Joining the military, but not necessarily supporting every war
EDIT: Not sure if this in the correct place.
I'd like to think I'm fairly open minded when it comes to war. I'm always interested in why we choose to intervene in the conflicts we do.
"Civilians being murdered by their leader through means of chemical warfare , we need to intervene and stop this!"
"Girls can't go to school without being killed!! We must stop this!"
etc
Why do we consider some heinous acts of war crimes "internal affairs" but others not? I.e. Rwanda Genocide
I'm very fond of our military and do hope to join some day, but I cannot say I support every war we have been involved with. And the opposite applies, I sometimes wonder why DIDN'T we get involved.
Do soldiers/officers ever question the justifications they have been given? Or question the reliability of the justification? Would if be frowned upon if you were to raise these concerns in the interview?
I'd like to think I'm fairly open minded when it comes to war. I'm always interested in why we choose to intervene in the conflicts we do.
"Civilians being murdered by their leader through means of chemical warfare , we need to intervene and stop this!"
"Girls can't go to school without being killed!! We must stop this!"
etc
Why do we consider some heinous acts of war crimes "internal affairs" but others not? I.e. Rwanda Genocide
I'm very fond of our military and do hope to join some day, but I cannot say I support every war we have been involved with. And the opposite applies, I sometimes wonder why DIDN'T we get involved.
Do soldiers/officers ever question the justifications they have been given? Or question the reliability of the justification? Would if be frowned upon if you were to raise these concerns in the interview?
JD - first of all can I say an excellent question, and one that every single person who is considering a career in the military needs to ask themselves.
In very simple terms, you cannot join the armed forces and cherry pick the events you want to get involved with and sit on the sidelines for those you don't. You will be joining a state institution which, whether you like it or not, is the Govt of the day's enforcer of policy at home and abroad. We are supposed to live in a democratic society (some may argue with that!) where we vote for those we choose to make our country work by adopting and carrying out suitable policies. You may have a very valid opinion on various issues at home or abroad, but we delegate the responsibility to sort out those issues to politicians in Westminster. If you have any doubts about their ability to decide the right course of action, then you need to seriously question whether you can morally justify carrying out combat operations on their behalf.
The time to have this discussion with yourself is now, before you apply. Certainly not at interview, where you will quickly find yourself digging a hole and talking yourself out of a job.
However, what I can tell you is that in all my time in the RAF, I never met any bloodthirsty psychos (including SF) but plenty of intelligent thinkers who could justify their participation in military operations and were able to articulate it. I have had discussions with element commanders of Wing Commander and Squadron Leader rank who openly questioned the stated Govt position in a conflict but were prepared to carry out operational activity in the name of 'air power', to provide the best support to national and allied forces against hostile elements. There is nothing wrong in questioning policy at a political or senior military levels, but when it comes to the crunch, in the heat of battle, you need to act decisively for yourself and your team.
I have personally known a chap, who could not reconcile his moral stand over a particular issue with his participation in that issue. He was sent home immediately and administratively discharged soon after. While I did not, and would not, question his moral judgement, his timing was less than perfect and caused significant disruption, not only to critical operational activity but to another individual who had to be mobilised at short notice to replace him.
I have also known another chap, who refused to deploy to theatre (basically a conscientious objector), and was court martialled and jailed for his trouble.
So, yes, by all means have a discussion with yourself and family and friends about the moral maze of various geopolitical topics. But get your opinions squared away before you join the military. The 'battlefield' is a chaotic place where your life or somebody else's will be on the line. It is not the time to be navel gazing.
In very simple terms, you cannot join the armed forces and cherry pick the events you want to get involved with and sit on the sidelines for those you don't. You will be joining a state institution which, whether you like it or not, is the Govt of the day's enforcer of policy at home and abroad. We are supposed to live in a democratic society (some may argue with that!) where we vote for those we choose to make our country work by adopting and carrying out suitable policies. You may have a very valid opinion on various issues at home or abroad, but we delegate the responsibility to sort out those issues to politicians in Westminster. If you have any doubts about their ability to decide the right course of action, then you need to seriously question whether you can morally justify carrying out combat operations on their behalf.
