What is military "honour"?

[Darth Wong]

For thousands of years, soldiers have trumpeted the idea of "honour" on the battlefield. Today, we hear Americans recycling the Nixonian phrase "peace with honour". The Klingons on Star Trek virtually made the word into a joke.

But has anyone ever really defined exactly what military "honour" actually is? The relevant dictionary definition for "honour" is pretty vague, describing that which is admired or respected, but that doesn't help us decide what the requirements for "honour" actually are; only that most people admire and respect them.

[Shroom Man 777]

The whole willing to die for the man next to you, putting your lives in danger for the benefit of your country? The whole servitude to the government and the people bit?

I don't think there's any real honor in killing people, but that's not all a soldier does.

Military honor would be like the honor of holding a public office, working for the government and all...but unlike some pencil pusher in some government building, military people can get shot and stuff. But this kind of honor could also apply to law enforcement.

Hrm. Oh, and before we had the whole serving the people and the government shtick, honor probably meant which warrior had the biggest dick and killed most folks and raped most conquested womens.

[Vympel]

For thousands of years, soldiers have trumpeted the idea of "honour" on the battlefield. Today, we hear Americans recycling the Nixonian phrase "peace with honour". The Klingons on Star Trek virtually made the word into a joke.

Colbert mocked the concept on a recent show:-

Link

Complete with Klingon jokes.

I don't think the word "honour" as used in current political discussion has any meaning whatsoever. It's just blather that is today used by warmongers as a euphemism for wanting to save face for the debacles they get the country in- look at that idiot, Huckabee's droning on about honor (which to him seems to mean "not leaving Iraq without victory") in the face of Ron Paul being brutally frank (the video doesn't include Paul responding to Hucakbee's BS by saying it wasn't honour, it was face-saving)

Maybe in old military conflicts, when a general had a formidable opponent, he might consider him an "honorable" enemy (ie simply to be admired) but meh.

[Big Orange]

Honour is a hollow and trite cliché to dress up the military profession (although it would not be such a bad term if it was applied only to genuine military heroism).

[Raw Shark]

But has anyone ever really defined exactly what military "honour" actually is?

Only the Role-Playing Games to the best of my knowledge. Here's my personal favorite:

Code of Honor (Soldier's): An officer should be tough but fair, lead from the front, and look out for his men; an enlisted man should look out for his buddies and take care of his kit. Every soldier should be willing to fight and die for the honor of his unit, service, and country; follow orders; obey the "rules of war"; treat an honorable enemy with respect *snip* and wear the uniform with pride. [-10 Points]

[B5B7]

Honour belongs to the days when princes lead their own armies into battle.
Today's politicians are cowards without honour - whether it be military or personal.
So there is the honour of leaders; there is the honour of individual soldiers - also little seen.
Personal honour concerns matters such as truth and moral courage - not big concepts with many leaders of today's societies - in the areas of journalism, politics, business, etc.
As the title of Lee Iacocca's recent book says - "Where Have All the Leaders Gone?"

Honour in the sense often thought of usually belongs in fiction, not in real life, however there are some, one might say honourable, exceptions - men such as Major Mori - the US Marine defense lawyer for David Hicks; contrast his behaviour with that of Oliver North who was a traitor who is treated as a hero by many Americans.

[Eleas]

But has anyone ever really defined exactly what military "honour" actually is? The relevant dictionary definition for "honour" is pretty vague, describing that which is admired or respected, but that doesn't help us decide what the requirements for "honour" actually are; only that most people admire and respect them.

Like many of the more enduring ideas, I'd say that behind the subjective bullshit there's something recognizable as military "honour". I'd define it as accepting responsibility (and by extension, blame). This responsibility may extend not just to your own side, but to the enemy - it is often seen as honourable to defeat the enemy while causing him as little suffering as possible. One might call it a willingness to defeat the enemy in as "civilized" a way as possible.

