At the moment, 5 US soldiers are on trial for killing civilians in Afghanistan. Should soldiers be put on trial when at war for their country?
According
to the article, US military training raised the percentage of soldiers shooting
to kill from 15% in World War II to 55% in Korean (1950s) and 90% in Vietnam.
Does this mean that military training breaks down a natural reluctance
to kill other humans?
We
all know that atrocities are commited by both sides during war (such as at My
Lai, in Vietnam, in which almost 400 villagers were killed). The journalist who
wrote the article appears to believe that training the troops to think twice could change this. Do you think that soldiers can be shown how to respect enemy troops and civilians?
From my point of view, this article is not well structured and there are different types of wars.
ReplyDeleteA war between two opponents normally was done in a neutral battlefield. Fighting only between soldiers, ready to kill, survive and die.
American battles for saying in a way because I do not consider them wars. These wars are always in enemy territory, usually in places where there are no training military, where since small they carry guns.
The article states that they should teach American soldiers to respect citizens and not be confused with enemy soldiers and to think twice about who they are shooting. This is nonsense, a soldier can’t question their actions, fear, doubt be nervous one person can harm all his companions thinking all this in a battle.
Imagine it's you who is in enemy territory. Without knowing their culture, not knowing their values, without knowing their daily life. Soldiers do not wear uniforms; you can’t distinguish from a citizen. If In a shootout you stop to think about who you're shooting in a few seconds a bullet Impact you across the forehead causing your death, these causes the lost of a father or mother of a family.
I know it’s the same if you kill an enemy, you kill a father. But its or you or them.
The way of surviving in a war is not nice but is the only way to return home.
Pablo Cubero
For starters, I believe that the United States is interfering in matters which are none of their concern, and therefore the Afghans have the right to defend themselves. It's very nice to think that they're being all righteous and helping a country to come out of oppression, but the if the country doesn't ask for help, there's no need for anyone to interfere.
ReplyDeleteShooting a local cannot be tolerated, even if it is by accident. In a war it can be overlooked as collateral damage, as it can be justified by the fact that either you shoot or you get shot at, but it the case of Afghanistan, in which there is no conflict, there should be no civil casualties. If there is, it is simply inexcusable and the shooter should be convicted of murder or, at the very least, of manslaughter. The only case in which it is justifiable to kill a civilian is in self-defense, which I believe is not the case.
All in all, I believe that these 5 soldiers should be convicted and be sent to prison to rot.
Jai Dadlani