Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 44 guests

The "Good" Peeps

Join us in talking discussing all things Honor, including (but not limited to) tactics, favorite characters, and book discussions.
Re: The "Good" Peeps
Post by runsforcelery   » Sun May 04, 2014 9:51 pm

runsforcelery
First Space Lord

Posts: 2425
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2009 11:39 am
Location: South Carolina

wastedfly wrote:
Highjohn wrote:Read please


Take your own advice?



Play nice, please, guys. :roll:

Politics is bound to rear its ugly head. After all, I put a lot of politics into the books. I would like to see civil discourse on the forums, however. Whatever happens in Real Life, where civility (alas) is not precisely at a premium.

For what it's worth, my own view is that the "good Peeps" were, in fact, good Peeps trapped in a bad system. That, in large part, is what the People's Republic of Haven was all about when I started writing the books. It is both unrealistic and, frankly, unreasonable to demand that the members of a military organization who have taken oaths to follow the lawful orders of those set in authority over them, and who are (for the most part) genuine patriots, whether or not they approve of their current government's policies, refuse to follow orders when they are given by those same lawful superiors.

There's been a great deal of talk about the legality or illegality of war, not just in this thread but in real life. The simple truth of the matter, though, is that even if "that sort of thing isn't done in the 21st century," and even though there are all sorts of solemn international treaties and covenants about what is and is not permissible in time of war, wars — by their very definition — are extra-legal operations. They represent the use of force — not international covenants, not international treaties, not international debating bodies, but force — in the resolution of differences between two or more sovereign states. Sometimes one side or the other is not a recognized sovereign state, of course, but in essence it is a resort to violence because the objectives of the combatants are mutually incompatible and of sufficient importance that neither side is prepared to surrender its own objective to the other.

When you volunteer to serve, or even when you are conscripted to serve, in your nation's military, you become a part of your nation's policy enforcement tools. You may be sent in to recover a hijacked freighter, you may be sent in to secure a friendly government's stability at its request, you may be sent to invade another country because the national command authority has decided that country needs to be invaded. In all of those cases, you are obligated to follow your legally given orders until and unless you are given an order which is illegal under your own nation's code of military conduct. You may be held accountable by someone else after the conflict, assuming that your side loses, and it has been established at least since the end of World War II that simply saying "I was following orders" is not considered a sovereign defense by the victors. Military personnel, however, do not get to hold up "timeout cards" once they have been ordered into a combat situation. In some instances, resignation may be an option — for an officer — but not "in the face of the enemy" or while on active operations in the field.

Wars happen, and the people who fight them almost always find themselves in ambiguous positions sooner or later. When they do, they rely, as best they can, on their own internal moral compass to navigate, as best they can, within the systemic constraints which bind them. That's all they can do, and to accuse someone like Thomas Theisman of participating in "acts of murder" because the war he was sent to fight was "illegal" is, in my opinion, very unjust. In my opinion, also, it is unreasonable for Honor, or Elizabeth, or Anton or Helen Zilwicki to blame someone like Thomas Theisman because he carried out his orders to the best of his ability. Now, whether or not Anton and/or Helen will blame Theisman for the death of Helen the Elder and refuse to shake his hand, spit in his face, whatever, is — you should pardon the expression — up to them, and I really haven't made a decision one way or the other yet. But you might want to bear in mind that every single one of the Manties I just mentioned here has blood on his or her hands, and if you asked any one of them if every person they killed "deserved" to die or if there was no question in their minds as to whether or not their actions had been justified, you would probably find that their answer would be either "no" or "I don't know."

In specific reference to the convoy attack in which Helen the Elder was killed, there was never any question in Theisman's mind that it was a legitimate military target, and he was entirely correct. Captain Zilwicki was the military escort of a military convoy.

I quote from page 184 of the hardcover: "Two of her huge, clumsy ships were combination freighter-transports, bound for Grendelsbane Station with vitally needed machine tools, shipyard mechs and remotes . . . . and over six thousand priceless civilian and Navy technicians and their families."

From page 181, "Theisman didn't like his present mission, partly because he disliked both Commodore Annette Reichman and her proposed tactics. Given his druthers, he would have moved to catch the convoy six light-years farther along, when it would have had to transition between grav waves under impeller drive. . . . He was also a naval officer, with a naval officer's innate instinct to protect merchantmen, and the fact that two of the squadrons targets weren't really freighters at all only made it worse. But he'd been asked to do a lot of things he didn't like in his career, and if he had to do it, he might as well do it right."

Thesiman's star nation was going to war, and he knew it. The target he'd been sent to attack was a military target. Do I mean to suggest by this that the People's Republic was conducting itself in an honorable fashion? Of course I don't. But Theisman was a serving officer — one who'd already put his career on the line to do the "decent" thing in informing Honor about the survivors on Blackbird — who'd been given legal orders by his legal superiors. Moreover, the war in question was one which had been building for 50 years, against a military alliance specifically and avowedly created to oppose his star nation.

