Are Soldiers Heros or Killers?

[McJesus]

Recently I read an article that really put one of the unquestioned paradigms in our society in the spotlight. It is a soldier's account of the glorification of war and soldiers as heros and the reality of the situation. Please read the article in full before posting on this topic.

https://www.mediumdifficulty.com/2012...-place-in-war/

This makes me feel blunt in saying I have always questioned the heroism of soldiers in my head but never really felt comfortable saying it out loud due to how enforced an idea it is in society. I'm not saying that they are evil but the reality of war is that it is cruel and brutal. Our society makes it a point to glorify war and hide the dark reality behind it.

Having a strong military is necessary and having sociopaths willing to fight and die is necessary but the military industrial complex is not necessary and has created so much needless war and bloodshed that society shouldn't see the people who volunteer to serve in the same way as the people who defended freedom and fought the Nazi's in WWII. The occupation of Afghanistan has long overstayed its welcome and the occupation of Iraq was flat out unnecessary. The reason the United States is still involved in those wars is because they make the military industrial complex a boatload of money.

Now if we look towards the future there are some encouraging more pointless bloodshed and advocating war with Iran looking to spark another quagmire where soldiers are stuck babysitting a rebuilding country.

Getting back to the topic of soldiers, I wonder how accurate W's depiction of the military really is? I think soldiers have to disconnect themselves from reality in order to do their job but how many of them are fucked up killers?

[Crimson]

It really depends on what those soldiers are fighting for.

[Ash]

their heroes. they fight for us when we are in need of them.

[Goremancer]

Killers. Killing is killing. No euphemism. Some killing maybe more justified than others. But still killing.

[Bruno]

The occupation of Afghanistan has long overstayed its welcome and the occupation of Iraq was flat out unnecessary.

How the hell can a soldier chose how long his government stays deployed for? How does he become a killer, if say, President Obama wants the American forces to stay in Afghanistan?

Especially when the topic is Are Soldiers Heros (There's an E, btw.) or Killers?

[ajkei]

The idea that making a living killing people that you have no real personal quarrel with is one of the most respected positions in society is one of the reasons that wars have been able to keep occurring.
Just because an occupation has a high risk of death does not mean it is a noble occupation.

[Goremancer]

How the hell can a soldier chose how long his government stays deployed for? How does he become a killer, if say, President Obama wants the American forces to stay in Afghanistan?

Especially when the topic is Are Soldiers Heros (There's an E, btw.) or Killers?

Typical nazi defence. I WAS JUST FOLLOWING ORDERS SIR HERPA DERPA DERP.

[Dust]

I think that there needs to be a reason for the military to be somewhere and do the shit that they do. Killing for killing's sake is not valid. A good reason is one that defends someone or something. Whether that someone is a country or the something is a principle. A country has to use what it finds and volunteers in the military are what they have. If the volunteers are sociopathic killers then that's what the military gets. Maybe that's what the military wants. If the military does not use this urge to kill then we would be weak and other governments would take advantage of that and maybe attack. There is a very good reason for a strong military.

I disagree with the sociopathic killer view. I know quite a few vets very well and some of them are the nicest guys you could ever meet. The ones with PTSD are those that were rebellious during their childhood (my fav story of a PTSD vet is when he sped in his hometown and knew the streets better than the cops so he was never caught. The cops hired him to chase others down). I get so scared when I visit him because his PTSD is so severe (Vietnam-war Ranger). The others who that guy would consider sociopathic killers are the guys who grew up right.

My uncle was in Korea and he is one of my role-models for life. Does that make me a sociopathic killer for emulating him? No, of course not. My morals restrict me to a no-murder diet. I won't kill unnecessarily. I would kill if someone was threatening me, my family, or someone else and only after I tried to disable the guy first. I know how to kill someone with nearly any household object but that's only for defense. I'm not gonna let someone attack, steal, or rape anyone while I can do something about it.

tl;dr version
Killing needs a good reason. Soldiers have a reason to kill. They are not heroes nor are they killers. They are soldiers. This debate will continue until the world becomes a huge City-State of Sparta.

