(no subject)

[anotheranon]

When Teaching the Ethics of War Is Not Academic - interesting article about the history of "warrior codes" and speculations about the differences between terrorists and honorable warriors. I'd be particularly interested to see how wcg weighs in on this, as I think he's the only person I correspond with on LJ that has any military experience, but anyone PLEASE - feel free to offer your opinion!

Yes, I've been watching the news, but only because work has been slow. There has been much fuss about the Iraqi civilians that were shot at a checkpoint (no links as the story is everywhere; no sources can agree as to whether warning shots were fired or not). It is tragic, but IMHO these things are inevitably going to happen in a chaotic battlefield where the populace is unexpectedly fighting back using guerrilla tactics. Another reason why the decision to go to war should NOT be made recklessly (and more support for my opinion that in this case war was not a good idea, but y'all are probably sick of hearing this from me).

On a more frivolous note - the duster creeps along; I'm piping the edges of the vents and it is looking GOOD (crosses fingers!) I ordered a pair of vinyl pants to go with it - matte rather than shiny PVC on the grounds that I think I'll get more wear out of something if I can't see my face reflected in it :P These are in lieu of making my own pair of vinyl cargo pants, of course, but somehow I think that once I'm done with this project I'm going to want to work with woven fabrics again.

I crave something sweet like a maniac, but all I have in the house is chocolate and I need more caffiene like a hole in my head.

Comments

[curiousangel.livejournal.com]

I thought it was a very good article, too. I'm glad that Professor French is making the reasoning behind the ethic clear, and showing how other cultures can differ. I remember seeing entirely too many young cadets with no real idea about what they were doing, and what they had signed up for. We got training in dealing with fraternization, but that was it.

I also think it's really great that she's teaching them to see the enemy as a person, even if he is a person you have to kill. Some people just don't seem to get that, and they tarnish the reputations of all the people in the service. If the meme can get established, perhaps some of those old stereotypes will fade away.

[anotheranon.livejournal.com]

I didn't know you served - when/where/what section?

Re: enemy as person: I quite agree. I found it interesting that her studies showed greater incidence of PTSD in soldiers who had gone against their "code" than in those who hadn't. Dehumanizing the enemy is dangerous for the person who survives as it is for the enemy, it seems.

Re:

[curiousangel.livejournal.com]

I was an Air Force ROTC scholarship cadet from 1985-87; however, I resigned from the program after Field Training before my junior year. I never actually served on active duty, but as a scholarship cadet, I spent eight years in the inactive reserves. Several of us at the Univ. of Tenn. were advised to be prepared for activation for Desert Storm, but it never came to pass.

I've tried to stay in touch with military issues since then, though. I keep up with various sources, and I try to do a wide variety of reading on defense issues. I've studied military history from WWII to the present fairly thoroughly, although I don't claim academic expertise by any means.

It doesn't strike me that "dehumanizing" is the risk factor so much as breaking one's own code. Doing things that you believe to be wrong, as opposed to things you don't see as a problem. Once you confront the reality of the enemy as a person, though, it becomes critical to be doing what you think is right.