Do foreign soldiers in Afghanistan have honor?

[Mark of Zorro]

Do foreign soldiers in Afghanistan have honor? I mean this question in aggregate. Of course even the scummiest man alive might have some small token of honor, but all told, giving extra weight to what is important, he does not.

And so my view that foreign soldiers in Afghanistan, such as Americans, have no business thinking they have honor, because I only see them as deep in a hole.

They followed orders from their government. Is that honor? No.
They went to meddle in the affairs of a foreign country on the order of their government. Is that honor? No.
They joined a standing army, ignorning warnings from our American Founding Fathers. Is that honor? No.
They are in a foreign country attacking a group in their own country that did not attack the soldier's country. Is that honor? No.
They are part of a military or coalition that uses remote control devices to kill guerillas. Is that honor? No.
They are part of a military or coalition that shoots missiles or drops bombs from thousands of feet up, in totally safe positions, calling the high risk of death to civilians below "acceptable". Is that honor? No.
They are part of a military or coalition that violates the sovereignty of nations to acheive war aims. Is that honor? No.

I know there are individual acts of honor done by foreign personnel in Afghanistan. But can those possibly compare to the above? Heck no.

And for all those little acts of honor, there have been plenty of well documented acts of horror. And some were covered up by that same military or coalition. Is that honor? No. Is it honor to fight in such a military or coalition? Absolutely not.

And that is not even getting to what has and has not been accomplished in 12 years of slaughter. Anyone who has not figured out how fruitless all this killing is by now, and has not refused to participate has no honor and no sense either.

In fact, I think most are viewing this as a mere job and have not thought one wit about honor, what it is, or why they don't have it. They make a farce of the word honor. And it makes me ill.

Honor would have been staying home and refusing to participate in that honorless conflict. There is far more at stake as far as honor is concerned on the one simple point than things like comradery with brothers and arms could ever hope to match.

If you are foreign soldier in Afghanistan, you have no honor. And no, the fact of the Taliban having no honor either does not fix it.

 

[BrianLewis]

Would you say that there is anything worth fighting for then?

I can see how subjective the word honor is when you use it to define something that a normal human being would define as cowardice. Is it really that subjective, or is the context wrong?

Have you been to Afghanistan?

 

[Blackthorne]

Deserters, seditionitsts, etc used to get shot in the US military (i.e. Eddie Slovik). If a man or a woman joins the military and later balks at the orders of the Commander-in-Chief and the chain-of-command then he or she ought to be dishonorably discharged. It's as simply as that. A military unit isn't a democracy- or the proper place for "conscientious objectors."

Honor in the classical, organic sense fled the battlefield a long, long time ago. Combat in the 21st century is hardly the sort of combat that, say, El Cid Campeador knew.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

Deserters, seditionitsts, etc used to get shot in the US military (i.e. Eddie Slovik). If a man or a woman joins the military and later balks at the orders of the Commander-in-Chief and the chain-of-command then he or she ought to be dishonorably discharged. It's as simply as that. A military unit isn't a democracy- or the proper place for "conscientious objectors."

Honor in the classical, organic sense fled the battlefield a long, long time ago. Combat in the 21st century is hardly the sort of combat that, say, El Cid Campeador knew.

Being a wind-up tin soldier is one of the most dishonorable things one can be. Even lower would be shooting a soldier for refusing to be one.

Next I suppose you are going to tell me the soldiers who fought for Hitler were honorable men. They weren't. They were god damned fools brainwashed by the same red herrings and misdirection you are trying to foist on us.

Those engaging in wars of aggression and obvious lies that continues for crazy excuse after crazy excuse have no honor. They are wind-up tin soldiers with no brain.

If not for such wind-up toy soldiers with mistaken ideas of honor that lead them to jump on a bus to war just because some guy got to be the leader and wants to be a "war president", these stupid wars could not even happen in the first friggen place.

Considering Afghanistan, America learned nothing from Vietnam. No honor there either.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

War leaders love these little ideas of honor and glory so many of you carry about. Its how they $ucker you fools into dying on the battlefield for their pleasure and riches.

At the very least, Alexander the Great was at the head of his army most of the time. Your leaders sit at home, in luxury, sipping wine.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

While I have some qualms about how WWII got started, it cannot be denied that for America and many others it was a war of defense.

Considering how America got involved, I find it honorable to have fought or refused. While our enemies declared war and even attacked (after being goaded), its not like our enemies were about to invade. So I honor everyone in their choice to fight or not.

But Korea was not our fight, nor was China an old enemy that had to be stopped. Vietnam was not our fight. Iraq and Afghanistan did not need to be large scale invaded to get at al-Qaeda and bin Laden. They just opened fresh cans of worms and death for no good reason, and if you went to fight, you are just a cog in the war machine. Cogs don't have honor.

 

[Davey]

Its how they $ucker you fools into dying on the battlefield for their pleasure and riches.

Although I might agree that fighting a war like the war in Afghanistan might not be honorable, I don't think calling them fools (they are doing their best to protect their country world, and to make a living) for being their... I'm sure that many of them not even agree with the whole thing around it anyway.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

Would you say that there is anything worth fighting for then?