As for its merits or lack thereof, that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

[Sidewinder]

I define honor as living up to the ideals that are valued by a certain group of people, e.g., being brave and willing to make sacrifices for the greater good. Mind you, depending on the group of people in question, honor can be used to justify horrendous atrocities, e.g., the Holocaust and the 9-11 terror attacks. That's why I believe integrity is more important than honor.

[Phantasee]

Eleas's comment about defeating the enemy without causing him undue suffering reminds me of something a veteran told me about napalm: in his view, napalm was "one of the least honourable weapons [he] ever had to deal with."

Burning your enemy to death is hardly honourable, is it?

Which brings me to my next point: was it honourable to fight the other man, one-on-one, hand-to-hand?

[PeZook]

Which brings me to my next point: was it honourable to fight the other man, one-on-one, hand-to-hand?

Some people justify this like this: If you fight someone hand-to-hand, it means he actually has a chance of defeating you, if he's smart, strong and brave. Thus, unlike shooting him with a musket or crossbow or rifle, you actually risk injury and death every time you take your sword and fight.

Of course, knights who came up with the whole concept thought nothing of splitting an ill-trained ill-armored peasant's skull in battle, while protecting themselves with thick armor and wielding excellent weapons.

...and then got their panties in a bunch when some lords began equipping their peasants with crossbows. Apparently, fair fights are only good when they suit both involved parties.

[Eleas]

Of course, knights who came up with the whole concept thought nothing of splitting an ill-trained ill-armored peasant's skull in battle, while protecting themselves with thick armor and wielding excellent weapons.

...and then got their panties in a bunch when some lords began equipping their peasants with crossbows. Apparently, fair fights are only good when they suit both involved parties.

Indeed. Of course, "battlefield honour" during those times was considered the province of the nobility anyway. A peasant could wield dishonorable weapons, but I've yet to hear of any peasant considered an honourable fighter. I guess that to be seen as honourable, you have to be considered a person.

[PeZook]

Indeed. Of course, "battlefield honour" during those times was considered the province of the nobility anyway. A peasant could wield dishonorable weapons, but I've yet to hear of any peasant considered an honourable fighter. I guess that to be seen as honourable, you have to be considered a person.

It's funny that once everybody had to grudgingly accept that yes, armor was gone, victory and survival of the nobility depended on masses of commoners armed with firearms, and there was no way to get the "War as a summer sport with a small risk of death" times back, suddendly a lot more men got to actually receive the glory of participating in "honorable" events.

[consequences]

I heard a soldier I knew once describe it simply as "always doing the right thing, even when you don't have to."

That would be about it, the difficulty comes in defining 'the right thing' with any precision.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Saying there's honour on the battlefield is akin to saying politicians are altruistic. The whole point of the war is to out-brutalise the enemy. At the ground level, the troops will be so caught up with the instinct for survival they would be fighting savagely.

And the politicians will swoop in for the spoils, after they won this mini-competition for resources.

[consequences]

Saying there's honour on the battlefield is akin to saying politicians are altruistic. The whole point of the war is to out-brutalise the enemy. At the ground level, the troops will be so caught up with the instinct for survival they would be fighting savagely.

And the politicians will swoop in for the spoils, after they won this mini-competition for resources.

No, the point of the war is to get the enemy to stop fighting. While killing every last enemy works in that regard, getting them to surrender does too, and often cheaper and easier, which is a great deal of the practical, cold-blooded reasoning behind the so-called laws of warfare.

[Aaron]

I heard a soldier I knew once describe it simply as "always doing the right thing, even when you don't have to."

This is pretty much it, the milage varies with the individual soldier and the military their in but lots that I've met try to apply this.

[Lonestar]

For thousands of years, soldiers have trumpeted the idea of "honour" on the battlefield. Today, we hear Americans recycling the Nixonian phrase "peace with honour". The Klingons on Star Trek virtually made the word into a joke.