[wolfcheese]

How does he become a killer, if say, President Obama wants the American forces to stay in Afghanistan?

This is how I always feel awkward about where to place the responsibility for the bloodshed. On one hand, soldiers seem to be conditioned to simply take orders, which in their mind alleviates the responsibility for the murders they commit. I guess the public is supposed to think this way too. But on the other, I feel like that's no better than the participants in the Milgram experiment who are told they will not be responsible if they cause harm to the learner, whom the participant is constantly shocking. 65% of those people delivered the final shock of 450 volts...because they were told to. That's some scary shit right there. They couldn't go to the experimenter and say "no, this is not right".

I realize that if solders did NOT have the responsibility alleviated from their minds, that the army as it currently works would become dysfunctional. Look at the controversy caused by that one lieutenant dude that refused to go to Iraq way back when. Maybe it means I should shut up because the army can't work any other way. Or, robots instead of army (yeah daily show references!)

[Apocist]

Myself being a soldier, I honestly feel defining a soldier as being a killer or a hero is more complex. It truely comes down to perspective. The soldier is fighting for the view of his/her country(from their leadership, passed down by the people). In the soldier's country, soldier are made and trained to be heroes, yet that doesn't mean they are even in the slightest. Nations are always against each other, what one does may seem barbaric to another, defining horrible people, slaughtering others. The fact is that no matter what, a soldier is trained to kill. So we all are killers, just hopefully killing the right people.

[BorkBot]

Soldiers are killers for sure, but they can be heroes at the same time...

It really depends on what those soldiers are fighting for.

This. And by that I don't mean what nation, but rather what their motivations are. If they are fighting to make a living, to feed their families, to claim land from an enemy or because they want to lay waste to "the infidels", they definitely aren't heroes. If their aim is to bring peace to a region (yes, I believe fighting for peace isn't an oxymoron), to put an end to the cruelties of a corrupt government or to protect innocents from harm, then they could be heroes.

What's also important is whether they follow orders without question. Soldiers are expected to do as their superiors command, but if they never stop to think about the moral justification of their actions and there are no limits to their obedience, then they're just lawful neutral killing machines.

Lastly, methods matter. A heroic soldier won't torture or humiliate his enemies, but he treats them with respect. If an enemy has to be killed, it should be done as painlessly as possible. He should also value the lives of his fellow soldiers (as well as any innocents) more than he values his own life. Self preservation should never be the highest priority, though that doesn't mean he should get himself killed for no reason.

The sad truth is that heroic soldiers are a rarity and they tend to be the first to die in combat.

If you're going to ask if war can be justified, then I think it almost never is. Modern day warfare is known for absurd amounts of "collateral damage." Three cheers for gunpowder and beyond.

[Muso]

Soldiers in general are not heroes. Some of them may be, but it is never the fact that they are soldiers that makes them so. They are killers. Of course they are, that's what soldiers do, they kill people. There is nothing admirable or noble about being a soldier. It is a job. It does not impress me. I respect the dedication they have to their bodies and the intense physical training they go through, but I would devote that same respect to a taxi driver who keeps his cab clean and well serviced.

There is no justification whatsoever to refer to the typical modern western soldier as a hero simply because he went to war.

[FalseTruth]

Interesting discussion. The question asked is trivial, but the surrounding details aroused my curiosity. It is quite intriguing to see the preconceived notions you all share about a profession.

Firstly, I would like to answer the question that titles the thread.

"Are Soldiers Heros or Killers?"

A hero is defined to be:

1. A man of distinguished courage or ability, admired for his brave deeds and noble qualities.

Therefore, you cannot group all soldiers into this "hero" category. Such a grouping would be absurdly unfair to those soldiers who are not admired by their fellow men. Furthermore, we have to take into account the fact that heroism is relative. It is merely a term we use to describe people we admire. Whether or not the admiration is justified or not is irrelevant! Thus, a hero does not necessarily have to be "doing the right thing" in order to be considered a hero. He just has to do something admirable.

