The hypothetical voting soldier.

[Duke]

It just seems odd to have a democracy, and then the entire defensive/offensive/whatever branch of that society is nothing more than a really strong arm that a few guys that maybe half of the country agrees with have complete control over.

Now, when you're in the middle of a battle, you obviously have to follow orders, and when you're being attacked, you have to follow them too. That's probably the best way to avoid getting turned into hamburger.

But what if they allowed all the soldiers to vote "yea" or "nay" before any large planned offensive? It would put at least some burden on the guys in charge to make a convincing argument to their troops as to why they were being put in mortal danger.

I guess I just don't see why the ideals of democracy shouldn't extend to all of the people. The second someone decides to "fight for their country," they lose all power to decide what it is they'll be fighting in support of. They need to really hope that they don't doing things that some guy they may hate has decided is the best move.

Now, let's say that that just wouldn't work out for whatever reason. Nothing would ever get done, they wouldn't be as effective, and so on. What does that say of democracy as a whole?

Just some thoughts to ponder. It shouldn't matter if this current Iraq thing is good or bad at all (though it obviously was part of the inspiration for my thought). I just want to focus on the idea of soldiers retaining some say in what they're fighting for.

[Bigdaddydvo]

"I am an American Soldier: I fight where I'm told and I win where I fight"

As an active duty Army officer/Iraq vet, let me take a shot. There are a few reasons this idea would not work.

First, the Armed Forces exercise their voice in where they'll fight by exercising their Constitutional vote for their civilian leadership. Nothing stopped Soldiers who disagreed with the Iraq invasion to vote for Kerry in '04 or Democratic in the midterms this year. Once the civilian leadership is decided, however, we are obligated to execute the decisions they make.

Next, the priority of our top military leadership needs to be training the force and preparing for war, not campaigning for Soldier approval. Not to say explaining decisions to Soldiers is a bad thing, I found myself explaining to my Soldiers many times the rationale for fighting in Iraq. Explaining is much different from requiring their approval.

Lastly, there would be tremendous risk of Soldiers being influenced by external forces for their "vote." Imagine the Nazis making signs in WWII "VOTE NO TO THE INVASION OF NORMANDY."

You are correct in the premise that Soldiers' feelings and opinions matter; there are simply more beneficial ways to express them that don't affect readiness, good order and discipline.

[Nielsio]

So: 'fighting for your country' is actually 'fighting for some guy for money'.

Better change your avatar: