Is it wrong to call a soldier "baby killer"?

Personally, i only take offense when it appears to me that information is being offered as fact, which has no basis in fact.

I know you to be the product of extreme and perverse christianity Mr. Mountie, and relish the thought that you might now be mentally flogging yourself in an access of good old-fashioned Protestant guilt.

I wonder if I write to Kerry and Kennedy if they might be willing to watch over this kid.

suzy,

Have you read _Trauma and Recovery_?; The first chapter is a history of the 'treatment' of PTSD. Appalling.

I've been on both sides of the issue in my mind for many years. I know killing babies is wrong. I know a soldier is not in his own frame of mind. I refuse to contemplate calling them any such name.
As for myself, I could never wear a uniform again (assuming I would ever be called at my age). I will defend my home if attacked. I will not be shipped overseas until somebody in charge gets the priorities right.

Suzy wrote:



How many of those soldiers are babies themselves? At eighteen or nineteen, what do they really understand of the reasons why the war is being fought?

There have been a few times when Dys has mentioned being in Veitnam and wondering WHY. He didn't know the reason, only the constant danger. He, and most every soldier in every war, was given orders, period. Theyweren't expected to ask why, just to obey.

Dys was constantly wondering why as he saw friends killed or having body parts blown off; yet he never knew "why" until he returned to the States and learned of the cynical reasons behind the war.

He also found out about the VA upon his return. The amount of care and compensation depends on your rank. That leaves lots of soldiers falling through the cracks, not getting artificial arms or legs replaced because their rank din't allow for that much money to be spent on them. So if they outgrew the prosthesis or if it was damaged, they were out of luck. I guess they wondered why.

Joe and Dys wrote right from the heart. Who here thinks they knew what the war was all about or if it was a legal, moral war? Not I.

Suzy, I do hope you will keep us posted on your friends progress. My heart goes out to him.

Suzy, i'd suggest that Mr. Kerry has a full plate just now . . . but Mr. Kennedy might be a good choice. Them Congressional boys like nothing better than breathing down the neck of the Defense Secretary.

Bromeliad,
I'm not sure, I think I have. Is it a college text?
Having had some trauma in my own life, I find that kind of reading extremely difficult to do.
One thing I do know, that I have pointed out to everyone who mentions anything about the subject, is that PTSD causes actual physical changes to the brain. I don't know if they're permanent changes, but to me, it's kind of good news, because as you know, there are people who think those who suffer are just weak or have poor coping skills. I like being able to point out that it's not the case, and that PTSD is real.
Telling someone to get a grip just doesn't cut it.

Here's the book:


Amazon Link for Trauma and Recovery

It isn't a textbook, but I imagine it is on a lot of college reading lists.

"How many of those soldiers are babies themselves? At eighteen or nineteen, what do they really understand of the reasons why the war is being fought?"
Right. I am thanking my lucky stars that my youngest changed his mind about joining the guard. He was being heavily recruited at his high school, for almost the whole junior + senior years.

I am just so appalled.

Kerry maybe too busy, unless he were interested in using it as an issue, but he's hardly one to talk, anyway.
Ted Kennedy has always been responsive to me, and although he's pretty busy now, too, I'm going to make him aware of this anyway. I think we as a nation need to stop doing this to our young men.

Thank you, all of you. I am relieved that I did not get the same bull as I heard on the AWOL thread.
Mostly nationalistic stupidity.

Well, someone has to speak up for nationalistic stupidity:

Technically speaking, your friend is a "baby killer," since he killed at least one baby (although only a heartless clod would refer to him as such), but is he a "baby murderer?" I think not, unless he desired to kill the baby, which it appears clear he did not.

You've not given us much detail, but the ethics of his action are dependent upon details.

Did he know there were babies in the building he fired upon?

Did he have reason to believe that by firing upon the building he would likely kill a baby?

What was the reason for firing upon the building?

We know this was not the case, but it illustrates a point: If the building contained people who were preparing to detonate an atomic bomb that would kill millions and the only way to stop them was to destroy the building, would you do so, even if you knew it contained innocents, among whom were babies?

This is an extreme example but ethics do not operate only in extreme situations.

It is understandable though tragic that your friend is beating himself up. Assuming he wasn't a bloody handed murderer, he certainly doesn't deserve the pain he is experiencing.