Direct self-defense or the defense of another established country that is not in a civil war.

I can see how subjective the word honor is when you use it to define something that a normal human being would define as cowardice. Is it really that subjective, or is the context wrong?

I don't understand your question. Of course cowards don't have honor, but if one defines a refusal to fight as automatically being cowardice, one is an idiot.

Have you been to Afghanistan?

No. Why do you ask?

 

[Mark of Zorro]

Although I might agree that fighting a war like the war in Afghanistan might not be honorable, I don't think calling them fools (they are doing their best to protect their country world, and to make a living) for being their... I'm sure that many of them not even agree with the whole thing around it anyway.

If they don't agree they should not be there under the flag of a foreign power.

If they choose a side in the fight, they should join that local army or bug out.

And while no one likes to be called out for a fool, I nearly joined the military when I was 18. I was a God damned fool! America is chock full of fools when it comes to military issues. Its why we have such an over-whelming overfunded military that is bankrupting us despite the lack of need, and also how returning veterans get $crewed on benefits. All adoration for the leadership and their wars! Its the friggen Roman Empire all over again. Its foolishness!

 

[Blackthorne]

Next I suppose you are going to tell me the soldiers who fought for Hitler were honorable men. They weren't. They were god damned fools brainwashed by the same red herrings and misdirection you are trying to foist on us.

I am in awe of this use of the reductio ad Hitlerum.

I think the only red herring here is the red herring that you're an expert on warfare, combat, etc. and are in a position to lecture others to this effect. You make all of these broad speculations using words like "slaughter" and "killing" and don't even mention that the U.S. is a signatory of the Geneva Conventions and, as such, has to abide by them in its armed conflicts- or the fact that the U.S. has what're called "rules of engagement."

Please go and read any of the following authors and return to lecture me on the nature of human mass-conflict:

Carl von Clausewitz
George S. Patton
Julius Caesar
Napoleon Bonaparte
Sun Tzu
Zhuge Liang

etc.

Modern mass-conflicts aren't cases of "knights in shining armor." If you want tales of honorable fighters go and read the Arthurian legends of something like Washington Irving's The Chronicle of the Conquest of Granada, which has valiant and honorable fighters aplenty, both Spaniard and Moor.

Anyone who thinks that war is like an afternoon tea is forgetting the proverb of William Tecumseh Sherman: War is hell.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

I am in awe of this use of the reductio ad Hitlerum.

That is just STUPID. Its acting like Hitler and the Nazis were a work of fiction. They weren't! They were real. And I chose that easy example because some people have difficulty wrapping their heads around right and wrong until they get a stark example.

You make all of these broad speculations using words like "slaughter" and "killing" and don't even mention that the U.S. is a signatory of the Geneva Conventions and, as such, has to abide by them in its armed conflicts- or the fact that the U.S. has what're called "rules of engagement."

Right. They "have" to abide, because there world is watching and will surely bring the guilty to justice. Keep dreaming.

For the rest of your post, you are GREATLY confused in thinking that honor on the battlefield overshadows the dishonor of being there in the first place if dishonor is so warranted. In fact, I think you have lost the plot altogether.

A man who truly has honor would never be found on the wrong side of a war. I don't care how many medals he gets. I don't care how many injured buddies he pulls off the field under heavy fire. He won't ever amass enough honor to overtake the dishonor that way. Quitting the war and fiercely campaigning against it would be a good start though.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

I think the only red herring here is the red herring that you're an expert on warfare, combat, etc. and are in a position to lecture others to this effect.

This is not about warfare and combat you fool! This is about honor!

 

[Blackthorne]

This is not about warfare and combat you fool!

Then you shouldn't have raised the situation of "foreign soldiers in Afghanistan" in the OP. Nor brought up "Hitler's henchmen." Etc. What do soldiers fight in? Wars? What do soldiers engage in? Combat.

Errrrr.....

It's not honorable to call someone a fool for disagreeing with/remonstrating with you you know. My own honor is offended. I demand a duel with swords.

This is about honor!

They way you prattle about honor you must really think that you are Don Diego de la Vega. :? Clearly, never having engaged in combat, you're clearly superior to Lancelot du Lac and Robert E. Lee combined about honor in the fighting-man (or men in general!).

I'm Don Juan Ponce de Leon, a pleasure to meet you fellow caballero de Espana.

 

[SevenStarsHK2N]

LOL - you are such an armchair commando in this thread Zorro - It's just ridiculous.

you are showing severe signs of ignorance too.

let me explain something to you.

There is a thing called Force.

There is a thing called politics.

i know you have a habit for just shooting off on the most random directions so lets re-cap what we have so far yea.

we have force - and we have politics.

do you think you can manage to hold these 2 concepts in your head at the same time?

yea?

ok good - lets do something exciting and look at how BOTH are required for a government to function.

you cannot have force without politics - nor can you have politics without force.

Such a situation gives rise to crime, chaos, instability, with the root cause being a power vacuum.