The time to have this discussion with yourself is now, before you apply. Certainly not at interview, where you will quickly find yourself digging a hole and talking yourself out of a job.
However, what I can tell you is that in all my time in the RAF, I never met any bloodthirsty psychos (including SF) but plenty of intelligent thinkers who could justify their participation in military operations and were able to articulate it. I have had discussions with element commanders of Wing Commander and Squadron Leader rank who openly questioned the stated Govt position in a conflict but were prepared to carry out operational activity in the name of 'air power', to provide the best support to national and allied forces against hostile elements. There is nothing wrong in questioning policy at a political or senior military levels, but when it comes to the crunch, in the heat of battle, you need to act decisively for yourself and your team.
I have personally known a chap, who could not reconcile his moral stand over a particular issue with his participation in that issue. He was sent home immediately and administratively discharged soon after. While I did not, and would not, question his moral judgement, his timing was less than perfect and caused significant disruption, not only to critical operational activity but to another individual who had to be mobilised at short notice to replace him.
I have also known another chap, who refused to deploy to theatre (basically a conscientious objector), and was court martialled and jailed for his trouble.
So, yes, by all means have a discussion with yourself and family and friends about the moral maze of various geopolitical topics. But get your opinions squared away before you join the military. The 'battlefield' is a chaotic place where your life or somebody else's will be on the line. It is not the time to be navel gazing.
Great response.
Do the job that needs doing now, ask questions later (or preferably not at all?) kind of mentality?
"openly questioned the stated Govt position in a conflict but were prepared to carry out operational activity in the name of 'air power"
Would you be able to elaborate on this point? I think it's quite an interesting one.
"Plenty of intelligent thinkers who could justify their participation in military operations and were able to articulate it"
Well, the same applies to members of the Taliban/ISIS etc. Many brilliant men serve amongst their 'ranks', and I'm sure many of them could 'intelligently' articulate THEIR justification. Validity of the justification is important.
Do the job that needs doing now, ask questions later (or preferably not at all?) kind of mentality?
"openly questioned the stated Govt position in a conflict but were prepared to carry out operational activity in the name of 'air power"
Would you be able to elaborate on this point? I think it's quite an interesting one.
"Plenty of intelligent thinkers who could justify their participation in military operations and were able to articulate it"
Well, the same applies to members of the Taliban/ISIS etc. Many brilliant men serve amongst their 'ranks', and I'm sure many of them could 'intelligently' articulate THEIR justification. Validity of the justification is important.
Hi JD, yes no problem expanding on above:
Do the job that needs doing now, ask questions later (or preferably not at all?) kind of mentality?
Absolutely essential that when it's all gone horribly wrong and kinetic ie the bombs, bullets, missiles and RPGs are in the air and heading towards your little bundle of flesh and blood, I would suggest that is not the time to make like Rodin's Thinker! In this extreme case, it has to be him or you and achieving the immediate tactical objective.
"openly questioned the stated Govt position in a conflict but were prepared to carry out operational activity in the name of 'air power"
I participated in 3 wars / campaigns / conflicts *delete as required or 4 if you include the 'Cold War' in the list. The first of those (Falklands) was seen as blatant aggression against our sovereign people and the response was a no brainer (as far as Mrs T was concerned). Whatever the rights or wrongs of the conflict as seen through the lens of modern analysis, at the time I don't believe a single member of the UK forces, directed to reclaim the islands, was in any doubt as to the necessity and proportionality of our response.
Since 1982, a huge revolution in information and global connectivity has taken hold and many more people have had access to a whole spectrum of news, ideas and everything from Govt policies and strategic intent to a certain level of immediate and raw intelligence. Therefore it is now possible for the person in the street to have an 'informed' opinion on pretty much any issue.
