![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sevenhelz at 01:15am on 28/09/2011Take your time, I'll wait. I had planned to summarise them in an effort to create a more thorough post, and maybe stimulate some more thoughts, but my brain's kind of done with this. Whether you reach the same basic conclusion as me or not, I know there are people out there who support me and love me, and I know there are others who disapprove. One of them told me, everybody should think about things, and I agree.
Do check through the comments (and add to them?). I made a couple myself, at half two in the morning after first typing this up, and a few friends looked it over before it was unlocked and available publicly.
-----------------------------
It's good that civilians are watching the Forces, thinking and questioning our purpose. It's good that other people have the brainpower to address things that some of us don't care to take on. It's good to have a variety of opinions around, so that we don't fall into complacency. However I'm not enjoying being outright insulted when I say I'm joining the Army.
One argument [first link again] seems to be "You're joining an organisation which also employs people who have done bad things." The implication being that joining said organisation is tacit support for said bad things, i.e. torture. I disagree.
I'm not going to argue about whether British soldiers have tortured people in Iraq. I don't know, and I don't particularly care. It's a horrible thing, certainly, it shouldn't have happened, but I don't actually know if it has happened, and if it has, how common it was, or what's been done in response. I would assume that anyone found torturing has been brought to justice. I don't have the power to oversee that, so I'm not going to worry about it right now.
This isn't the same government that led us into Iraq and Afghan. I was too young and/or politically aware to understand or particularly care what was happening back then; I know that what we're trying to do in Afghan now is create some kind of peace, train Afghan forces ie police so that they don't need us there, and gradually pull out. I'm not sure we're pulling out as slowly as is really right; leaving a job like this half-finished would be dangerous and disrespectful to say the least.
Point being, all I know is the current situation. I don't think I'm alone in thinking like that. I don't think I have the obligation to find out what an organisation was doing five, ten years ago, before I decide if they're morally righteous enough for me to join. Not in this economy. Sorry, I don't really believe in moral absolutes.
Here's one train of thought:
Where can I play music in return for money (read: stability and appreciation)?
...It would be lovely if our government supported music-making.
Hm, the only place they do is with the Forces.
...That's kind of commendable of them. Supporting traditional music and cultural values.
Well, I like to be valued and appreciated. The role basically consists of playing music in silly clothes, and keeping fit. I'm okay with that.
Going back to the idea that joining an organisation implicitly means supporting the worst of what happens in its uniform, surely the same is true of any government work?
Wait, no, that would be silly. "GEE I'd like to be a carer but the only way I could make a living out of it is to work for the government, and some of them have embezzled! Created policies that hurt and indeed killed people! I can't be seen to support that behaviour!"
So, just the Forces uniforms we take issue with, then.
There's this weird kind of duality in this argument (second convo, where we're talking about uniforms) where he explains how uniforms make us into a monolith (which I'd pointed out as an issue, I'll go into why that's a problem in a minute) and then says that the minor differences are problematic because they denote worth.
For one thing, a belt and beret (with capbadge) denote role, which is decidedly no more or less valuable than anyone else's - just different. And then rank. He sees it as a bad thing that some people have what he considers power. I consider it responsibility, and I suspect most officers and NCOs think the same.
When you accept rank you are telling the world that you will take care of the people in your charge; that when you have to make a decision, it will always be with their care in mind; that you will communicate their needs to the folks making other decisions, in order to have the best solution. You are not claiming to be somehow Better overall, only to have a different mindset; you are moving from smale-scale, personal responsibilities to a bigger-picture view. And I think it's wonderful that you do this gradually, with training and support all the way, in the Army. It's good for people moving through the ranks, and it means every team will have capable leadership (read: inspiration, support, decision-making).
Hierarchy a problem for you? Don't join the Forces. Just because you don't like something doesn't make it wrong. [edit: see comment I left later about miss_s_b owning that feeling rather than projecting it]
But if you want to understand, know that for some of us the world is simpler when the rules are spelt out. When you can see who's meant to be your friend quite easily, and if they're treating you badly there's a simple route of appeal.
Treating the Forces as a monolith means forgetting that we are people with needs and wants and rights too.
Even if you condemn the Infantry for being willing to kill for their organisation, I don't understand how you can condemn the support services. These are in place to provide food and shelter to human beings.
Forces medics work under the symbol of the Red Cross because they help people. Even people you may disapprove of. Yet medics wear the same uniform, bar belt and beret, and so according to your judgements they support the same cause. Hmm.
Nobody would condemn all organisations who work in war zones because calling the Red Cross morally reprehensible would be patently stupid. Soo, why are Army medics so different? Because they carry a weapon to protect themselves? Because they have a side?
The problem of the culture of masculinity has been mentioned. I circled this by pointing out that I have a different perspective, which is probably a discussion for a different day. But I don't think dealing with the culture of masculinity is inherent to the military - it's something we face on all fronts, and the fact that I'm comfortable walking into a group of hypermasculine-performing men and telling them to calm down is not actually a moral quality (actual gender disparity and inequality in the Forces does need addressing but personally I believe it will be easier to change attitudes from within, by proving our worth).
So I know this is going to be a dangerous comparison to draw, but I was thinking about 1984. All the Party members, are they morally reprehensible for supporting the system? It's an imperfect analogy for various reasons, not least that I don't accept that the Forces are inherently corrupt or as harmful as has been made out. Also, in real life we have more options than to join, usually (we could sit around on the dole if you like; not sure you understand why that is not in the slightest bit appealling). BUT, where our culture leads individuals to believe that the Army is the way forward, even if I were to agree that were a negative choice, how is it the individual's fault for being misled?
People aren't often all good or all bad. Calling us morally reprehensible for one set of decisions which you admit you can't grok/relate to is simplistic divisive nonsense which conveniently allows you to disengage from any problems we might have. I'd rather you keep watching, not dismiss us.
can has cookie?
I think it displays another thing I've been thinking about, that generally the women I talk to are more... humble? tolerant? open to the idea that people will keep seeing the world differently to them... whereas the blokes are at times trying to ram down my throat the idea that putting on greens means I support the excesses of war...
can has cookie?
can has cookie?
I would say the relevant argument is not "have done bad things", it is the argument that it currently does bad things - present tense. That's the moral argument to make. (Not that I'm making it, but it is far more relevant than the --"five years ago they were...")
Going back to the idea that joining an organisation implicitly means supporting the worst of what happens in its uniform, surely the same is true of any government work?
And that's the rub. On one side, if you are going to critique the system we are in without acknowledging that in order to even survive, one must make some compromise with the system, then you're drawing some very ugly moral absolutes. I get that some people draw the line in different places and I do know people who would never work any government job of any kind. Bully for them. Compromises are difficult and I don't really believe in moral absolutes either.
MediocreDave's argument is a particularly extreme one concerning power and rank and privilege. Seeing as we are social animals, the idea that we can exist devoid of such things seems ludicrous.
But as regards the main point... you are never going to escape being criticized for joining the army. The army is a morally questionable organization. But this doesn't in any way lead me to think it leads to a belief that all people in the forces are morally questionable. Of course not. The forces are a complex beast, and ultimately it is a question of how moral the people in it are and how moral the institutions culture is. That's a decision you make for yourself, and how much you are willing to participate in it.
Personally, here is my view. I don't think the Forces are above serious moral questioning, nor do I think they are a write off that no one should ever participate in. I do not the think the choice to join the Forces, especially in the role you have chosen, is one that makes you morally reprehensible. I do think the pressure to ultimately embrace the institution's role and mindset uncritically is extremely strong in the Forces, and that that is a danger you should keep in mind.