Hitler and co and the 39-45 scrap. The horrors visited on Germany during and after that time have been succesful, as far as I'm aware they aren't preparing to invade anywhere. The nasty approach taken by Ivan worked, it choked the fighting spirit from the Germans, something the aftermath of the Great War was unable to do.

Now, everyone learnt their lesson there - war sucks,

You reckon? I think not, if so, the Red Army would have been a fluffy soft kitten to play with, and not interested in getting involved in Afghanistan, Chechnya etc etc etc.
Mankind will NEVER EVER learn that war sucks. It's what we are good at, it's in our nature. The point is to ensure we are on the side that isn't squished by others.
Whilst we have the capacity to think, we will always think the bloke next to us has a better deal/more women/nicer land etc, and we'll always pick up a rock/stick/sword/musket/AK47/Cruise Missile to fuck him over and get what we want.

[Ripley7t]

I seem to recall a thread about this exact issue about a year ago. After 22 1/2 years in the military crossing three branches I can say that I am not surprised by our militarys use of personnel now. I did alot of different things from admin to logistics to small boat ops and also squad leader in an infantry unit. Once you sign the paper you belong to Uncle Sam. I would not have a problem with performing another job as long as the training was adequate. My problem is that my version of adequate training differs from what the military considered and gave me.