Only the naive consider it a no brainer for a soldier to disobey an order. Much of the training these young people receive is intended to condition them to immediately and unquestioningly obey orders. An effective military can have it no other way.

It seems to me that virtually any action taken in the heat of battle is not subject to ethical scrutiny. The German soldiers who herded Jews into the gas showers were not in the heat of battle. They had all of the time in the world to contemplate the ethics of their obeying orders. Similarly, marching into a Vietnamese village and slaughtering its inhabitants is not action taken in the heat of battle.

I'm reminded of the movie Saving Private Ryan, and the scene where the Normandy beach is stormed. If you saw it you will recall that those American soldiers who, miraculously, survived the initial invasion and overran the German positions began to kill them all without mercy. The officers had to stop them (at least in the film they did and I always wondered if that happened in reality). I know that after watching the carnage that preceded the massacre of the Germans I actually felt a degree of exultation when the GIs began killing the Germans; even those who were trying to surrender. I've asked everyone I've met who has seen that film and found no one who didn't share my ferocious reaction.

How could anyone fault the young men who, in effect, murdered those Germans?

The whole notion of rules of war is obscene.

As for your questions:

"if one is forced to kill or cause children to die in battle, is it better to lie about it or to tell the truth, as John kerry did? If an atrocity is happening, should we pretend it's not because it might reflect badly on soldiers who are obeying orders? Should not the public know what has been done in their name? Are we better off ignorant?"

Under certain circumstances, as discussed above, the killing of a baby in war is not an atrocity. It is hard to imagine that any incident where a baby is killed by other than accident would not be considered atrocious, and in fact it should not be. But from what you have told us, your friend's killing of the Iraqi baby is not an atrocity as we have come to define the term in the context of war.

If your friend (or John Kerry, for that matter) was actually guilty of an atrocity - the deliberate murder of a baby (See Auschwitz or Mai Lai) then he is no hero because he confesses. Atrocities should never be hidden. Obeying orders is not an excuse for committing an atrocity.
As for what happened with your friend, we shouldn't hide the fact that innocents are being killed in wars, but this is something different from declaring him guilty of an atrocity.

Killing another human being is not always atrocious: "Extremely evil or cruel; monstrous." Millions of soldiers can confess to having killed enemy soliders or, inadvertently, innocent civilians, but when one of them confesses to committing atrocities, they get no points from me.

"If one is made to kill or cause the death of a child, and is unable to cope with it, yet has more time to do to finish his service commitment, should he be expected to stay on and continue to do so? Even if he is obviously suffering mental and emotional upset of great severity?"

Sorry, but this part of your story doesn't ring true. It is to be expected that the military is not going to relieve every soldier who has killed someone from duty, but if your friend truly cannot cope, today's military doctors are not going to slap his face and send him back to the front. I say this with some certainty because I have family in the military, and specifically a cousin who is an Army doctor.

"If a soldier is sent to a country to liberate a people and instead is ordered to launch grenades at places where children reside, whether this information is known and reported to him or not, does he then have the right to say 'I no longer intend to fight this war?"'"

Nope.

He can refuse an order if he believes it is illegal, but having been caught up in the real horrors of war, he can't be permitted to say - "Not for me, I'm out of here."

Whether or not recruits have an appreciation of the real horrors of war when they sign up (and I'm sure most do not), we can't have an effective military where soldiers are allowed to decide that they have had enough.

"I am extremely
pissed at what has happened to this good young man because of our gung-ho president."

Not a question, but deserving of a response:

The exact same thing could have happened to your friend if this was a war of which you approved.

Unless you are of the opinion that any and all wars should not be fought, and that we, as a nation, should suffer whatever consequences there may be to our passivity, rather than fighting a war, it is a bit hypocritical to get all outraged over this situation because it is a war with which you happen to disagree.

Why not get pissed off at the bastards that are trying to reduce Iraq to a state of utter chaos, and led your friend to the battle in which he fought?
There is a disturbing lack of anger for these SOBs exhibited on the Left.

Your friend went to Iraq to liberate Iraqis. Surely he didn't think that would happen by passing out sacks of rice. The marines are a fighting force. He went there to fight. He would not have had to fight, and kill the child, if the terrorists (who could care less if an Iraqi baby dies) weren't bound and determined to create chaos in this country.