This was a man who loved his country, however imperfect it might have been at the moment, and who was dedicated to making it be the best it possibly could be. He was a relatively junior officer, not yet in a position to do anything about the system whose corruption he recognized full well. When he acquired the seniority and was able to create the opportunity to do something about it, he definitely did. I realize that this is my fictional world, and that my value judgments will underlie and inform the judgments my characters make. I also realize that readers will — and have the right to — make their own moral judgments of the characters I portray. I find it interesting, however, that my Manticoran characters are so well aware of the risks which the Havenite reformers ran — even during the period of active hostilities between their star nations — while apparently some of the readers are not.

Would Honor have attacked the same sort of convoy Thesiman attacked if she had been ordered to? Damn straight she would have. Would she have been happy about it? No, she would not have. Would she have remembered her oath to obey her lawful superiors? Yes, she would have. Would she have done everything possible to minimize the loss of human life aboard the ships of the convoy? Of course she would have. For that matter, so would Thomas Theisman. Every one of those unarmed vessels would have been given the opportunity to surrender, and had they surrendered, they would have been returned to Haven as prizes with their crews and personnel intact. Had they refused to surrender, things would have changed, and even Theisman would have pulled the trigger in that case, just as countless submarine commanders — Axis and Allied — fired their torpedoes during WW II.

I recommend William Tecumseh Sherman's definition of war to your attention.


"Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as Piglet came back from the dead.
Top
Re: The "Good" Peeps
Post by namelessfly   » Sun May 04, 2014 10:46 pm

namelessfly

Well said by RFC!


I stand by my earlier statement that the one Peep who has the strongest claim for being a good Peep is Rob Pierre because he reformed the corrupt welfare state that made it necessary for the PRH to conquer it's neighbors to avoid a catastrophic societal collapse. He also reformed the PRH military. In the process he made it inevitable that someone such as Thomas Thiesman would overthrow and no doubt kill him.
Top
Re: The "Good" Peeps
Post by Michael Everett   » Mon May 05, 2014 3:00 am

Michael Everett
Admiral

Posts: 2612
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:54 am
Location: Bristol, England

