Tell me you've never been in the military without saying so.I'm baffled by people baffled by such people. The military actually views such people positively because they value their loyalty to their cause above all mentality. The military has been actively seeding propaganda to help create such people. There's a reason why authoritarianism is fundamentally entwined with the military, because it needs such unquestioning individuals to fall in line. Authoritarians need these types of delusional and easily misled people to enable and "might make right" so their lies and phony shit don't get revealed and keep them in power.
Authoritarian constructs demand compliance regardless of the outcome or context. There's no notion of an unlawful command from an authoritarian system because everything the authority does is lawful.I've never been in the military. The idea that the military isn't authoritarian by it's very nature is absolutely absurd. You kill the people you are ordered to kill. Just because you're technically allowed to not follow unlawful orders doesn't mean the entire construct isn't authoritarian.
I've never been in the military. The idea that the military isn't authoritarian by it's very nature is absolutely absurd. You kill the people you are ordered to kill. Just because you're technically allowed to not follow unlawful orders doesn't mean the entire construct isn't authoritarian.
Authoritarian: favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom.Authoritarian constructs demand compliance regardless of the outcome or context. There's no notion of an unlawful command from an authoritarian system because everything the authority does is lawful.
The military asks that you participate in the killing of the countries' enemies. That may be you agree or disagree with, but it isn't authoritarian. At worst it's imperialistic, at best it's self defense, in truth it's somewhere in between.
Sure they have to say that, but in practice how does it work out most of the time?While the structure of the US military IS authoritarian (as is virtually every corporate structure for that matter), it does not teach that authoritarian GOVERNMENT is better.
In fact, the opposite.
In point of fact we are instructed to NOT follow unlawful orders from the very beginning.
If you're gonna claim that there's a gradient then sure, every military is authoritarian, every household with children is authoritarian, every relationship the US has with its allies is authoritarian. It's authoritarian all the way down.Authoritarian: favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom.
Nothing there requiring the extreme example of "no unlawful command." Is the US military the worst example of authoritarianism? No, of course not. But it is 100% authoritarian like any military is.
Works out fine, they've got this whole thing called a Uniformed Code of Military Justice that covers it quite nicely. There are very, very serious consequences for giving and following unlawful orders.Sure they have to say that, but in practice how does it work out most of the time?
I have always thought of the 'unlawful order' stuff to be bullshit and just a way to screw over lower ranked people. Basically if things turn out well then ta-da! The order was lawful. If they turn out badly, why did you follow an unlawful order? Same the other way around.Works out fine, they've got this whole thing called a Uniformed Code of Military Justice that covers it quite nicely. There are very, very serious consequences for giving and following unlawful orders.
Not really. There is some behind the scenes 'hush hush' about shit that only a handful ever knew about, but there's a reason those rules exist, it's so the US doesn't have to ever explain itself or fuck up its relationships with other countries because it has to protect its own when it knows they done wrong. To an extent it's a CYA for the whole 'world police' image, while coincidentally also being good for business.I have always thought of the 'unlawful order' stuff to be bullshit and just a way to screw over lower ranked people. Basically if things turn out well then ta-da! The order was lawful. If they turn out badly, why did you follow an unlawful order? Same the other way around.
I spent countless hours of my life standing watch and the rules about what we were and were not permitted to shoot at were always very ambiguous. In many ways they have to be because the world is an ambiguous place but there's plenty of situations where you would need to make a very quick decision. If it turns out you shot Osama Bin Laden II? Great job, shipmate! Turns out it was a civilian? You didn't follow orders correctly! For example you're not supposed to open fire unless you are in 'imminent danger'. If both people act the same but it turns out to be Osama II I bet that qualifies as imminent danger. A civilian? I bet it doesn't, but you don't know until after the engagement is over.Not really. There is some behind the scenes 'hush hush' about shit that only a handful ever knew about, but there's a reason those rules exist, it's so the US doesn't have to ever explain itself or fuck up its relationships with other countries because it has to protect its own when it knows they done wrong. To an extent it's a CYA for the whole 'world police' image, while coincidentally also being good for business.
Decisions are expected to be made from a 4 star down to the enlisted shitbird handed a gun that follow the rules, very clearly spelled out and drilled relentlessly. I was a fucking desk jockey and I was expected to know what I was permitted to shoot at and what I was not permitted to shoot at.
We definitely had different experiences then. All I'd say to that was that if you had reason to believe you were in imminent danger, it was probably going to be a good shoot (even more lenient than our permissibility of police shootings; for good reason). If it was questionable as to whether there was a threat, good chance that wouldn't have been a good shoot, and either someone's gonna stick their neck out for you or you're going somewhere else, maybe not a good place.I spent countless hours of my life standing watch and the rules about what we were and were not permitted to shoot at were always very ambiguous. In many ways they have to be because the world is an ambiguous place but there's plenty of situations where you would need to make a very quick decision. If it turns out you shot Osama Bin Laden II? Great job, shipmate! Turns out it was a civilian? You didn't follow orders correctly! For example you're not supposed to open fire unless you are in 'imminent danger'. If both people act the same but it turns out to be Osama II I bet that qualifies as imminent danger. A civilian? I bet it doesn't, but you don't know until after the engagement is over.