For this reason, we can conclude that most soldiers are heroes because they are admired by people back at home for their service to the country.

But guess what? The converse is also true.

All those Islamic insurgents that are killing your brothers and sisters in the war are also heroes. In the process of killing our soldiers, they are protecting their way of life. They are protecting their family and their beliefs. What they are doing is not any less heroic in their eyes than what US soldiers are doing to our eyes. They also receive the admiration of their friends and colleagues for standing up for what they believe in, for fighting for their country and giving up their lives for God and family.

Sound familiar? Yeah, because that's exactly what US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan believe they are fighting for. Islamic extremists are also heroes, however misguided they may seem to you. They fulfill the core definition of what it is to be hero because they also receive admiration from others.

Now on to the topic of killers...
A killer, by definition, is one who kills. Do soldiers kill? Yes. Do insurgents kill? Yes. Thus they are both killers.

It's as simple as that.

Sometimes there are no bad guys and good guys. There are only those guys who were born in luxury and those who aren't. Remember that.

[FalseTruth]

I think the better question to ask would be, "Would you consider soldiers to be murderers?"

And that, my friends, is truly a profound question.

[Goremancer]

Now on to the topic of killers...
A killer, by definition, is one who kills. Do soldiers kill? Yes. Do insurgents kill? Yes. Thus they are both killers.

It's as simple as that.

Sometimes there are no bad guys and good guys. There are only those guys who were born in luxury and those who aren't. Remember that.

Interesting line. I think that those who are "born in luxury" certainly will have a different personality. But that's not all to the idea of good and bad. A person can be "morally challenged" than others. This may be caused by his birth. Or some other factors. Just because someone is poor doesn't mean they are more willing to kill. So many factors can affect the personality. Such as wealth, parents,environment, friends, profession, habit, or even a random fly that flew in Persona A's face while he was brooding about his love life. Human psychology is unpredictable. Psychologist can make an educated guess but it is impossible to be absolute with it.

[Goremancer]

A little off topic but I think the responses we will get here isn't going to be the typical response. The game Mafia attracts individuals. We all probably got something in common with each other.

[McJesus]

A little off topic but I think the responses we will get here isn't going to be the typical response. The game Mafia attracts individuals. We all probably got something in common with each other.

I figured as much, the typical individual would go NO THEIR HEROS STFU!

[Nick]

Interesting discussion. The question asked is trivial, but the surrounding details aroused my curiosity. It is quite intriguing to see the preconceived notions you all share about a profession.

Firstly, I would like to answer the question that titles the thread.

...

Sometimes there are no bad guys and good guys. There are only those guys who were born in luxury and those who aren't. Remember that.

An objective post is the way to go. Subjective post will bring us nowhere, and might be biased depending on the forum.

Will rant later when I'm more alert.

[CmG]

We are talking about the US soldier i assume? Can't talk about them. Most Armies in Europe are there for Security reasons instead of warmongering. I was at the military and i am neither a Hero nor a Killer in my eyes. The State demands from us to serve in the military for 9 months to learn the basics. Its easy to dodge this law and to do something social instead or nothing. So all in all if you dont want to go to the military you dont have to.

The military is a tool for the state so the soldier is neither a killer nor a hero. He is a poor bastard who has to die if his supervisor orders him to do so.

Hero: A person noted for feats of courage or nobility of purpose, especially one who has risked or sacrificed his or her life.

Gunning soldiers down with advanced equipment is not an act of nobility nor courage but nevermind. fighting for Oil in foreign countries isn't that heroic in my eyes.

[McJesus]

Falsetruth brings up a good point about the definition of hero but I still think it is a valid question. If you look at the meaning of it I am saying do you admire soldiers? The main thing I want to address in this topic is the glorification of war and the public perceptions of it compared to the harsh realities.

