Might and Right

Might and Right

Although this issue has probably been discussed many times before it amazes me that I still seem to constantly run into people who can’t think well in this area. Here it is.

There are two concepts which seem to get confused, and I would like to try to clear the confusion up. One concept is of the Military, and all that it stands for, and the other the virtue of commands given to the Military from those currently in political power.

Most military organizations have proud traditions based on competence, honor, and a history of serving and defending their country. Their training is rigorous and their expertise often far surpasses that of civilians in selected areas. Military organizations often have a proud sense of group, and group loyalty. And this is good thing and is what it should be.

But there is another side to military action. Those elected every 4 years, in the U.S. for example, are given power to direct the military. The President and the Secretary of Defense have a great amount of power in telling the military what to do. So this raises the possibility of an ethical dilemma. Hopefully, whatever orders are given to the military by these elected civilians will be for pro-survival purposes and to the benefit of all the citizens of the United States, but as we all know, it is possible for corrupt politicians to get into office. As a hypothetical question, what if the President or Secretary of Defense gave orders for the military forces to engage in actions that were for personal profit or other corrupt reasons. What is the military to do? The ethical and moral question arises, is it better to follow the orders of the ‘Commander and Chief’ and thus be ‘loyal’, or is there an alternative. You might say that in war the Congress has to declare war and thus it is the will of the people. But the President has ways of circumventing this measure in times of ‘emergency’. So is it the duty of every military person to follow orders unquestionably, even if they know they are wrong.

The confusion also arises in outsiders, civilians, in that if they think the direction and orders of the political rulers are wrong, and they vocally express disagreement with the proposed, or existing military orders, then they may be accused of being anti-military, or not supporting the military, or not ‘supporting our troops’. They may be called ‘unpatriotic’. Although, one would think it would be simple to see past this ruse, amazingly many don’t seem to be able to. Not supporting a political decision by the ruler does not in any way slight or belittle any of the virtues (aforementioned) of the military. Some seem not able to separate the concept of not supporting the ruler’s political decisions from supporting the military organization.

This crosses over to another similar concept. Along the same lines, some people seem to think that supporting or not supporting those currently in office is the same as supporting or not supporting the country. Thus the issue is distorted into being patriotic or not patriotic. How absurd. Perhaps it is the confusion that Americans still have in that they were used to having a ruling Royalty, who more or less was the country. But we were not set up that way. Presidents come and go but the principles of government by Republic were laid down as the permanent fixtures of our country. Our founders specifically did not want the current leader to have any permanence as with royalty. Wherein lies our lasting loyalty and patriotism then? In principles. What a novel idea. Patriotism toward principles instead of people.

So, again, the big question arises, what if those currently in office are corrupt, or do not make decisions that are pro-survival for the majority of citizens. Where do our loyalties go? Are we unpatriotic if we do not support such a President or Cabinet member, or their actions? Or are we more patriotic if we reject their corruption and support the principles on which our country was founded?

Of course this is just hypothetical, and bears no resemblance to any individual or events currently extant. But it is, I believe, a concept worth pondering. What would you do?