Should people who never served in combat have a moral say in war decisions?

[MikeMcMansion]

For example, we need intelligence assets on the ground before we start bombing urban areas to attempt to prevent the loss of as many non-combatant lives as possible, otherwise, you have no honor no morals, and you are the enemy. Since ancient times only the Warriors usually decided who was worth fighting when and where and why. Rich old fat chomos Shouldn’t be able to use morals to justify their wars, and neither should anyone who has not fought on the frontlines.

Updates

4 mo

I just noticed AI rephrase my question. My original question was “should people who have never fought on the front lines have any say as to whether their country goes toward or not?”

[FreyaRed]

"Naturally, the common people don't want war... but after all it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country."
Hermann Göring

Hermann served as privileged pilot while WWI and he knew how it work.
Wars starts to turn in deep strike destruction of assets and infrastructure, that's why elites start to think that wars may not always be such a good business like war were in the past. As long as just soldiers died, they were always willing to incite wars and send people in the meat grinder but when a 20k USD drone strikes a refinery and causes 20M USD damage and months long productions stop, elites are unhappy.

[purplepoppy]

I don't think you need to serve to understand war is a horrid thing. I'd also worry that someone with a warrior mindset would be more likely to drag us into war as they'd lack diplomatic skills.

[MikeMcMansion]

Wrong, most of the guys that were on the frontlines in the last war who saw combat who aren’t politicians now or sociopaths will be majority against this war. The way we fought the last one made look into the why, both are as ridiculous as the other.

[Ariesman81]

Isn't this precisely why there is a military hierarchy? Those at the top laying out the mission/objective, followed by Intel and strategists, and followed by the executors.

There is definitely something to be said about rising through the ranks. While I wouldn't trust the President to be a military strategist, that doesn't mean I wouldn't trust his ability to lay out the objective or reasoning behind the objective.

Would I trust a strategist that hasn't been an executor... not a chance.

[MikeMcMansion]

Once upon a time, when intelligence had to be gathered by those with boots on the ground who had grit loyalty and bravery, this hierarchy was somewhat commendable. Military/warrarior hierarchies were earned on the battlefield now they are chosen in the backrooms of hell by blackmailed chomo or chomo protecting bureaucrats

[Ariesman81]

Sure you're not just a little butthurt that Navy and Air Force got the kill?

[MikeMcMansion]

Like most things in life the best results are achieved through hard work sacrifice and patience. We lose the moral high ground when we have have such a high noncombatant casualty rate and say that is acceptable.

[madhatters4]

yes. absolutely. you don't need experience in a field to be able to make moral decisions

i've never murdered someone. but i can say murder is morally wrong

i've never had sex with a child. but i can say it's morally wrong.

i've never been in a war. but i can say bombing a school is wrong.

[MikeMcMansion]

If we want to fight wars with honor, we should’ve started with a ground invasion. Also, it would get people wondering if it was really worth it more than just lobbing missiles at a Third World country that’s fading a 3600 year blood feud with a geographically close neighbor of its region thousands and thousands of miles away from us.

The name of the nation itself was changed during World War II to stand out as different than Israel and more aligned with Hitler’s idea ideas. Israel has been wanting this war to reignite since 1 A. D.

[MikeMcMansion]

I wasted my life joining the infantry, now my
son will probably follow my retarded footsteps

[madhatters4]

we just shouldn't be in iran. the best the western countries can hope for is decent enough diplomatic relations that preserve a semblance of good trade. that's really all we should care about. Iran and most of that region does not want america there. even our allies don't really want america there, they just want to know that they can count on us as allies.

you are 100% correct this is a centuries old issue and American hubris post WW2 made us think that we could solve a centuries old fight. let them fight if they want. we have enough issues to deal with... which was trump's promise

"We will measure our success not only by the battles we win but also by the wars that we end — and perhaps most importantly, the wars we never get into."

"If Kamala wins, only death and destruction await because she is the candidate of endless wars, I am the candidate of peace... I am peace."

so much for all that

[Anonymous]

It's happened all throughout history. At the end of the day no one can make you serve. And those in power are going to do whatever they're going to do. It's up to us to hold the as accountable as possible.

[MikeMcMansion]

At the end of a gun no one can make you serve but its a hell of an incentive, you either fight or die, if you give up and quit you neither win nor live

[Opinion Owner]

True but you can also choose to just leave the country. I get what you're saying though.

[msc545]

Words are generally about economics. All the rest of it is simply window dressing to make others support the decisions that get made to actually go to war. So by your logic such as it is decisions to go to war should be made only by economists. In a way that reflects how it is today.

[Cyfris]

Yes. All major decisions should be met and voted on by multiple sources to allow for as many possibilities as possible and achieve better outcomes.

[WindAtMyBack]

Yes, and that is done intentionally. The military should not be answerable only to itself.

[MikeMcMansion]

In combat thats all they

[Chazmatazz269]

People who haven’t served in combat should have absolutely no influence over military operations whatsoever.

[strateguy632]

yes if they are the one elected to be commander in *cheif.

[Mike_Hum]

Of course. Where does that logic end? You can't make a law about DUI being illegal unless you've driven drunk?

[MikeMcMansion]

That is the most ridiculous equivocation I’ve heard all day. Most guys who have sons right now aren’t gonna want them to go fight in this retarded war who fought in the last one on the front lines.

Unless you have skin in the game, you shouldn’t be able to cast your vote. This war wasn’t even voted on anyway.

[Mike_Hum]

yeah, we don't live in a direct democracy. Sounds good. Should we include restrictions on voting for people who don't pay taxes?

[MikeMcMansion]

Yes, we live in a representative democracy where anyone can vote who’s a citizen and not currently serving in prison. I think we should have restrictions on voting such as being a net tax payer and being forced to sign up for the draft if able bodied at the age of 18 and currently just males- both are good starters for restrictions

[Anonymous]

All a pitbull wants to do is eat, fuck and fight.

[Anonymous]

Yes because war affects more than the soldiers

[Jeff51]

Yes , having experience helps tho.

[MikeMcMansion]

helps what? If our democracy was real, it would still be a bad deal since most people have never fought on the front lines. They’d be persuaded by propaganda and group think.

[beefcakebradybatson]

I'd say so.