Paper Title

C. Case study of military specifically? Significant costs result from the sort of creeds adopted by armed forces as here the "us vs. them" element so central to creeds in general is used to help inflict violence on other people. These same creeds also make "rules of engagement" difficult to enforce. It is difficult to expect a 19-year-old who has been taught that his life's mission is to kill the "enemy" to be able to set aside those habits. War atrocities would seem to be impossible to prevent. On the other hand, the military creed is necessary for soldiers to carry out their duty. Or is it? (worth thinking about). Once our society decides that it needs a military, and if we think that a creed will make our soldiers more effective/save their lives, how do we weigh those interests with the atrocities which are sure to occur? Currently, our society handles the occurrence of atrocities by telling the citizens that the victims deserved it or that the action did not happen. Is there an alternative approach that would allow our military to maintain a creed and simultaneously regulate the costs of use of a creed by an organization whose avowed purpose is killing?

Section I