"Shot"

I was shot three times three days ago—by a needle. Twice by direction, once by election. It sort of amazes me when I hear of someone in the Service making a big deal about getting some “shot.” While it is true that the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) provides more rights to those under its law than practically any other code, it is also true that those under the UCMJ (during my time in the Service, all voluntarily) have relinquished what are considered basic rights to most citizens of the United States: some of our right to liberty and almost all of our right to the pursuit of happiness. The military performs a sacred duty to the rest of the nation, and though the two ultimate goals of leadership, accomplishment of the mission and welfare of the troops, are generally co-equal, accomplishment of the mission is ultimately the only thing that matters. To paraphrase General Lee, “The great dilemma of the soldier is that he must order the death of the thing to which he has dedicated his life to serve.” To get back to the issue at hand, the military believes that in order to insure the mission is accomplished, given the risk of exposure to certain dangers, it is acceptable to suffer a slight decrease in troop strength to insure the mission is accomplished (without preventive measures, some of these threats would eliminate almost 100% of troops exposed to them). That is their duty to the nation.

My question to those who believe they have the right to disobey an order regarding some inoculation (to which there is a minimal chance of an effect in their life, which effect is immediately treatable and for which the military will take full responsibility), would they also refuse an order to go on a patrol, stand a post, or “take a hill,” (orders that contain a high probability of engagement with deadly force, which effects may or may not be immediately treatable by military medical personnel)? How seriously do people consider their oath of service?

Semper Fi, Jon G.