Most people in this topic seem to be saying it depends on the intentions of the soldier but in war soldiers are following orders, nothing more. Of course that was the defence of the Nazis. My view is that it depends on the intentions of the war from the side you are on rather than the intentions of the soldier. I would make the argument that everyone who fought in world war II to stop the Axis were heroes. The soldiers occupying Iraq not so much because of the intention of the war.

I believe one sociopathic soldier's worldview would greatly be influenced towards seeing the state of war the same as him. I am sure there is a fair number of them but the reality is we all have a certain disconnect towards reality about the world. People don't have the emotional energy to care about all of the suffering and injustice in the world so we become numb to it and just say we care. On the internet we can go as far as trolling and intentionally hurting people for the lulz because of the human disconnect from caring about things that do not affect ourselves. Soldiers naturally become desensitized to killing and use that disconnect and take it to a new level where they can end someones life and enjoy it. It is a defence mechanism.

I don't think that soldiers are heroes but I don't think they are villains either.

[FalseTruth]

Falsetruth brings up a good point about the definition of hero but I still think it is a valid question. If you look at the meaning of it I am saying do you admire soldiers? The main thing I want to address in this topic is the glorification of war and the public perceptions of it compared to the harsh realities.

Most people in this topic seem to be saying it depends on the intentions of the soldier but in war soldiers are following orders, nothing more. Of course that was the defence of the Nazis. My view is that it depends on the intentions of the war from the side you are on rather than the intentions of the soldier. I would make the argument that everyone who fought in world war II to stop the Axis were heroes. The soldiers occupying Iraq not so much because of the intention of the war.

I believe one sociopathic soldier's worldview would greatly be influenced towards seeing the state of war the same as him. I am sure there is a fair number of them but the reality is we all have a certain disconnect towards reality about the world. People don't have the emotional energy to care about all of the suffering and injustice in the world so we become numb to it and just say we care. On the internet we can go as far as trolling and intentionally hurting people for the lulz because of the human disconnect from caring about things that do not affect ourselves. Soldiers naturally become desensitized to killing and use that disconnect and take it to a new level where they can end someones life and enjoy it. It is a defence mechanism.

I don't think that soldiers are heroes but I don't think they are villains either.

So you aren't asking, "Are soldiers heroes?", you are asking, "Are soldiers heroes to you?"

Kay, it's a much more interesting question anyway. To me, soldiers aren't heroes. I don't admire them for killing people. I can't admire anyone for killing anyone. I don't think you should admire anyone for killing anyone else either because such admiration would be conceited and selfish.

To me, soldiers aren't heroes any more that a programmer in a cubicle is a hero. They don't deserve any special treatment. Especially because they are a herd of sheep listening to the orders of a few misguided men to commit acts of violence.

[Sumikoko]

My view is that it depends on the intentions of the war from the side you are on rather than the intentions of the soldier. I would make the argument that everyone who fought in world war II to stop the Axis were heroes. The soldiers occupying Iraq not so much because of the intention of the war.

History is written by the victors. Should the Nazis have won, the Allies would have been portrayed as the bad guys. What if the Romans hadn't conquered much land? What if Alexander the Great wasn't so great and was impaled on his first battle? Would we still hail them as the vanguard of greatness at their era?

False's first post was impressive, and hit the nail on the head on my perspective. As for my personal view, I am on the fence on this one. I'm hesitant to place them on the same level as your average worker only because the soldiers who actually fight on the battlefield are laying down the most precious thing to them: their lives. I think it's too harsh to just bluntly say that they're regular people who are only following orders, and place them on the same level as office workers. Depending on what analogy and connotation you use, you can compare them to the most venerable jobs in the country. A doctor, for saving millions of potential lives from your own country from invaders. A stock broker, for risking everything they have in hopes of a high return. I don't necessarily see them on par with a doctor or stock broker, but I'm very hesitant to group them with the average person.

An interesting question I would like to pose is, with Elixir's FM theme fresh on my mind, assuming you had a hired assassin who is ordered to kill a couple of people a month, versus a voluntary soldier in the middle of a war on the invader's side, whom would you place higher on moral grounds? I would expect most people's first reaction would be the soldier, for "patriotically" fighting for his country, which undoubtedly believes they are in the right, but would be technically indiscriminately killing every opponent in sight. The assassin would be killing for money's sake, but the targets are very limited in comparison. Is there a more "right" opponent to kill?

