I was interested in this article, specifically, where Alisdair Macintyre wrote: "We all approach our circumstances as bearers of a particular social identity … I belong to this clan, that tribe, this nation … As such I inherit from the past of my family, my city, my tribe, my nation, a variety of debts … and obligations." However, when your view is a global one, your family/clan/tribe is that of all humans (and, ideally, all living things - including flora and fauna) and you consider nationalism to be just another form of bigotry (often applied by those seeking a benefit or advantage over others for their own self-interest which is surely not a very familial, clannish or tribal thing to do when the group you are doing these things against is your own) and an obstacle to global peace and good will for all members of your clan/tribe - one might begin to see those who subscribe to a more 'limited' perspective as terribly short-sighted or, perhaps, even narrow-minded. Besides, as many will attest, soldiers seem to spend a lot more time serving the interests of congressmen, leaders and others in the ruling class as an extension of force for the protection of their own assets, rather than the good of the people in general, despite that being the reason they were empowered. At least, this is what I find myself thinking on far too many occasions and, as a soldier, also often believed. I do my best to keep an open mind, so there are, of course, examples in history and even occurrences in the modern day where such force is warranted, though, it is most often for defensive - rather than offensive - purposes. I suspect that much more critical thinking should be involved before applying oneself to a situation in order to make sure that its nature is true. It is terribly easy to 'drink the Kool-Aid' without reading the label but, in many cases (such as JONESTOWN), reading the label is well advised. It may be valuable to read this article (cognitive bias aside).

I was interested in this article, specifically, where Alisdair Macintyre wrote: "We all approach our circumstances as bearers of a particular social identity … I belong to this clan, that tribe, this nation … As such I inherit from the past of my family, my city, my tribe, my nation, a variety of debts … and obligations." However, when your view is a global one, your family/clan/tribe is that of all humans (and, ideally, all living things - including flora and fauna) and you consider nationalism to be just another form of bigotry (often applied by those seeking a benefit or advantage over others for their own self-interest which is surely not a very familial, clannish or tribal thing to do when the group you are doing these things against is your own) and an obstacle to global peace and good will for all members of your clan/tribe - one might begin to see those who subscribe to a more 'limited' perspective as terribly short-sighted or, perhaps, even narrow-minded. Besides, as many will attest, soldiers seem to spend a lot more time serving the interests of congressmen, leaders and others in the ruling class as an extension of force for the protection of their own assets, rather than the good of the people in general, despite that being the reason they were empowered. At least, this is what I find myself thinking on far too many occasions and, as a soldier, also often believed. I do my best to keep an open mind, so there are, of course, examples in history and even occurrences in the modern day where such force is warranted, though, it is most often for defensive - rather than offensive - purposes. I suspect that much more critical thinking should be involved before applying oneself to a situation in order to make sure that its nature is true. It is terribly easy to 'drink the Kool-Aid' without reading the label but, in many cases (such as JONESTOWN), reading the label is well advised. It may be valuable to read this article (cognitive bias aside). - The soldier in battle is confronted with agonising, even impossible, ethical decisions. Could studying philosophy help?