What makes a Soldier a Soldier?

Thank you, NOMERCY Sir for your post. I am honored to answer.

I was a lieutenant in the Antiaircraft Artillery of the Italian Army. I never had the privilege of combat but it was very clear for me that a soldier is never a murderer: if a soldier kills another soldier, it's because that's what his duty demands of him.

Being a soldier doesn't mean to be a "9-to-5-Employee" (as many of my friends who joined the military forces think).

So, the first thing a soldier needs to be a true soldier is to consider himself part of an Army... No soldier wins alone or for himself!!
Then, you need a great "spiritual" motivation: you need to believe in your Country, in your Comrades, in your Duty (that means discipline, training, etc.).
And to carry out your duty, you need respect: for yourself and for everyone who is on your side... and even for your enemy: he is a soldier, like you.
A true soldier is never a "monster" who is overconfident in his firepower.
He's a man: it's up to himself to become a Man or to remain a man.

Thank you, again
Alessandro
 
alessandro.pirisinu said:
I was a lieutenant in the Antiaircraft Artillery of the Italian Army. I never had the privilege of combat but it was very clear for me that a soldier is never a murderer: if a soldier kills another soldier, it's because that's what his duty demands of him.
Click to expand...
Unless you shoot a foe who had clearly indicated that he has surrendered.
 
Dear NP8901 Sir,

the post is about "What makes a soldier a soldier".
A soldier, every soldier has a code of honor... which doesn't include shooting unarmed men, surrendered troopers and go on.

Yes, I know it's a jungle... but it's terribly dangerous to say: on one hand there's the "theory", on the other there's the "practice"... in fact, I'm sure no one of your superiors or the people who trained you as a soldier has ever say "Matey, it's a jungle, out there" (at least, on the record).
Regretfully, in today's wars there are many who think "It's a jungle... so I can do whatever I want, until I have a gun in my hand".
Those are called war crimes (committed by soldiers without honor...), even if there's not a court martial to judge on them... I wouldn't need such a burden on my conscience, if I were a soldier.

I can say: it takes a man to be a soldier and not it takes a soldier to be a man.

Respectfully
Alex
 
To shoot an unarmed man in the back is the snipers duty
Is he without honor?

We are today fighting under strict ROE. Ask der alte which ROE was in force for him. You can have your beliefs but don´t judge others for something you have not been a part of. If one of my Marines shot a POW then do not doubt that it would be investigated.
 
Dear 42RM Sir,

are you saying a sniper in the Royal Army shoots an unarmed man in the back?
I'm sure the rules of engagement (decided at N.A.T.O. level) strictly forbid the shooting of enemies who cannot be dangerous.
I have never been in a war, but I was an officer... so I know what I'm saying.

Most important: I don't judge no one!! Not you, not anybody!! We're talking about what it takes to be a soldier.
Yeah, I don't live on Mars: I know what wars are made of... everywhere there are wars conducted without honor: Ex- Yugo, for example, or Afghanistan. where the soldiers of my homeland (Sardinia) who serve in the Brigata Sassari are ambushed every day and bombed and fired...
So what? I don't even know what I could do, if I were there... maybe, I would overreact and fire rounds on every moving target, I don't know. I'm being totally honest with you.
I agree with Der Alte Sir: often (unfortunately) the morale goes fastly out of the windows of the soul.
I don't have solutions, less I'm not doing the morale to anyone... I'm just talking about my ideas and my experience.
And I have the utmost respect for those, like you 42RM Sir, who risk their own lives (and more...) to carry out their duty.

Respectfully
Alex
 
Last edited:
You're wrong. I think you're mixing things here
If you are a combatant you are a legal target. It has nothing to do with whether you are armed or unarmed or pose a physical threat or not.
 
alessandro.pirisinu said:
Dear NP8901 Sir,
how a true soldier can shoot a foe who had clearly indicated that he has surrendered?
Click to expand...
a lot would depend on the circumstances. if the foe has just taken part of an ambush on your squad, platoon, company.... folks might be a bit pizzed and wanting a *wee* bit of payback... would be a dangerous time for the bad guy...

also, if said bad guy would not talk to tell where is buddies are after said ambush, again it could be a very dangerous time for him....(talk or I shoot your azz)

also, if on a mission and a foe is captured... and you are undermanned and the mission is critical - and the foe is a low ranking person (meaning he doesn't know schit about anything) then he may be *terminated* because you do not have the manpower to spare to watch over him or transport him back to the rear....

note: the above scenario's work on both sides of the fence........ such is life in the trenches..... no right or wrong about it - it just is.

now, I date myself for sure - maybe attitudes are different now.
 