Another rather intriguing quote I saw was that one should never blame the individual hired assassin for killing a certain person, because "the job would be done either way, it was just a matter of whom was ordered to." What are your thoughts on this?

[Admiral]

Unless I do something worthy of certain accolades(Silver Star, Service Cross or Medal of Honor for three example), I will never call myself a hero. This is something I chose to do for a number of reasons and none include the opportunity to bail out a fire-team or something. I chose to be a Commo officer(Combat Support) because this is where my particular skill-set would be best used- that and the life of an Infantry officer isn't really all that appealing to me. Should I be needed as a Patrol Leader like one (in a Combat Arms branch) such as Infantry or MP then I would certainly do it but it is not my first choice. Simply put, nobody hopes to earn a Medal of Honor.

The term hero is thrown about far too loosely. Are we killers? We do kill, yes. Are we cold-blooded killers? Most of us I can certainly say no. I think the question should be rephrased.

"The objective of war is not to die for your country but to make the other poor bastard die for his." Somebody has to die, who is it going to be them or you?



Edit:

I can understand people saying the Occupation of Afghanistan should be ended because of the difficulty in understanding what the mission is, but cmon... Iraq? Have you already forgotten what it used to be? Do you not know that we are generally we liked there for toppling that Dictatorship and providing aid? Do you know how rough it is on soldiers in Afghanistan? They have ludicrous rules they have to follow which not only hampers the mission but puts them in more danger than need-be.

Edit 2:

Some of you question the "do as a I say because I said so rule." If soldiers asked why every time they were to execute an order the armed forces would be in a bad place. There are such things as unconstitutional orders- you are REQUIRED to disobey those. In general however, asking why is not your place. Most of the time you will have a good idea what your little piece of the war puzzle is supporting anyways.

[BorkBot]

Another rather intriguing quote I saw was that one should never blame the individual hired assassin for killing a certain person, because "the job would be done either way, it was just a matter of whom was ordered to." What are your thoughts on this?

"Because some other amoral bastard would've done it if I didn't."

Really? I think that's a really poor excuse to kill someone for the sake of satiating one's own greed.

An assassin who lends his services to the highest bidder is also killing targets indiscriminately, except his motives are selfish and far worse than those of your average soldier.

I guess an assassin who refuses contracts based on what he thinks the targets deserve (based on personal research, not hearsay) is a step up. That'd basically be a vigilante for hire, which could be a somewhat tolerable profession. They may ask: who are you to judge who deserves to live and who doesn't? But if the assassin at least considers who his target is and why they might be deserving of death, that implies he tries not to harm innocent people while he's doing his thing. Discrimination isnt always a bad thing.

[Sumikoko]

"Because some other amoral bastard would've done it if I didn't."

Really? I think that's a really poor excuse to kill someone for the sake of satiating one's own greed.

An assassin who lends his services to the highest bidder is also killing targets indiscriminately, except his motives are selfish and far worse than those of your average soldier.

I guess an assassin who refuses contracts based on what he thinks the targets deserve (based on personal research, not hearsay) is a step up. That'd basically be a vigilante for hire, which could be a somewhat tolerable profession.

Well the first question was not really asked from a moral perspective. I guess I ought to have rephrased the question. If A hired B to kill C, and you were an acquaintance with C, whom would you blame for C's death? A? B? Equally? Unequally?

As for the assassin vs. soldier, yes, his motives are more selfish on a personal level. However, I'm placing the assumption that the soldier is on the invading side of the war. Generally speaking, the invaders tend to have no motives other than to gain more land and riches. It's a more collective selfishness. You aren't promised immediate individual wealth, but just a future promise than your country will be generally well off, but one would generally fight not for the well being of the country, but for the well being of your immediate relations. Would you still say the Assassin is worse?