Your friend and all of our service men and women are in my nightly prayers. I truly hope that he can come through this.

Setanta.

What import would you place on the multiple use of the word LEGAL in this quote?



That's straight out of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Some (most?) think, only soldiers "from the other site" can be 'baby killers' (or generally 'killers').

(Reminds me of the controversial Tucholsky quotation [Kurt Tucholsky, 1890-1935, the most visible and the most hated journalist-author of Jewish origin of the Weimar years]: "All soldiers are murders".)

It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets. ~Voltaire, War

Suz: Yes, write to Kennedy and Kerry and get some of his friends and family to do so also. Just one page, something along the line of : "I would appreciate whatever attention your office might provide to the case of __________________. " and then give the details necessary to find him, last location unit, commander's name, unit number.

Use the same letter to contact the following:
(in no particular order)
his Member of Congress and both of his Senators.
your Member of Congress and both of your Senators
The local chapter of the Viet Nam Veterans.
The local chapter of the VFW.

You're just trying to bring this particular case into view. Faceless patients, those with no contacts or importance, have a way of getting ignored.

Is there a broader story here that would serve a program like '60 Minutes' or 20/20? Send the details. Again, one page, think very busy desk editor,-- who, what, when, where and how-- that's it. and your contact numbers.

Who is the local editor where his mom lives? The local TV news guy or guys or gal or gals? Send the letter THEN phone two days later-- "Hello, I sent you a letter detailing what might be a story for you and I was wondering if you had any questions." Media people LOVE to be asked if they have any questions.

Keep us up on the details of the story.

Much love,

Joe

PS Yes, BLatham, those are my words......J

Joe,
That's exactly the way I do things. I believe in going big to get results. Thanks!
I need to get some more info on him before I can do this, and will try to get that today. In the meantime, I will send Kennedy a "pre-notice" of the situation.
I have this fear; maybe unreasonable and crazy, maybe suspicious; maybe not, that if certain people are not watching over him, he may be the next face you see on AlJazeera being held hostage and waiting for beheading.

I would point out that it continually refers to lawful orders, a subject which i mentioned specifically. Your comment about "constitutional" was from way out in the twilight zone. We were obliged to take an oath to support and defend the constitution--no mention was made of interpreting that document, nor of reviewing our orders for constitutional rectitude. I don't think you've made any point here, at all.

Edit: Please note that the word LEGAL does not appear anywhere in what you have quoted.

Finn, I don't know all the answers to all your questions. I am getting my info second-hand from his best friend, my son. Everything that I've written about his state of mind and what he's done is true, but I don't have the info to fill in those details yet.
Whatever the reasons for firing upon that building, he is unable to cope with being responsible for the painful and lingering deaths of small children, and I think that when a soldier in that frame of mind is made to stay on the field, he will either become a heartless, ruthless killer, or he will end up dead or captured because he is unable to focus on his task. While the US may be served by a soldier who is a ruthless killer, the soldier himself simply becomes a sacrifice.

"If one is made to kill or cause the death of a child, and is unable to cope with it, yet has more time to do to finish his service commitment, should he be expected to stay on and continue to do so? Even if he is obviously suffering mental and emotional upset of great severity?"

Sorry, but this part of your story doesn't ring true. It is to be expected that the military is not going to relieve every soldier who has killed someone from duty, but if your friend truly cannot cope, today's military doctors are not going to slap his face and send him back to the front. I say this with some certainty because I have family in the military, and specifically a cousin who is an Army doctor."
That is just a scenario I set up, Finn. I truly do not know what he said or did not say to his CO, or what they may have recognized in his behavior. He may have been trying to suck it up and be a macho marine, I don't know. He was distraught enough to find his way out of the country and come home, knowing there would be consequences.
His story is coming out slowly, it's not as though he wants to talk about it. He just can't keep it inside, although it seems he's trying to. And knowing a bit about PTSD, that's not uncommon.

adrian

I doff my hat to both this quote and to the one in your signature.

lol

Actually, it was more like me shoving a fresh-baked cookie into your mouth to shut you up.

They are extraordinary words, Joe. To dys as well.