But has anyone ever really defined exactly what military "honour" actually is? The relevant dictionary definition for "honour" is pretty vague, describing that which is admired or respected, but that doesn't help us decide what the requirements for "honour" actually are; only that most people admire and respect them.

Stuff like "Adultery" written into the UCMJ is what pushed the idea of "Military Honor", I think. How many people in the civilian world get fired for having an affair?

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

No, the point of the war is to get the enemy to stop fighting. While killing every last enemy works in that regard, getting them to surrender does too, and often cheaper and easier, which is a great deal of the practical, cold-blooded reasoning behind the so-called laws of warfare.

The enemy only stops fighting only when it has been brutalised beyond hope. People don't quite surrender unless they have lost sufficiently enough that fighting on becomes meaningless.

World War II became a war for survival by and large.

[Patrick Degan]

For thousands of years, soldiers have trumpeted the idea of "honour" on the battlefield. Today, we hear Americans recycling the Nixonian phrase "peace with honour". The Klingons on Star Trek virtually made the word into a joke.

But has anyone ever really defined exactly what military "honour" actually is? The relevant dictionary definition for "honour" is pretty vague, describing that which is admired or respected, but that doesn't help us decide what the requirements for "honour" actually are; only that most people admire and respect them.

A pleasant illusion which losing generals believe will give any half-assed plan of theirs the edge in battle against overwhelming odds-against and which politicans use as an excuse to bludgeon those who want to pull the troops out of a useless war started by those selfsame politicians —who'd rather see a million men fall than admit to the mistake.

[K. A. Pital]

Generally military honour is to follow the code of war currently used by social institutions.

A military man dishonors himself when he breaks the code of war.

Also, the command can be dishonored if it refuses to do it's duty and runs away amidst a war, since it then violates the war code of the society it's in - some main document about army functioning, Constitution, or elsewhat.

That's what I understand under "honor" and "dishonor". Honorable combat means acting according to the legal codes of war, both internal and international.

[FSTargetDrone]

John McCain repeatedly says he wants the US military to withdraw from Iraq "with honor" or "honorably leave" the country. Or words to that effect, but always with "honor."

I think what he's really saying is that he doesn't want to see the military leave on anything other than its own terms, that he wants to avoid the ignominy of retreat, to avoid another bitter taste of the United States' withdrawal from Vietnam. He doesn't want to see them leave in disgrace, perhaps. And I get this niggling little voice in my head that attitudes like this are implying that it's better to die well in this war than to leave now, cutting the losses and not throwing more good lives after dead.

Each individual may act honorably or dishonorably, but as far as I'm concerned, collectively, the only honor or dishonor lies at the feet of those people who sent the military there in the first place.

[Darth Wong]

It seems to me that one's use of the word "honour" says more about one's own character than it does about the actions themselves. Some would say that the US dishonoured itself by invading a foreign country under false pretenses, and continues to dishonour itself by violating various rules of conduct and even its own Constitution in its zeal to make sure the lines between "good" and "evil" are clearly drawn. However, others seem to think that none of this dishonours the US in any way, and that they conduct themselves with "honour" as long as they save face by refusing to retreat from a bad situation or admit wrongdoing.

[SirNitram]

Endless idealist that I am, I'd say honour is a matter of being honest and taking responsibility for your actions, and at least doing what you can to accomplish positive outcomes.

Mind you, this definition means a lot of the 'Brass' of the US Military has stained their honour quite deeply.

[Sidewinder]

It seems to me that one's use of the word "honour" says more about one's own character than it does about the actions themselves.

As I said, honor means living up to certain ideals valued by a certain group of people-- people who want to have honor must submit themselves to other people's scrutiny and judgment. Of course, the ideals valued by one group of people can easily be considered dishonorable by another group-- see "honor killings."

[The Yosemite Bear]

And as I recall the last time someone talked about Battle Honour in modern warfare, it's been the exclusive privaledge of those who are in the position of the modern equivalent of the knights on horseback. Fighter pilots.