Military people are (generally) reasonably intelligent people, and in the UK, are trained and encouraged to retain independent and innovative thought and a level of tactical freedom. It should therefore come as no surprise that leaders at all levels have their own opinions on the issues and geopolitical areas that affect them - it is a common public misconception that the military are regimented, unthinking robots. Nothing could be further from the truth, and I'm happy to count all of my former military friends and colleagues as people that I can hold intelligent discussions and debates with, often over a pint or two.
Blair justified the UK participation in the overthrow of Saddam by means of the 'dodgy dossier' and incomplete intelligence - I have no doubt whatsoever that he had used chemicals against his people, and was generally a bad fella; whether he posed a threat to the UK (Cyprus) is a moot point, but by the time I was embroiled in Iraq (2003), it had turned into a Counter-insurgency (COIN) operation and none of my RAF force were in any doubt that our employment over there (basically to disrupt the bomb makers who were killing hundreds of allied servicemen and innocent Iraqi civilians) was justified.
The war in Afghanistan tested the level of military loyalty to the limit. Not least because of the way we entered the theatre after 911 and the extension to the UKs mission in the years following. Govt statements of justification were aimed at a highly sceptical public and a military force who could see it was a load of BS. As with Iraq, the military soon became entangled in another COIN operation with the Taleban and other disparate fighters, so whatever misgivings local UK commanders had, the priority had to be to keep our troops safe. It didn't help, that as the conflict dragged on, the justification to the public of our involvement, changed depending on who was speaking. Was it narcotic reduction or was it to prevent terrorist activity on the UK? Again, as an individual, and as a member of a tight knit unit, my responsibility was to my crew and the mission we had, which was to support the troops on the ground. It was again, a no brainer, and I would justify my participation in that theatre to anyone.
In terms of the opposition and their justification - then yes you're absolutely right, any adversary is not fighting for the fun of it, they will have their goals and objectives, and a sincerely held belief in the righteousness of their cause. I can respect that, and I have never hated the individuals I've been fighting against. Their leaders and politicians, yes, but the ordinary combatant I bear no grudges. At the end of the day, we are all pawns of the political elite and I believe the only thing which separates them from us is ideology.
When I joined the RAF, the world was black and white and, although the Cold War was at it's height and the nuclear clock was a minute to midnight, I never felt particularly concerned that I'd be involved in a proper shooting match with the Soviet empire. Today, the geopolitical landscape is significantly more complex and certainly not binary. It makes for an interesting debate when potential military recruits like yourself have to have that internal moral discussion. I don't envy you.
I hope this essay helps a bit. Sorry for length of the reply JD, but I couldn't encapsulate my thoughts in a soundbite.
Regards
Ikky
Do the job that needs doing now, ask questions later (or preferably not at all?) kind of mentality?
Absolutely essential that when it's all gone horribly wrong and kinetic ie the bombs, bullets, missiles and RPGs are in the air and heading towards your little bundle of flesh and blood, I would suggest that is not the time to make like Rodin's Thinker! In this extreme case, it has to be him or you and achieving the immediate tactical objective.
"openly questioned the stated Govt position in a conflict but were prepared to carry out operational activity in the name of 'air power"
I participated in 3 wars / campaigns / conflicts *delete as required or 4 if you include the 'Cold War' in the list. The first of those (Falklands) was seen as blatant aggression against our sovereign people and the response was a no brainer (as far as Mrs T was concerned). Whatever the rights or wrongs of the conflict as seen through the lens of modern analysis, at the time I don't believe a single member of the UK forces, directed to reclaim the islands, was in any doubt as to the necessity and proportionality of our response.
Since 1982, a huge revolution in information and global connectivity has taken hold and many more people have had access to a whole spectrum of news, ideas and everything from Govt policies and strategic intent to a certain level of immediate and raw intelligence. Therefore it is now possible for the person in the street to have an 'informed' opinion on pretty much any issue.
