by Nathan Hook

Created on: November 12, 2007   Last Updated: September 09, 2008

The risk of allowing soldiers the choice in which wars they would like to fight in, is making a fragmented, overly political and ultimately unreliable armed forces.

Most soldiers are well aware of the political issues surrounding their deployment and acutely aware of issues when objectives are not being reached or are complicated by political objectives. The reality is that the men and women on the ground are by default forced to do as they are told, as autonomy on the battlefield has to be restricted to those who can see the big picture at the ground level, and so on and so forth, until somebody at the military/political level sees the global picture. Too much autonomy on the battlefield is risky and unfortunately the news is riddled with examples of soldiers who have acted independently beyond specified orders. There is a fine line between national hero, and national war criminal, when it comes to the execution of independent thinking.

By allowing soldiers the opportunity to opt out of conflicts they see as not worthy of national interest, or self interest, runs counter to military doctrine and the constitutional interests of the nation. The military is a tool of the state and must be loyal to it and the demands the state makes of it, even if the political/military objectives appear unclear to individuals within the services. This is why cowardice, desertion or dereliction of duty can be so serious, since it not only impacts at a local operational level, but is also, in the grand scheme, a crime against the state. Exceptions of course exist around the area of using the military tool against the state's own populace. However, this is what separates modern democracies from borderline democratic or military dictatorships, where the military is very much an active political animal and may at any time initiate moves against itself, so to speak, or a civilian administration. Just examine Fiji at the moment for a good example of a highly political military in power.

In a military the size of the US's, imagine the complications of various branches, individuals or commanders deciding not to go to war, or acting purely on self interest. The need for a cohesive pattern in which everyone is sailing in the same direction is crucial, you have to rely that your commanders on the ground and behind the lines are competent to get you out of situations you can't handle at the front and have enough political savvy to communicate effectively with the head to minimize stuff ups. Unfortunately war is not the exact science some people would like it to be and even well thought out campaigns can go belly up - its' nothing new. What keeps the ship steady is the professionalism and training of individuals and keeping your focus on the objective, not people deciding to opt out.

Learn more about this author, Nathan Hook.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.