"Documentary": Soldiers of Conscience

[Geenie]

I stumbled upon a fairly interesting film which attempts to deal with questions of morality in war. From the website:

"Soldiers of Conscience is a dramatic window on the dilemma of individual U.S. soldiers in the current Iraq War [...] Made with cooperation from the U.S. Army [...] the film profiles eight American soldiers, including four who decided not to kill, and become conscientious objectors; and four who believe in their duty to kill if necessary. The film reveals all of them wrestling with the morality of killing in war, not as a philosophical problem, but as soldiers experience it [...] Soldiers of Conscience is not a film that tells an audience what to think, nor is it about the situation in Iraq today. Instead, it tells a bigger story about human nature and war."

You can view the Trailer here: http://www.socfilm.com/

The full movie can be watched here: http://cove.kcpt.org/video/1219474283/

While the movie does have elements in it that are , the producers did try to give a balanced view of the subject. I found especially interesting the interviews with active duty soldiers as well as Lt. Col. Kilner.

I understand this is a touchy subject and hope that I don't step on anyone's toes by posting this. I agree, however, with the thesis of the producers that the moral issues of war and military service should not be the taboo subjects and that, regardless of which opinions you may hold, it is worth openly examining and discussing them with people who may disagree with you.

I would be very interested in hearing what the service members on this board have to say about the movie and the subject in general. I

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by Geenie

I stumbled upon a fairly interesting film which attempts to deal with questions of morality in war. From the website:

"Soldiers of Conscience is a dramatic window on the dilemma of individual U.S. soldiers in the current Iraq War [...] Made with cooperation from the U.S. Army [...] the film profiles eight American soldiers, including four who decided not to kill, and become conscientious objectors; and four who believe in their duty to kill if necessary. The film reveals all of them wrestling with the morality of killing in war, not as a philosophical problem, but as soldiers experience it [...] Soldiers of Conscience is not a film that tells an audience what to think, nor is it about the situation in Iraq today. Instead, it tells a bigger story about human nature and war."

You can view the Trailer here: http://www.socfilm.com/

The full movie can be watched here: http://cove.kcpt.org/video/1219474283/

While the movie does have elements in it that are , the producers did try to give a balanced view of the subject. I found especially interesting the interviews with active duty soldiers as well as Lt. Col. Kilner.

I understand this is a touchy subject and hope that I don't step on anyone's toes by posting this. I agree, however, with the thesis of the producers that the moral issues of war and military service should not be the taboo subjects and that, regardless of which opinions you may hold, it is worth openly examining and discussing them with people who may disagree with you.

I would be very interested in hearing what the service members on this board have to say about the movie and the subject in general. I

How can you have conscientious objectors in an all-volunteer force? These punks understood on joining that they would be going to combat, and probably fighting for their lives.

These "conscientious objectors" can only be cowards, or those too stupid to realize what enlisting in wartime meant.

If they want to be conscientious objectors, fine, make them medics and attach them to infantry platoons. Don't even issue them pistols.

TR

[frostfire]

I thought there have been already several threads around the psychological cost of killing, which cover the information in the video.

I found the imagery, presentation, even people being interviewed are rather one-sided. Why don't they interview Paul Howe, LTG (ret) Boykin, TS, TR, and other QP's. Oh, perhaps they'll get something along these, which do not fit the agenda well
http://inquirer.philly.com/blackhawk/video_delmind.asp
http://inquirer.philly.com/blackhawk/video_delethic.asp
http://inquirer.philly.com/blackhawk/video_delroom.asp
(The speaker sounds familiar and the same mindset, even exact words, was written in a certain book)

indeed.

The trailer is definitely filled more with pathos than ethos or logos elements. I must admit it's effective, though. I believe no one is innocents, but heavens forbid, if that little girl ever runs towards me with a suicide vest on, whatever the outcome is, it's a lose-lose situation.