Military people are (generally) reasonably intelligent people, and in the UK, are trained and encouraged to retain independent and innovative thought and a level of tactical freedom. It should therefore come as no surprise that leaders at all levels have their own opinions on the issues and geopolitical areas that affect them - it is a common public misconception that the military are regimented, unthinking robots. Nothing could be further from the truth, and I'm happy to count all of my former military friends and colleagues as people that I can hold intelligent discussions and debates with, often over a pint or two.
Blair justified the UK participation in the overthrow of Saddam by means of the 'dodgy dossier' and incomplete intelligence - I have no doubt whatsoever that he had used chemicals against his people, and was generally a bad fella; whether he posed a threat to the UK (Cyprus) is a moot point, but by the time I was embroiled in Iraq (2003), it had turned into a Counter-insurgency (COIN) operation and none of my RAF force were in any doubt that our employment over there (basically to disrupt the bomb makers who were killing hundreds of allied servicemen and innocent Iraqi civilians) was justified.
The war in Afghanistan tested the level of military loyalty to the limit. Not least because of the way we entered the theatre after 911 and the extension to the UKs mission in the years following. Govt statements of justification were aimed at a highly sceptical public and a military force who could see it was a load of BS. As with Iraq, the military soon became entangled in another COIN operation with the Taleban and other disparate fighters, so whatever misgivings local UK commanders had, the priority had to be to keep our troops safe. It didn't help, that as the conflict dragged on, the justification to the public of our involvement, changed depending on who was speaking. Was it narcotic reduction or was it to prevent terrorist activity on the UK? Again, as an individual, and as a member of a tight knit unit, my responsibility was to my crew and the mission we had, which was to support the troops on the ground. It was again, a no brainer, and I would justify my participation in that theatre to anyone.
In terms of the opposition and their justification - then yes you're absolutely right, any adversary is not fighting for the fun of it, they will have their goals and objectives, and a sincerely held belief in the righteousness of their cause. I can respect that, and I have never hated the individuals I've been fighting against. Their leaders and politicians, yes, but the ordinary combatant I bear no grudges. At the end of the day, we are all pawns of the political elite and I believe the only thing which separates them from us is ideology.
When I joined the RAF, the world was black and white and, although the Cold War was at it's height and the nuclear clock was a minute to midnight, I never felt particularly concerned that I'd be involved in a proper shooting match with the Soviet empire. Today, the geopolitical landscape is significantly more complex and certainly not binary. It makes for an interesting debate when potential military recruits like yourself have to have that internal moral discussion. I don't envy you.
I hope this essay helps a bit. Sorry for length of the reply JD, but I couldn't encapsulate my thoughts in a soundbite.
Regards
Ikky
Original post by Ikaruss
Hi JD, yes no problem expanding on above:
Do the job that needs doing now, ask questions later (or preferably not at all?) kind of mentality?
Absolutely essential that when it's all gone horribly wrong and kinetic ie the bombs, bullets, missiles and RPGs are in the air and heading towards your little bundle of flesh and blood, I would suggest that is not the time to make like Rodin's Thinker! In this extreme case, it has to be him or you and achieving the immediate tactical objective.
"openly questioned the stated Govt position in a conflict but were prepared to carry out operational activity in the name of 'air power"
I participated in 3 wars / campaigns / conflicts *delete as required or 4 if you include the 'Cold War' in the list. The first of those (Falklands) was seen as blatant aggression against our sovereign people and the response was a no brainer (as far as Mrs T was concerned). Whatever the rights or wrongs of the conflict as seen through the lens of modern analysis, at the time I don't believe a single member of the UK forces, directed to reclaim the islands, was in any doubt as to the necessity and proportionality of our response.
Since 1982, a huge revolution in information and global connectivity has taken hold and many more people have had access to a whole spectrum of news, ideas and everything from Govt policies and strategic intent to a certain level of immediate and raw intelligence. Therefore it is now possible for the person in the street to have an 'informed' opinion on pretty much any issue.
