Must Soldiers Fight Unjust Wars?

If the state ever legislates an act that says that all the citizens must worship the statue of the Prime Minister/President, do I have to obey the law? Or must I obey a law that says that I should never ever utter a word against the economic policy of the government? Living in such a state of condition would be terrible! It is likely that most people in 21st century may say that it would be better to rebel against such system and overthrow it; put to an end such kind of system. However, as many would be willing to fight against such regime – not even worthy of being called a government – there would be many others who would be willing to die fighting to protect such system.

Wars come and go. Some wars are just; some unjust. If we are to loosely define them, one may define them as wars that are waged to expand territory are unjust whereas wars that are fought in self-defence are just. On both counts, the soldiers play the key role. Even when it is an unjust war, it is the soldiers who go out to the field to fight; and again in just war too, it is the soldiers who go out to fight to protect the people and the territory. Whether it is the US invasion of Iraq on the pretext of Saddam Hussein producing WMD or the Qaddhafi's army fighting to protect his dictatorial regime, it was the soldiers who composed the main fighting unit. The moral dilemma that may emerge before a soldier is whether they join the fight against bad regime or fight and even kill the civilians who attempt to overthrow such oppressive government; or whether to go and even fight in a foreign territory as an occupational army or leave the army.

Army units do not function on democratic principle which guarantees one a significant amount of right to dissent though it is the civil government which may be in place. Whether it is a big army or a small army, army personnel are bound by the oath they have taken to follow the order of their superior. The order given by the superior may not always be just and fair, yet they are bound by the oath as long as they remain in the army. Imagine a situation where someone puts a revolver on your forehead and asks you to shoot a child. You can refuse to shoot and get yourself killed or you can shoot and yet remain blameless. The reason why you remain blameless despite killing an innocent child is because your action was not intentional. This is the kind of situation an army personnel face in a battlefield. You disobey an order of your superior and so get court-martialed or you obey order.

These are the options before a person: first, do not join the army and you face no such situation whether one must fight or not fight an unjust war; you take up other job. Second, join the army but quit much ahead because you see foresee potential dilemma. Third, stay in the army and report for duty and be obedient to the orders given to you. The third option is what many army personnel do. If the fight is judged to be unjust later, the responsible official or officer who gave the order is to be held responsible for the order, not the soldiers acting on the order.