Believe it or not military is the root of terrorist. A soldier can't refuse the order of their commanding officer. If the commanding officer orders the soldier to bomb some place or kill someone the soldier must always follow.
Assume afganistan removes all his military , so what happens next , taliban regains control and make few more 9/11 , so unless you write some 200 pages thesis and prove it , no one will take this crap.
I agree with the last two comments. A terroist is one persons "Freedom Fighter" and someone elses "Terrorist" or "Nightmare". There are so many complications with the statement that without the military, that there would be no more terrorists. Take a close look at the world and read up on many different scenrios before you post this, Best Wishes, Mike
they are if they are brainwashed to invade a country for reasons that turn out to be lies 6 months later. I back our foot soldiers all the way no matter what because , as i have said a million times, their intentions are pure (most of them anyways), which is why we need to watch their backs and make sure that we protest when our politicians get them into a situation that they cant get out of.
That's true in theory, but not at all true in practice. A soldier's sense of right and wrong isn't what's at play in determining whether an order is illegal or not, it's his or her superior's view of the order, and the military courts of justice's view. If on review, a soldier was found to have disobeyed a lawful order, the penalty is severe. The military legal system is heavily pre-disposed to the sense that a soldier follows orders - in fact, to incite others to disobey what is later deemed a lawful order is to incite to mutiny, a crime that can bring the death penalty. It can go the other way, too, of course - a soldier committing what is later found to be a crime cannot hide under cover of "I was obeying orders." So basically, absent some extremely clear guidelines, a soldier is stuck between a rock and a hard place - busted for insubordination for disobeying what is later found to have been a lawful order (or executed for incitement to mutiny if inciting others to do the same), busted for committing a crime if obeying what is later found to be an unlawful order. Add to this that international law is itself a complete morass, legally and jurisdictionally, and it is no wonder soldiers don't often know what the hell they're supposed to do. Nevertheless, the extraordinarily heavy "chilling effect" on individual conscience v. obeisance to the chain of command is by design, in any military.
I don't think eliminating the military will make all terrorists suddenly drop their weapons and lead good normal lives. IMO there are many types of terrorists. There are "natural" terrorists and there are those that are forced/brainwashed to become terrorists. Finally there are those that become terrorists because of wrongs [Real or perceived] that have been committed upon them. The military only causes the rise of the third type of terrorists directly or indirectly. Like the women who become suicide bombers because their sons or husbands were killed. Cut off the head and the tail shall wag no more. The military should focus more on eliminating the terrorist leaders and the ones that do the recruiting and training. Killing a footsoldier doesn't do much as he is expendable and will soon be replaced. Moreover his death shall give fuel to the propaganda of the terrorist leaders. The solution isn't removing the military, but optimization of the military so as to reduce civilian casualties.
A unit with experienced NCO's shouldn't have any issues on determing a lawful order. However in cases where there are young soilders a lack of experienced NOCs and green officers, some issues could arise.
I'd beg to differ, Bogart, as Abu Ghraib showed. Basically, a whole ton of experienced enlisted and officers passing the buck - and the grunts got nailed for following their orders. When you've got a chain of command that extends as high up as the Presidency itself, you've got an issue:
There weren't any senior NCOs E-7 thru E-9 grade at Abu Ghraib. The senior enlisted man at the prison was an E-6 Staff Sargeant. Most of the personel involved were E-4 specialist grade.
There were senior officers, giving orders to lesser experienced enlisted. And it appears those senior officers were acting, at least in part, on Executive Order from the President himself, and from the directives of the Secretary of Defense. Precisely because they were lower experienced enlisted, it isn't a stretch to imagine what a young E4 (I was a 17 year old E4) would do, or that they possibly wouldn't know their legal culpability/what to do in the face of orders from above. This simply wasn't a case of a bunch of kids tossed into a prison facility, without any supervision of any kind. I personally feel they were directed to do something that was patently illegal, and were hung out to dry, having followed orders.
The system doesn't funtion properly without the senior E-7, E-8 and E-9 pay grades. A 40 year private is a poor substitute. You never seem to hear that a First Sergeant or Sergeant Major was involved in something like this.
Well, doesn't pass my smell test, Bogart. Congressional Testimony from Sgt. Sam Provance, Abu Ghraib: There have been a good many people coming forward to say it was the officers they reported to who pressured the extraordinary measures. To simply ascribe this to a kind of mass exodus from the military of E6- and above, such that you had E1-E4's reporting to Lt. Col's, and that this excuses those superiors, well, I don't buy it. At the very least, whoever was in a superior position and had knowledge of the illegal actions, is culpable - and yet the ones hung out to dry are the likes of Pvt. England. Again, marching orders for these illegal methods came from the very top - the Presidency and Secretary of Defense. I cannot accept the notion this lays at the feet of a structural problem, due to a dearth of experienced NCO's, and that the blame lies solely at the feet of a bunch of kids. These are the words of the former commanding officer of 372nd MP company, James Villa:
Dealing with terrorists is like fighting a bear, you can't quit when you get tired, you quit when the bear does.
A group of senior nco's would have the power to stand up to officers giving them illegal orders. Softening up doesn't men performing sexual acts on the prisoners.
Depending on which side of things you are on, you may see a "Terrorist" or then again you might see a "Freedom Fighter". Everyone may have their own theory on what would happen; but no one would seem to be 100%. A simple method would be to take out all military targets and their defenses; but the terrorists, tend not to do that and start bombing places like towns, cities or building. Sure, a plane can be high jacked; so can a bus. Terrorism is usually in "spite" of what the government or a country has done before, or in retaliation. Now, on the logistic sides on things. A bomb squad member may have been taught how to disarm a bomb, but where are the morals of that man; they seem lost. Now, the whole point of this is; "Their are two sides, one you call terror and the other is freedom, but depending on who you are and what your orders may be; that is where you may stand" ~ Mike
Perhaps you dont recall the point where we were attempting to get bin laden out of Afghanistan and the Taliban spokesman gave us BS about him being "a guest in their country". Shortly thereafter we arranged to eliminate them from having to make any further attempts to even appear to be an actual governing body. Probably better for them anyway, they seem to enjoy playing the oppressed underdog role.