is this position logically defensible? (pro-war,surge,...)

[R. U. Serious]

I would like to ask if any of you can think of a logically sound wa of defending the following position for Person A

1) A believes the war of his own country in (foreign) country X is a clash of civilisations, that is decisive for the long-term survival of A's own country. The war in A's view has utmost importance and must be won, even at high costs.
2) All Experts (across ideological barriers and independent of how they view the war) agree that the ongoing shortage of soldiers in the volunteer army of A's country has a very noticable net negative effect on the war effort. In fact, some say the war can only be won, if more people enlist; in other words: More people enlisting is a key factor for winning the war.
3) A has no physical or psychological disabilities that prevent him from enlisting. A is at a reasonable age for enlisting.
4) A does not want to enlist for the war [citing reasons other than in 3)]
5) A does not support a draft


Do all those positions go together in a logically sound way? Notice that I've left a lot of wiggle room in 4., so you can find "reasons" that fit the mentioned criteria and enable a logical consistent position [if possible].

[Ritterin Sophia]

I can only think of one possibility myself. Are they a single parent who has no close relatives?

[Sam Or I]

What is person A's argument? I am not sure i completely understand.

If him believing in the war has nothing to do with him not wanting to fight in the war. He can be 100% correct that the war is just and needs to be fought. That does not matter if he actually wants to fight in it himself, and it has no real baring on the war.

He is believes he is correct, and does not stand by his beliefs is a different arguement. Either he is not loyal to his country and wants country X to win. Or he is to scared to fight himself (which is most likely the case), or he can be an elitist and say its not his duty to fight, but wants others to do it for him.

[R. U. Serious]

That does not matter if he actually wants to fight in it himself. [...] Or he is to scared to fight himself (which is most likely the case), or he can be an elitist and say its not his duty to fight, but wants others to do it for him.

Absolutely right. My OP is rather sloppy. There's relevant somestuff either missing or wrong in the OP for it to make sense on it's own. I tried to abstract away the specific somewhat of what is currently being discussed w.r.t. the Iraq war. As here for example:
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2007 ... untry.html
I should have asked whether it is morally defensible in a logically consistent way to hold all those beliefs, or maybe add that at the same denying accusations of "cowardice" and "elitism" - I'll need to rethink this...

[Magus]

Do all those positions go together in a logically sound way? Notice that I've left a lot of wiggle room in 4., so you can find "reasons" that fit the mentioned criteria and enable a logical consistent position [if possible].

There's nothing really illogical about his beliefs... it would simply seem that he considers his own life/livelihood/well-being more important than doing his part in guaranteeing his country wins the war. The "high cost" that it will take to win the war is alright in his book, so long as that cost is levied against everyone but him. That's a judgment call, and while you can disagree with his priorities, they can't be "wrong" per-se.

If you added a claim such as "The good of a country automatically trumps the good of an individual citizen," then you might have a logical error. The problem here is that he seems to think he's more important than everyone else in the country.

[TithonusSyndrome]

War needs industry, too. There's nothing saying he couldn't work in a factory instead of lugging a gun, unless he's concerned about the enemy targeting his nation's industries.

[wolveraptor]

War needs industry, too. There's nothing saying he couldn't work in a factory instead of lugging a gun, unless he's concerned about the enemy targeting his nation's industries.

Yes, but the idea is that A's country is not lacking in industry, but in volunteers, so he's really not contributing significantly by staying at home.

[TithonusSyndrome]

I didn't get the impression that industry was undermanned from the OP, just that the army was. If industry is employed to the max, then why hasn't the government enlisted some of these factory workers if the nation's survival is at stake?

[Darth Wong]

The person in the OP has a logically flawed argument, but not because of his own refusal to enlist. That makes him a hypocrite, but it is possible for an idiot or a hypocrite (or in this case, both) to still make a valid argument.

Or, to put it another way, if a murderer says that it is wrong to murder people, he is right even though he's a murderer and failed to obey his own teachings. The fact that he's a contemptible hypocrite is a character flaw and is fair game if you're comparing yourself to him on the basis of moral character, but it doesn't necessarily indicate a logical flaw in his original argument.

Of course, the original argument isn't even really an argument; it is a collection of claims with no real justification. The people who claim that they need to invade other countries in order to protect their own are invariably just parroting Hitler's technique of "attack in self-defense". They can't justify their assertion that their own country faces imminent destruction if not for this foreign action, so they simply state it and restate it as if it's obvious.