On The Notion That You Should 'Get Behind The Leader' In A Time Of War.

AnyOldIron

AnyOldIron

Atheist Missionary
Many, particularly Bushites, seem to support the notion that during a time of war, citizens should 'get behind the leader' and offer their support.

Imagine if this principle had been enacted during WWII and the British people had 'got behind' Chamberlain.

We would have had no Churchill, Britain would have lost the Battle of Britain, the US would have sued for peace and the world's Jewish population would be lost.

This notion of supporting the leader regardless at a time of war is a plain fallacy.
 
But, but, If you are not for us you are against us.....

Which exemplifies the simplistic moronic approach Bush et al take...
 
Its a stupid idea. The only time one should follow the leader without question is in the heat of battle where cooperation is crucial.

Civilians back home are not on the battlefield.

Does criticism of the war effort embolden our enemies. Perhaps at time it does for example terrorism is most effective against democratic nations. But this is the price of living in a nation where dissent is a natural and crucial component of the political process.

If you don't like it may I suggest Libya or Myanmar.
 
And where would hitler have been if the germans had not supported him ?
Blind support for a leader is a dangerous thing.
 
IHateGovernment said:
Its a stupid idea. The only time one should follow the leader without question is in the heat of battle where cooperation is crucial.

Civilians back home are not on the battlefield.

Does criticism of the war effort embolden our enemies. Perhaps at time it does for example terrorism is most effective against democratic nations. But this is the price of living in a nation where dissent is a natural and crucial component of the political process.

If you don't like it may I suggest Libya or Myanmar.
Click to expand...
Not even on the battlefield, at least not utterly without question. "I was just following orders" is not a valid excuse for the most heinous of acts.

Refleixively and automatically, yes. That really is essential.
 
Of course with that Caveat. Your commander tells you to torch the village you are obligated to disobey but what I was really talking about was criticizing strategy or tactics. Not moral vs immoral acts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top