Military people are (generally) reasonably intelligent people, and in the UK, are trained and encouraged to retain independent and innovative thought and a level of tactical freedom. It should therefore come as no surprise that leaders at all levels have their own opinions on the issues and geopolitical areas that affect them - it is a common public misconception that the military are regimented, unthinking robots. Nothing could be further from the truth, and I'm happy to count all of my former military friends and colleagues as people that I can hold intelligent discussions and debates with, often over a pint or two.
Blair justified the UK participation in the overthrow of Saddam by means of the 'dodgy dossier' and incomplete intelligence - I have no doubt whatsoever that he had used chemicals against his people, and was generally a bad fella; whether he posed a threat to the UK (Cyprus) is a moot point, but by the time I was embroiled in Iraq (2003), it had turned into a Counter-insurgency (COIN) operation and none of my RAF force were in any doubt that our employment over there (basically to disrupt the bomb makers who were killing hundreds of allied servicemen and innocent Iraqi civilians) was justified.
The war in Afghanistan tested the level of military loyalty to the limit. Not least because of the way we entered the theatre after 911 and the extension to the UKs mission in the years following. Govt statements of justification were aimed at a highly sceptical public and a military force who could see it was a load of BS. As with Iraq, the military soon became entangled in another COIN operation with the Taleban and other disparate fighters, so whatever misgivings local UK commanders had, the priority had to be to keep our troops safe. It didn't help, that as the conflict dragged on, the justification to the public of our involvement, changed depending on who was speaking. Was it narcotic reduction or was it to prevent terrorist activity on the UK? Again, as an individual, and as a member of a tight knit unit, my responsibility was to my crew and the mission we had, which was to support the troops on the ground. It was again, a no brainer, and I would justify my participation in that theatre to anyone.
In terms of the opposition and their justification - then yes you're absolutely right, any adversary is not fighting for the fun of it, they will have their goals and objectives, and a sincerely held belief in the righteousness of their cause. I can respect that, and I have never hated the individuals I've been fighting against. Their leaders and politicians, yes, but the ordinary combatant I bear no grudges. At the end of the day, we are all pawns of the political elite and I believe the only thing which separates them from us is ideology.
When I joined the RAF, the world was black and white and, although the Cold War was at it's height and the nuclear clock was a minute to midnight, I never felt particularly concerned that I'd be involved in a proper shooting match with the Soviet empire. Today, the geopolitical landscape is significantly more complex and certainly not binary. It makes for an interesting debate when potential military recruits like yourself have to have that internal moral discussion. I don't envy you.
I hope this essay helps a bit. Sorry for length of the reply JD, but I couldn't encapsulate my thoughts in a soundbite.
Regards
Ikky
Do the job that needs doing now, ask questions later (or preferably not at all?) kind of mentality?
Absolutely essential that when it's all gone horribly wrong and kinetic ie the bombs, bullets, missiles and RPGs are in the air and heading towards your little bundle of flesh and blood, I would suggest that is not the time to make like Rodin's Thinker! In this extreme case, it has to be him or you and achieving the immediate tactical objective.
"openly questioned the stated Govt position in a conflict but were prepared to carry out operational activity in the name of 'air power"
I participated in 3 wars / campaigns / conflicts *delete as required or 4 if you include the 'Cold War' in the list. The first of those (Falklands) was seen as blatant aggression against our sovereign people and the response was a no brainer (as far as Mrs T was concerned). Whatever the rights or wrongs of the conflict as seen through the lens of modern analysis, at the time I don't believe a single member of the UK forces, directed to reclaim the islands, was in any doubt as to the necessity and proportionality of our response.
Since 1982, a huge revolution in information and global connectivity has taken hold and many more people have had access to a whole spectrum of news, ideas and everything from Govt policies and strategic intent to a certain level of immediate and raw intelligence. Therefore it is now possible for the person in the street to have an 'informed' opinion on pretty much any issue.