[frostfire]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

How can you have conscientious objectors in an all-volunteer force? These punks understood on joining that they would be going to combat, and probably fighting for their lives.

These "conscientious objectors" can only be cowards, or those too stupid to realize what enlisting in wartime meant.

If they want to be conscientious objectors, fine, make them medics and attach them to infantry platoons. Don't even issue them pistols.

TR

Once again, TR cut to the chase, and call a spade a spade....which is why he'd never be interviewed (or the interview material won't make it to the final version) in documentary such as this

[VAV1500]

I believe this would be the gentleman you are referring to:

http://www.homeofheroes.com/moh/cita...ii_a_doss.html

[afchic]

Originally Posted by Brush Okie

While I agree with you your post reminds me of a story I heard of a MOH winner in WW II. He was a conscientious objector and refused to carry a firearm, but was on the front lines as a medic in Europe. Even after seeing war and being in heavy combat he refused to carry a firearm. He did however stay on the front lines as a medic and never bitched about it. He was willing to put his life on the line for this country but could not pull the trigger. I am sure someone here knows his name. IMHO there is a big diferance between this guy and the others that scream peace and love then ask to go home after getting all the benefits of volunteering.

There is also a big difference between being drafted in wartime, such as WWII, and being a conscientious objector, versus today's situation, which as TR noted is an ALL VOLUNTEER force.

[rubberneck]

I have always thought that the term conscientious objector was lame. To me the term implies that the "objector" possesses more conscience than those that aren't. I don't believe that being a combatant and being moral are two mutually exclusive things. They can be in certain instances but not automatically. I know it is semantics but it has always bugged me.

[Richard]

We had a number of guys drafted with us who were from a small religious group around he WV/OH/IN area who did not believe in killing or war or even belonging to such an organization. They just quietly but earnestly refused to wear military uniforms or undertake any form of military training which included weapons or fighting. They did all the non-combat training with us and wore their civilian clothes under the weird green-gray Army raincoat of the time throughout basic and were discharged as COs into the IRR at the end of BCT. I had no problems with their beliefs.

There were also those who were COs - who would not fight or have anything to do with weapons - who were either drafted or volunteered as Medics or Chaplain's assistants and served honorably. I had no problems with their beliefs, either.

Now the guys mentioned in the film at the start of this thread...

Richard's $.02

[dennisw]

I saw this documentary, if you can apply the term to this movie, when it was first on television. I'm not sure if the original title is the same as it is now. IMHO this production is not a documentary, but a propaganda piece. The folks who are feature mainly are a collection of individuals who are suspect at best. Only one was in combat arms, and his story was completely questionable. If I remember correctly, he had a fair amount of time in service, but was still an E-5, and only became a CO at the last minute, right before a deployment.

While the movie does have elements in it that are , the producers did try to give a balanced view of the subject. I found especially interesting the interviews with active duty soldiers as well as Lt. Col. Kilner.

I do not see this at all. I personally do not believe the producers tried to present a balanced view at all. They give a nod to one side of the argument, but the majority of the production deals with three or four individuals who end up leaving the Army as CO's and are very bitter about their enlistments. One guy was very tramautized because he fired his weapon and may have hit an enemy combatant. I believe he was a motor pool guy or an MP of some kind. The Chaplain was pretty good, for a chaplain. But a balanced view? No way.

[Team Sergeant]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

How can you have conscientious objectors in an all-volunteer force? These punks understood on joining that they would be going to combat, and probably fighting for their lives.

These "conscientious objectors" can only be cowards, or those too stupid to realize what enlisting in wartime meant.

If they want to be conscientious objectors, fine, make them medics and attach them to infantry platoons. Don't even issue them pistols.

TR

I don't have anything to add to this..... bottom feeding cowards the lot of them.

[Utah Bob]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

How can you have conscientious objectors in an all-volunteer force? These punks understood on joining that they would be going to combat, and probably fighting for their lives.

