Further to this, I'm sick of people trying to apply morality to soldiers.
We can debate the morality of volunteering to serve a corrupt country but, once you join, you lose agency and responsibility. That's the point of soldiers.
If they want to go after the commander for allowing atrocities, fine. Or the general whose plan created the battle, or the politicians who created the situation, or the people who wanted the land. But the soldiers were risking their lives to do their jobs and should be recognized for doing so.
You have just summarized the distinction between jus ad bellum and jus in bello from Just War Theory, which I would hope every military officer in the world understands.
...just war theory offers a series of principles that aim to retain a plausible moral framework for war. From the just war (justum bellum) tradition, theorists distinguish between the rules that govern the justice of war (jus ad bellum) from those that govern just and fair conduct in war (jus In bello) and the responsibility and accountability of warring parties after the war (jus post bellum).
Sadly I have observed many people do not make the distinction.
Further to this, I'm sick of people trying to apply morality to soldiers.
We can debate the morality of volunteering to serve a corrupt country but, once you join, you lose agency and responsibility. That's the point of soldiers.
If they want to go after the commander for allowing atrocities, fine. Or the general whose plan created the battle, or the politicians who created the situation, or the people who wanted the land. But the soldiers were risking their lives to do their jobs and should be recognized for doing so.
You have just summarized the distinction between jus ad bellum and jus in bello from Just War Theory, which I would hope every military officer in the world understands.
Sadly I have observed many people do not make the distinction.
Agreed