Considering possible topics.

Paper Title

-- By SandorMarton - 09 Feb 2008

C. Case study of military specifically? Significant costs result from the sort of creeds adopted by armed forces as here the "us vs. them" element so central to creeds in general is used to help inflict violence on other people. These same creeds also make "rules of engagement" difficult to enforce. It is difficult to expect a 19-year-old who has been taught that his life's mission is to kill the "enemy" to be able to set aside those habits. War atrocities would seem to be impossible to prevent. On the other hand, the military creed is necessary for soldiers to carry out their duty. Or is it? (worth thinking about). Once our society decides that it needs a military, and if we think that a creed will make our soldiers more effective/save their lives, how do we weigh those interests with the atrocities which are sure to occur? Currently, our society handles the occurrence of atrocities by telling the citizens that the victims deserved it or that the action did not happen. Is there an alternative approach that would allow our military to maintain a creed and simultaneously regulate the costs of use of a creed by an organization whose avowed purpose is killing? 1. Analysis of the military under Arnold's theory. Perhaps this is too simple/easy? Maybe make this one part of the larger paper? Can I perform such an analysis in a couple hundred words? Too cursory? 2. Examine effects. 3. Discuss alternatives/solutions.

Different take on military topic: what happens when two conflicting sets of attitudes/habits that are part of the same creed collide? Consider the "duty to uphold and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic " vs. loyalty to civilian control and the national command authority. If the president illegally declared martial law, how would the military handle the order?

military needs creed to perform function

results in inhumane actions by soldiers

Assuming we want to prevent such actions (not entirely clear... depends on a nation's national creed), how do we do so? is this a trade-off between effectiveness and "humanization" of foreign people? Or can we incorporate good treatment of civilians into our creed. Military has repeatedly attempted this with very mixed results.

Section I. The Military fits Arnold's model

Subsection A. Analysis Under the 4 Elements all Social Organizations Share (keep this very short)

Section II. While necessary for the mission of the Military, these elements also impede efforts to control and direct the military's violence

Subsection A. Discussion of how the military's creed influences combat effectiveness/makes the military's mission possible.

Subsub 1

Subsub 2

Subsection B. Discussion of conflict between creed and efforts to contain violence/avoid human rights violations.

Section III. Resolution?

Subsection A. Can we change the military creed? (yes). Would a move towards a greater value on non-American human life help solve the problem? Military has tried this repeatedly with mixed results.

Subsection B. Is there a trade-off between effectiveness and increased "humanization" of military creed? Is that acceptable?

Subsection C. Does the issue come down to the goals of our society? Most (non-tactical/strategic) institutional change in the military has been driven by civilians

---

You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable. To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" on the next line:

# * Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, SandorMarton

Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of that line. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated list