[adewinter]

I think that's a pretty disengenous take on the author's thought process. If you read the entire article it's clear that he believes in the concept of defending his country and trusting his leaders to correctly decide how that defense is carried out. If that decision is to send him to the middle east then so be it. It very clearly is not about him wanting to "do a bit of invading."

Maybe you think the middle east invasion was the wrong call. Totally fair. But you should blame the correct actor for that call, and it certainly is not the individual soldier.

[basisword]

>> But you should blame the correct actor for that call, and it certainly is not the individual soldier.

He joined while that war was ongoing (2007). I think it's perfectly fair to judge him in that case when the choice to take part was 100% his.

[adewinter]

Sure, if you're operating under the assumption that a) he understands geo-politics and global defense better than the leadership of his country and b) he has better and more real-time information (than the leadership) about the situation on the ground in Iraq/Afghanistan at the time.

If he thought what they were doing over there in 2007 was morally/ethically indefensible and decided to join up anyway then, yes, judge away.

Probably more straightforward to lay the blame squarely where it's due, at those who made the high level decisions to engage in the war in the first place, especially in the context of the outcomes of said war.