Military people are (generally) reasonably intelligent people, and in the UK, are trained and encouraged to retain independent and innovative thought and a level of tactical freedom. It should therefore come as no surprise that leaders at all levels have their own opinions on the issues and geopolitical areas that affect them - it is a common public misconception that the military are regimented, unthinking robots. Nothing could be further from the truth, and I'm happy to count all of my former military friends and colleagues as people that I can hold intelligent discussions and debates with, often over a pint or two.
Blair justified the UK participation in the overthrow of Saddam by means of the 'dodgy dossier' and incomplete intelligence - I have no doubt whatsoever that he had used chemicals against his people, and was generally a bad fella; whether he posed a threat to the UK (Cyprus) is a moot point, but by the time I was embroiled in Iraq (2003), it had turned into a Counter-insurgency (COIN) operation and none of my RAF force were in any doubt that our employment over there (basically to disrupt the bomb makers who were killing hundreds of allied servicemen and innocent Iraqi civilians) was justified.
The war in Afghanistan tested the level of military loyalty to the limit. Not least because of the way we entered the theatre after 911 and the extension to the UKs mission in the years following. Govt statements of justification were aimed at a highly sceptical public and a military force who could see it was a load of BS. As with Iraq, the military soon became entangled in another COIN operation with the Taleban and other disparate fighters, so whatever misgivings local UK commanders had, the priority had to be to keep our troops safe. It didn't help, that as the conflict dragged on, the justification to the public of our involvement, changed depending on who was speaking. Was it narcotic reduction or was it to prevent terrorist activity on the UK? Again, as an individual, and as a member of a tight knit unit, my responsibility was to my crew and the mission we had, which was to support the troops on the ground. It was again, a no brainer, and I would justify my participation in that theatre to anyone.
In terms of the opposition and their justification - then yes you're absolutely right, any adversary is not fighting for the fun of it, they will have their goals and objectives, and a sincerely held belief in the righteousness of their cause. I can respect that, and I have never hated the individuals I've been fighting against. Their leaders and politicians, yes, but the ordinary combatant I bear no grudges. At the end of the day, we are all pawns of the political elite and I believe the only thing which separates them from us is ideology.
When I joined the RAF, the world was black and white and, although the Cold War was at it's height and the nuclear clock was a minute to midnight, I never felt particularly concerned that I'd be involved in a proper shooting match with the Soviet empire. Today, the geopolitical landscape is significantly more complex and certainly not binary. It makes for an interesting debate when potential military recruits like yourself have to have that internal moral discussion. I don't envy you.
I hope this essay helps a bit. Sorry for length of the reply JD, but I couldn't encapsulate my thoughts in a soundbite.
Regards
Ikky
No, thank you, really appreciate the response.
I pretty much have my thoughts down on the matter. But every now and again I like to re-visit them. Update them if necessary. Challenge myself.
And I rather do it now than in the interview..
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Is the UK prepared for WW3?
- [Official Thread] Russian invasion of Ukraine
- I have no friends, no relationship, nothing, I'm rejected for my Nationality
- Top Army Chief Warns of Britons Facing Draft in Potential UK-Russia Conflict
- Starting non Commissioned role at 41
- Remembrance Day . . . remembering what?
- Can some one mark my English literature essay
- [Official thread] Hamas-Israel Conflict
- KCL International Relations & War Studies Offer Holders 2020
- Please my GCSE Edexcel History answer to a question
- Five SAS soldiers arrested for alleged war crimes in Syria
- Turning down LSE for KCL
- Will World War 3 happen soon?
- How can I cope with my BF (25) joining the British Army?
- RAF & RN - Considering a change of career in my forties...
- how could anyone be pro-israel?
- Which 2024 election will be most significant for the world?
- Joining infantry as an officer or squaddie
- How do I ace A Level Politics?
- Evaluate the interpretations
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 months ago
How can I go about appealing my army application after medically unfit report?Trending
Last reply 3 months ago
How can I go about appealing my army application after medically unfit report?