Has RFC ever done a post less than 500 words?
~~~~~~

I can't write anywhere near as well as Weber
But I try nonetheless, And even do my own artwork.

(Now on Twitter)and mentioned by RFC!
ACNH Dreams at DA-6594-0940-7995
Top
Re: The "Good" Peeps
Post by crewdude48   » Mon May 05, 2014 3:16 am

crewdude48
Commodore

Posts: 889
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2012 2:08 am

Michael Everett wrote:Has RFC ever done a post less than 500 words?


He replied to one of my posts with a smiley once. One of the proudest moments of my time on this board.
________________
I'm the Dude...you know, that or His Dudeness, or Duder, or El Duderino if you're not into the whole brevity thing.
Top
Re: The "Good" Peeps
Post by Tenshinai   » Mon May 05, 2014 7:21 am

Tenshinai
Admiral

Posts: 2893
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 8:34 pm
Location: Sweden

namelessfly wrote:Well said by RFC!


Indeed.

namelessfly wrote:I stand by my earlier statement that the one Peep who has the strongest claim for being a good Peep is Rob Pierre because he reformed the corrupt welfare state that made it necessary for the PRH to conquer it's neighbors to avoid a catastrophic societal collapse. He also reformed the PRH military. In the process he made it inevitable that someone such as Thomas Thiesman would overthrow and no doubt kill him.


The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Last edited by Tenshinai on Mon May 05, 2014 7:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top
Re: The "Good" Peeps
Post by Daryl   » Mon May 05, 2014 7:40 am

Daryl
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3488
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 1:57 am
Location: Queensland Australia

RFC addressed the matter comprehensively and I humbly agree with what he has said, with one minor quibble.
I personally had a minor example of this as I was a senior civilian member of our Defence force who was deeply involved in planning and supporting our part of the last Iraqi war.
I personally felt strongly against the action for a number of reasons that have since been proven, however I did my job to the best of my ability. Being a civilian I could have resigned but didn't as I believed our service personnel needed and deserved the best support they could get to ensure their safe return home.

Would anything have forced me to resign? If the rules of engagement had not been so rigorous (the US ones were much looser as they are now with drone strikes), if we had been ordered as RFC says to obey an "order which is illegal under your own nation's code of military conduct", or I would have gone further and resigned if I had been ordered to act in disregard of international law.
No "Just following orders mein herr" for me.
Top
Re: The "Good" Peeps
Post by pablopinzone   » Mon May 05, 2014 9:02 am

pablopinzone
Ensign

Posts: 14
Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2014 5:24 pm
Location: NJ

Thank You, RFC.
Top
Re: The "Good" Peeps
Post by namelessfly   » Mon May 05, 2014 9:24 am

namelessfly

Michael Everett wrote:Has RFC ever done a post less than 500 words?



IIRC, RFC responded with a simple "No" to my suggestion that I should be a special production assistant on the movie set who would be responsible to applying the strategically placed soap bubbles on the actress who portrays Honor Harrington that would maintain the film's PG-13 rating.

I continue to suspect that RFC is reserving this enviable task for himself.
Top
Re: Honorverse series, the future..?
Post by kzt   » Mon May 05, 2014 9:41 am

kzt
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 11337
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 8:18 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

namelessfly wrote:IIRC, RFC responded with a simple "No" to my suggestion that I should be a special production assistant on the movie set who would be responsible to applying the strategically placed soap bubbles on the actress who portrays Honor Harrington that would maintain the film's PG-13 rating.

I continue to suspect that RFC is reserving this enviable task for himself.

I suspect he would develop contusions and other injuries if he tried.
Top
Re: The "Good" Peeps
Post by Dr. Arroway   » Mon May 05, 2014 3:53 pm

Dr. Arroway
Lieutenant (Junior Grade)

Posts: 41
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2011 6:52 am

Quite a few points raised, and even by RFC himself, which again makes me guilty of "robbing" him of precious time :oops:
Sorry folks and RFC (even though I'm sure you follow the boards out of passion!).

First of all: maybe I should have chosen my words differently.
I don't really consider Theisman &Co "bad" or "villains"... perhaps I should have addressed them as "reluctant villains".
Yes, that works better.
But I'll go in order.

Whitecold wrote:Here is the actual quote from AAC. Honor does not like her orders, and she's also not afraid of sacrificing herself. But doing so would not accomplish anything, all it would do is put someone else in charge...

The example doesn't really counter my argument as it doesn't take the "Original Sin" into account.
Of course several difficult, ambiguous situations arise during the war, which force painful decisions to serving officers, including Honor.
But the point is, it was the Peeps who wanted the war in the first place, with everything that it was going to produce, so the final death toll ultimately rests on their heads.


namelessfly wrote:While Pierre prosecuted the war with Manticore to obtain more loot to support the PRH, it was his intention that it would be the last conquest to keep the PRH viable while he reformed the economy and educational system. More importantly, Pierre exploited the war with Manricore to motivate Haven's indolent asses to learn how to perform useful work.

Partly I agree, but at best you could call Pierre "driven". He is still a villain.
Killing, robbing and enslaving other free people, even for the purpose of "saving" your own, is still an horrific proposition.
True, Haven was risking outright collapse, and the prospect of immeasurable sufferings.
Still, they should have accepted it as it was all their own doing, and certainly should NOT have imposed that the price for their own failure be paid by their neighbouring societies.


runsforcelery wrote:----

As always you make many compelling points, but allow me to reply in more general terms.
I cannot embrace fully the logic that the oath of an officer is absolutely binding when judging said officer's conduct.
If that were the case, then we'd have to condemn Yu's and Caslet's behavior, which I don't think many would do around here, either.
(by the same meter, Honor couldn't even have accepted their services, as they proved to be officers capable of breaking the officer's oath, by doing it at least once)
The way I see it, they never really broke their oath... they simply "tranferred" it to a place where it held more meaning.

Now, I do understand that a lot rests on the definition of what's "lawful" in terms of what is asked of them (and that that might be the key to correctly interpret Caslet's and Yu's defections), but once again I'm back to the issue of the "Original Sin".
As I said, at least in "our" fictional universe, there is a clear-cut, wrongful, one-sided Original Sin that produced the war in the first place, with the entire death toll descending from it down the road.
So Honor's and Theisman's positions cannot completely be compared.

Lastly, I do have to isolate a more specific answer to this point:

I find it interesting, however, that my Manticoran characters are so well aware of the risks which the Havenite reformers ran — even during the period of active hostilities between their star nations — while apparently some of the readers are not.

I assure you, I fully appreciate what you did with these characters, and the patience that it took to do it right and with the required time.
If it seemed otherwise, well, it's my fault but I was misunderstood.
And I do recognize the value of their courage. I myself would have acted like a true coward in their shoes, I'm all too aware.
What I'm saying is: for me, as a reader, reluctant though those characters are in partecipating in some of the actions of their Navy, they still feel like "villains" to me in a way that I cannot consciously control, in that I viscerally wish for their strategical efforts to fail, and fail hard (which doesn't happen, since they're good at their jobs).

Color me - if you want - as one of those people who, if put in a position like that of Anton or Helen Zilwicki, could not bring himself to fully forgive his former enemies, at least on an emotional level.
Hope that clarifies my feelings while underscoring my love for the books and ALL of the characters (though the Graysons will always have a special place, and remain the true soul of the stories, to me ;) )
Top

Return to Honorverse