Dear Sirs 42RM and M551SHERIDAN,

first of all, thank you very much for your answers.
With all due respect, 42RM Sir I don't think I'm mixing things... but the risk is to oversimplify this important issue.
I agree 100% with M551sheridan: it depends on the circumstances!!
I invite both of you to take a look a at this link:
http://www.isaf.nato.int/article/news/isaf-scr-address-military-roe-and-tactical-directives.html
It's very interesting the difference between ROE's and tactical directives (what you can do and what you should do) in a given situation.
And there's a big deal of difference between "a foe who is unarmed and clearly surrendered" and "a foe has just taken part of an ambush on your squad, platoon, company...": you're right, Sir!!
But I keep on insisting on the responsibility that every soldier has.
In that document I linked, the ISAF spokesman (German Army Brig. Gen. Josef Blotz) indicates a clear example of what I said above:
“If our troops are fired upon from a compound, under the laws of armed conflict…international law, that compound is a legal target... However, the current tactical directive will ask our troops to consider the minimal level of force that’s required to handle the situation”.
I think this is the key point: a military intervention is needed? ok, with all the consequences in terms of enemies killed... but the "policy" is to reduce as much as possible the human losses. (I can make a comment: N.A.T.O. is very precise on this delicate matter, I don't think Afghani are the same...)
And the German Gen. finally underlines that "... ISAF always retain the right to self defense, if commanders believe their forces are in danger they are required to make decisions to protect themselves”. This is the essence of the ROE's (in every time and every war): defence must always be proportional to offence.

In the end, 42RM and M551Sheridan I'd like to thank you again for your contributions.
And let me say something I deeply believe: I can say anything and report any spokesman's conference... but I'm here in my home, while you are on duty, maybe in an operative theatre. So, I'm with you and I support you in the job you're doing... I am (I was) an officer... so I don't question the way in which you fulfil your mission, I fully understand the pressure you're in.
And I thank you for what you're doing.

Respectfully
Alex
 
Last edited:
m551sheridan said:
a lot would depend on the circumstances. if the foe has just taken part of an ambush on your squad, platoon, company.... folks might be a bit pizzed and wanting a *wee* bit of payback... would be a dangerous time for the bad guy...
Click to expand...
POW´s must at all times be protected and reprisal is a violation of the Geneva Convention.

m551sheridan said:
also, if said bad guy would not talk to tell where is buddies are after said ambush, again it could be a very dangerous time for him....(talk or I shoot your azz)
Click to expand...
This is a violation of the Geneva Convention.

m551sheridan said:
also, if on a mission and a foe is captured... and you are undermanned and the mission is critical - and the foe is a low ranking person (meaning he doesn't know schit about anything) then he may be *terminated* because you do not have the manpower to spare to watch over him or transport him back to the rear....
Click to expand...
This is a violation of the Geneva Convention.

m551sheridan said:
what about Special Ops operations....... you mean the mission would be aborted because you had a prisoner?
Click to expand...
Yes, it can be the outcome since you and your mission has been compromised. Normally you avoid all contact with both friends and enemies.

Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War

Article 12
Prisoners of war are in the hands of the enemy Power, but not of the individuals or military units who have captured them. Irrespective of the individual responsibilities that may exist, the Detaining Power is responsible for the treatment given them.

Prisoners of war may only be transferred by the Detaining Power to a Power which is a party to the Convention and after the Detaining Power has satisfied itself of the willingness and ability of such transferee Power to apply the Convention. When prisoners of war are transferred under such circumstances, responsibility for the application of the Convention rests on the Power accepting them while they are in its custody.

Nevertheless if that Power fails to carry out the provisions of the Convention in any important respect, the Power by whom the prisoners of war were transferred shall, upon being notified by the Protecting Power, take effective measures to correct the situation or shall request the return of the prisoners of war. Such requests must be complied with.

Article 13
Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest.

Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity

Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited.

And it´s my goddamn duty as an officer to ensure that these rules are enforced.
 
Last edited:
42RM said:
POW´s must at all times be protected and reprisal is a violation of the Geneva Convention.

This is a violation of the Geneva Convention.

This is a violation of the Geneva Convention.

Yes, it can be the outcome since you and your mission has been compromised. Normally you avoid all contact with both friends and enemies.

Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War

Article 12
Prisoners of war are in the hands of the enemy Power, but not of the individuals or military units who have captured them. Irrespective of the individual responsibilities that may exist, the Detaining Power is responsible for the treatment given them.

Prisoners of war may only be transferred by the Detaining Power to a Power which is a party to the Convention and after the Detaining Power has satisfied itself of the willingness and ability of such transferee Power to apply the Convention. When prisoners of war are transferred under such circumstances, responsibility for the application of the Convention rests on the Power accepting them while they are in its custody.

Nevertheless if that Power fails to carry out the provisions of the Convention in any important respect, the Power by whom the prisoners of war were transferred shall, upon being notified by the Protecting Power, take effective measures to correct the situation or shall request the return of the prisoners of war. Such requests must be complied with.

Article 13
Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest.

Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity

Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited.

And it´s my goddamn duty as an officer to ensure that these rules are enforced.
Click to expand...
I am not arguing *any* of what you have said... is what I was taught also... just saying there are circumstances when smaller groups are involved that schit happens...... has always happened........... will most likely continue to happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top