These "conscientious objectors" can only be cowards, or those too stupid to realize what enlisting in wartime meant.

If they want to be conscientious objectors, fine, make them medics and attach them to infantry platoons. Don't even issue them pistols.

TR

Exactly! As mentioned, DRAFTED COs have served honorably in wars past. But these boys remind me of Jailhouse Christians. A change of heart to benefit their situation and save their sorry asses from a possible uncomfortable outcome.

[Geenie]

Originally Posted by dennisw

...I personally do not believe the producers tried to present a balanced view at all. They give a nod to one side of the argument...

Upon reviewing the material further I will have to agree with you. Fortunately I believe there are some interesting tidbits - especially for civilians like me - to be pulled from the movie.

One thought that was voiced by Lt. Col. Kilner I agree with, namely that "We have let the anti-war people claim the talk of morality in war" From my personal observations and limited experience I feel that this is more often true than not.
There is a - to my mind pretty interesting and informative - interview with Kilner to be found here: http://www.pbs.org/pov/soldiersofcon...ial_kilner.php
This is also one of the reasons that I decided to open this thread - not so much to discuss the legitimacy of conscientious objector status but in hope of shedding some more light on the moral issues discussed in the film.

Frostfire, thank you for providing those links. I found them to be very interesting and - as you inferred - they provide quite a different viewpoint on the matter of the morality of killing. Here is another video off the website that I thought to be very interesting: http://inquirer.philly.com/blackhawk/video_gdshoot.asp There are many more and it's definitely worth checking out.

I'm sure there is much more material out there than I have been able to find. I will keep searching and would be grateful for any other resources that are provided here.

It would be interesting to hear some more opinions on this.

[Guy]

If you were to stick "electronic" chips on everyone coming over; you'd be able to document, the majority of folks movements to a two-mile radius...Burger King--work--pool--gym--movie--PX--CHU(for sleep or WTF)--Pizza HUT--gym--Subway---Play Station--XBOX---CHU--PX--GYM--Sun Tan--etc.

SOBs killed more pigeons and insects than enemy here yet...PTSD claims will be filed.

Stay safe.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by Geenie

........ but in hope of shedding some more light on the moral issues discussed in the film........

There was a "talking heads" roundtable shortly after the VN war. Dan " fake but accurate" R was a member.

It pops up in many ethics classes.

One of the issues was about if a US reporter was with the enemy and they set up an ambush. What would the US reporter do? Try to warn the US soldiers?

Dans reply was something along the lines of "No, It's all about the story."

[blue02hd]

Mr. Geenie. Not sure this will help, but if you reference some of the work by LTC (ret) Dave Grossman you will find additional in-sight that I believe covers the mentality it takes to work in a combatants occupation. An LEO friend of mine shared some audio CD's of LTC Grossman as he gave a seminar to her agency in GA. Really powerful stuff. In his teachings he cover the "Sheep/ wolf/ sheepdog" example that is covered here on this site as well. I promise you your time will not be wasted.

Two books you can Google by title are "On Killing", and "On Combat". I would tend to favor literature from men such as this than a "documentary" filmed by civilians for a civilian audience.

Since I am here and posting, I would only say that I do not believe in CO. To me this is a cowards way of throwing in the towel in todays volunteer Army. Prior to 911 there may have been those who planned on skating thru the military and passing out MRE's so they could earn college money, but post 911? It's an insult and disgrace to the brave men and women who will buck up and do their duty dispite of the possible consequences. Luckily Sir, your military is literally FILLED with the latter. It's the main reason that motivates me to try harder each day. How many civilians can say the same about their co-workers? I'm sure there are many, but I hope I made my point.

Compare this to your occupation. What would you say if your coworker simply showed up to work one day and declared he no longer felt he could fulfill his contract. Oh btw, he still wants to be paid?

I'm only kicking a dead horse here. TR summed it up much better than I could,,,,