[BorkBot]

Well the first question was not really asked from a moral perspective. I guess I ought to have rephrased the question. If A hired B to kill C, and you were an acquaintance with C, whom would you blame for C's death? A? B? Equally? Unequally?

Both. And the assassin more so than the one who hired him. The assassin is the one murdering someone in cold blood. The person who hired him made criminal dealings that instigated the killing, but they are only indirectly responsible for the death. And because I'm unable to judge the taking of life without considering the moral aspect, the one who ordered the killing could have motives that warrant some sympathy. It's almost never enough to justify the action of hiring an assassin regardless. I don't approve of taking justice into one's own hands for personal reasons.

As for the assassin vs. soldier, yes, his motives are more selfish on a personal level. However, I'm placing the assumption that the soldier is on the invading side of the war. Generally speaking, the invaders tend to have no motives other than to gain more land and riches. It's a more collective selfishness. You aren't promised immediate individual wealth, but just a future promise than your country will be generally well off, but one would generally fight not for the well being of the country, but for the well being of your immediate relations. Would you still say the Assassin is worse?

Yes, I would. Collective selfishness as you call it is more forgiveable than pure greed and murder in cold blood (though still not heroic in my opinion). I assume here that the invading soldier is fighting enemy soldiers exclusively and not raping and pillaging to celebrate his victories.

[Muso]

I progressively don't give a shit about this thread.

Then don't post in it.

[Nick]

This is a false dichotomy.

Then calling it false dichotomy and ending the discussion there, you might as well answer this interesting question:

So you aren't asking, "Are soldiers heroes?", you are asking, "Are soldiers heroes to you?"

And whether it is beneficial to consider them so, keeping in mind of this fact:

... For this reason, we can conclude that most soldiers are heroes because they are admired by people back at home for their service to the country.

But guess what? The converse is also true.

All those Islamic insurgents that are killing your brothers and sisters in the war are also heroes...

[BoogeyMan]

Well ok then; Kill for your country and probably die in the process, or die for being a "traitor" and going AWOL? I say that all soldiers are heros. I know I would bolt my ass outta camp first chance I got.

[BoogeyMan]

War is what makes us human, whether we like it or not. No matter what we change, we will always have war, because there will be a conflict too big for anyone to try and talk down, so we pull out the guns and settle it the old-fashioned way.

Also I believe that we have a certain "policy" for war? You can drop X amount of bombs here, but don't kill the entire city. Well then, if we are being conservative why dont we just simulate the entire war. Maybe even flip a coin to decide the outcome. It seems asinine, yes; but killing thousands of people for oil or land seems just as asinine.

As for the hero/killer concept, we are what our government makes us. We are confined to our principles by what we have learned. If a soldier is told that the enemy will kill his family if he does not fight, and they make him believe it by showing enough pictures or intel, he will feel like a soldier, even though it is a lie. In my opinion, soldiers are pawns needed to play a game of chess.

[Nick]

Somewhat agree with your post. Except that war cannot be accurately simulated or coin tossing to decide the outcome. To explain, I will give these examples.

Imagine two males vying for a female (which obviously cannot be split in half, nor will they/her willing to share/be shared). More often than not, strategic influence and critical resources can neither be shared nor replaced with equal alternatives.

If one of the males is significantly bigger than the other, the smaller male will obviously avoid a fight (thus no fight, and the weaker male will try other methods to get the female). The weaker nation will always try to avoid direct confrontation. Without possibility of winning, they will make do with lesser alternatives for the time being, and bide for their time to strike.

When two males are of similar fitness and strength, no amount of sizing up the opponent will work (he has bigger muscles, I have sharper claws). Both parties will never back down from some subjective simulation results. Declare war to get objective results. As for coin tossing, will the losing party stand down?

And coin tossing doesn't work if one if clearly stronger than the other (forget sizing up, I'll make him my lunch before getting the female). The stronger party will rarely use diplomacy first. Always push ahead until you meet an obstacle. The weaker party will unlikely declare war to create an obstacle.