Deserters are scum!
Entry posted by Kzoppistan
246 views
As with almost every situation understanding the context is vital for making a judgment of another's actions.
In my mind, what is right or wrong is clearly defined:
First, deserters are scum.
Now, to qualify that particularly harsh statement, here is the justification. Joining an alliance means entering into a pact, a contract if you will, where both parties agree to uphold the tenants of the charter. If one or the other party does not uphold their end of the bargain, the contract is broken. The offended party then has no obligation to continue upholding their part of the contract.
As a nation leader is the sole decider for what is best for their own nation, they have the right to come and go without impinging upon their reputation if they follow the proper procedure as outlined by the charter. But, in several situations, like war, the nation leader agrees to abide by the decision of the military or alliance commander regardless of the damage done to one's own nation.
Unless otherwise stipulated by the charter, surrendering is not desertion. Surrendering is a viable tactic for preserving your forces from ruin and for fighting another day. As long as one fights with the best of their ability for as long as possible, they have fulfilled their obligation of going to war. A person who surrenders and is still in debt to their alliance should return at the earliest moment possible. Those that are not indebted are free to go their own way. A person who surrenders without fighting to any discernable degree has failed their duty. Even when faced with overwhelming odds, a leader must fight until unable or commanded to stand down unless otherwise stated by the charter.
As stated before, when an alliance fails to uphold their end of the bargain, the member has the right to leave without repercussions. If an alliances fails on their end due to incompetence and the member is harmed because of it, then the member is free to go their own way but not due any reparations. They just have to face the fact they made a poor decision to join that particular alliance and suck it up. If, however, the alliance breaks it's side of the bargain with willful malice intended to harm their member, that member is in their right to seek retribution how ever they are capable.
Those are the legalities, now comes what is a bit more subjective to others but still clear in my mind for proper conduct. If a person has received more than they contributed to an alliance, they are indebted to that alliance; if not in writing, then in spirit. If a nation has given more than received, as long as they follow the proper procedure as outlined by the contract they agreed to, who could fault them for wanting to go their own way to protect their nation?
Whether or not a nation is in their right to turn on their previous alliance depends on the manner of which they exited that contract. If a person quits under reasonable terms and then turns against their previous alliance simply because they disagree with them on moral grounds, then they deserve no support, and attacking without justification is frowned upon. If a person is purposefully harmed by their alliance, the public should support them in seeking reparations, either by diplomacy or might. Whether they have the ability to enforce that right or defend themselves against their own wrong doing is a different matter altogether.
Deserters are those that break their contract, especially when doing so just to save their own skin. If a person is against the direction or actions of their alliance, they are still obligated to fulfill their part of the bargain until such time that they can exit gracefully or until the alliance fails to uphold their end of the contract.
Since this is a contentious part of the discussions lately, I'll add this bit, too.
How can an alliance simultaneously claim to protect their nations and yet order them into a war? Especially with the foreknowledge that war will not be won?
Simple: sometimes one must sacrifice a little now in return for something greater later. By demonstrating the ability to fight in the cause of a treaty, an alliance exchanges their infrastructure, money, lives, technology, and time, for things even more valuable: respect, honor, and a good reputation. As reputation is the currency of international affairs, the investment is often worth it. By risking their blood now, they ensure greater protection for themselves in the larger sphere of multiple alliances.
3 Comments
Recommended Comments