So maybe your experience was very different than mine but the rules were neither clear, nor drilled relentlessly in my experience.
Of course it's a gradient, but that doesn't mean the US military is equivalent to a household with children. That's absurd.If you're gonna claim that there's a gradient then sure, every military is authoritarian, every household with children is authoritarian, every relationship the US has with its allies is authoritarian. It's authoritarian all the way down.
If you accept that 'strict obedience' literally means 'no, fuck you, follow very order or else', it looks very different. I've seen encounters with actual authoritarian governments and militaries, it looks far, far different from the US military.
Is it? Because you're claiming that the US military is indistinguishable from every other military. Does that include Russia? Cuz their soldiers are absolutely expected to follow orders, regardless of the legality or consequence. Just how authoritarian is the US military?Of course it's a gradient, but that doesn't mean the US military is equivalent to a household with children. That's absurd.
I never claimed they were indistinguishable. I merely said they are authoritarian, as are pretty much all militaries. The punishments for disobeying orders may be different, but they all have punishments. What qualifies as a lawful order may be different, but they all issue orders and you're expected to follow them.Is it? Because you're claiming that the US military is indistinguishable from every other military. Does that include Russia? Cuz their soldiers are absolutely expected to follow orders, regardless of the legality or consequence. Just how authoritarian is the US military?
That doesn't make it authoritarian, that just makes it a common goal that everyone's expected to be onboard with. It's not a democracy by any means but there's a vast gulf between the two.I never claimed they were indistinguishable. I merely said they are authoritarian, as are pretty much all militaries. The punishments for disobeying orders may be different, but they all have punishments. What qualifies as a lawful order may be different, but they all issue orders and you're expected to follow them.
I literally posted the definition of authoritarian for you. The US military and all other militaries fit that definition 100%. You're probably confusing authoritarian with tyrannical or dictatorships or something.That doesn't make it authoritarian, that just makes it a common goal that everyone's expected to be onboard with. It's not a democracy by any means but there's a vast gulf between the two.
We may have to agree to disagree on this one, or maybe someone else can verbalize this better, but I've seen what autocratic military regimes consider to be normal, and the US military isn't that.
Yup.The problem with the whole "unlawful orders" conundrum is that should Private Jones refuse to follow what he believes to be an unlawful order given to him, he has to appeal to the very people who gave that order. Sure, it MIGHT get pushed up the ladder to a superior officer...but possibly to the superior officer who issued the order in the first place. Should the soldier/Marine actually comply with said unlawful orders, "Medals all around!" unless it gets out that what they did was wrong...in which case, the officers will cover their own asses, place all the blame on the troops who follow the orders.
William Calley got hung out to dry for following unlawful orders. When it came down to it, none of the officers who actually gave the orders suffered any serious repercussions from said unlawful orders...or the cover up.
My Lai massacre - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
I thought if you didn't follow an order you would be bought in front of a court marshal and then you can make your case to why it was an unlawful order. Not that you would have to justify it to your own command.The problem with the whole "unlawful orders" conundrum is that should Private Jones refuse to follow what he believes to be an unlawful order given to him, he has to appeal to the very people who gave that order. Sure, it MIGHT get pushed up the ladder to a superior officer...but possibly to the superior officer who issued the order in the first place. Should the soldier/Marine actually comply with said unlawful orders, "Medals all around!" unless it gets out that what they did was wrong...in which case, the officers will cover their own asses, place all the blame on the troops who follow the orders.
William Calley got hung out to dry for following unlawful orders. When it came down to it, none of the officers who actually gave the orders suffered any serious repercussions from said unlawful orders...or the cover up.
My Lai massacre - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Well no army troops lined up to shoot protesters like Trump wanted.Sure they have to say that, but in practice how does it work out most of the time?
I spent countless hours of my life standing watch and the rules about what we were and were not permitted to shoot at were always very ambiguous. In many ways they have to be because the world is an ambiguous place but there's plenty of situations where you would need to make a very quick decision. If it turns out you shot Osama Bin Laden II? Great job, shipmate! Turns out it was a civilian? You didn't follow orders correctly! For example you're not supposed to open fire unless you are in 'imminent danger'. If both people act the same but it turns out to be Osama II I bet that qualifies as imminent danger. A civilian? I bet it doesn't, but you don't know until after the engagement is over.
So maybe your experience was very different than mine but the rules were neither clear, nor drilled relentlessly in my experience.
Right, and the US at least grows 'em a little smarter. If someone rolls up behind a convoy, Russians will just shoot them. US military will give them the courtesy of a few golf balls in the windshield in case they're just morons.I'd say it depends on the job or mission you're assigned to accomplish. In so many ways it's sort'a like the more you put your life in danger, the looser the rules apply. Along with that our military doctrine provides more discretion allowed for the enlisted and junior officer ranks that does of course comes with more training, indoctrination and responsibility, unlike the Russians and Chinese.