One of the most important things for ANY government to have - be it a dictatorship or the most liberal democracy -

is absolute force monopoly.

again - lets slow down and re-cap.

so far we have learned that.

1. we cannot have politics without force
2. the government must have a force monopoly

The situation in Afghanistan has been such that the government has not had a force monopoly for many years.
This has lead to the rise of the taliban - along with the infiltration of the "World Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders" the
"Islamic Salvation Foundation" the "Islamic Army for the Liberation of the Holy Places", "Qa'idat al-Jihad" - known collectively by the media as al-Qa'ida (The Base) - not to mention several criminal/insurgent networks such as haqqani network.

ok again - we have imparted facts.

lets let them sink in for zoro

1. we cannot have politics without force
2. the government must have a force monopoly
3. in Afghanistan the situation is such that the elected government does not have a force monopoly.

It's worth bearing in mind that the situation has been left unchecked for so long, and NGO forces are so entrenched and powerful that even with the full might of the ISAF - after many years - the elected Afghan government can still not claim a force monopoly

So do the men there have honour?
which was the OP - There is no such thing as Honour in war.
This is something you have gained from films.
Any soldier will tell you that if you have an opportunity to shoot your enemy in the back of the head while his gun is jammed and he doesn't even see you - then you do it.

So yes. The mission has honour
as for if the methods of war itself have honour - i'd say it's either not applicable or the answer is NO for ANY WAR in the history of man ever.

 

[Hezam]

i'd say it's either not applicable or the answer is NO for ANY WAR in the history of man ever.

LoL.......

 

[alecgraham]

You can't have a country without armed forces unless, like Costa Rica, you have powerful allies with armed forces.
You can't have armed forces without soldiers that obey orders instead of questioning them.
They *do* have honor in aggregate because they're putting their lives on the line for us here at home.
Perhaps the politicians who send soldiers into unnecessary wars are less than honorable, but again, we can't have our soldiers second-guessing the decisions of their superiors any more than your white blood cells should question the directive of your immune system.

I know from your conversations with Stephen that you don't respect soldiers, and that's fine.

 

[Blackthorne]

immune system.I know from your conversations with Stephen that you don't respect soldiers, and that's fine.

He does rather come off as an anti-war protester type.

 

[Blackthorne]

So yes. The mission has honour
as for if the methods of war itself have honour - i'd say it's either not applicable or the answer is NO for ANY WAR in the history of man ever.

There would be no Geneva Conventions at all if a sense of honor and humanitarianism didn't exist in armed conflicts. Such as it is honor comes from the belief in something higher than one's own individual ego, i.e. God, king, country, and so on.

 

[BrianLewis]

No. Why do you ask?

My point being that your perspective is spoon fed to you by media that already shows it's biased on a daily basis. If you have no personal experience in the matter, your just babbling another person's agenda. A wind-up something is right.

Would you then say that the Cold War was another stupid American muscle flexing exercise in history? You already claim that America had no business in Vietnam and Korea, since you apparently think Communism is no threat to the world. You seriously think that Russia, Korea, Vietnam and China would not have spread their influence forcefully to surrounding countries if we just let them be? They proved themselves invading 2 of the above mentioned already.

People with honor are those that are willing to fight for a cause that they believe in. Those that fight against injustice also have honor. Those, however, that have no experience in the matter and blindly accept media's sensationalism have no objective perspective and only demoralize those soldiers that actually have some experience in the matter.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

It makes me sad to see people stand up and defend the things our leaders use to make you and your children soldiers in wars of civilian death, plunder, mass murder and dishonor. The spirit and truth of the Vietnam era war protestor is truly dead.
So many sick stories out of Afghanistan and Iraq. And here is a new one: Afghan president to expel U.S. special forces from key province ? Japan Today: Japan News and Discussion

Involvement in this conflict dishonors all who support it, and none more than those who are actually went there to fight on behalf of U.S. government interests. Refusal to accept these things is why the things in the article could happen, and those things explain why it does happen and keeps happening.

There would be some honor in actually joining a group they supported, like the Flying Tigers did. But the U.S. government invented the quarrel with the Taliban, and so to fight with them is dishonor.

 

[Hezam]

the majority of people in the west are still proud of the Crusaders ! And you know Crusaders.

 

[alecgraham]

Zorro's path is a difficult one.

 

[SevenStarsHK2N]

Zorro's path is a difficult one.

lol he has head in the clouds that one

 

[nahadef]

the majority of people in the west are still proud of the Crusaders ! And you know Crusaders.

That is 100% untrue. The Crusades are one of the great embarrassments of Western history. You are severely misinformed if you think there is a grain of truth to your statement.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

Zorro's path is a difficult one.

It takes more courage to stand up to your friends than stand up to your enemies. There is also more honor in it.

The fact that so many people who are not even soldiers cannot muster the courage the deride the whole situation from top to bottom is a weakness. Trying to praise the soldiers while decrying the war is an exercise in rampant double standards.

And supporting foreign meddling in this war in any form is as dumb as it is dishonorable.