Links
-
Blogs, in vague order of updatedness/niceness
- Funny Lonely Life
- Something about a future God...
- Dave's Blog
- Penny Arcade
- Bash
- Questionable Content
- XKCD
Other links
Archives
- June 2003
- July 2003
- August 2003
- September 2003
- October 2003
- November 2003
- December 2003
- January 2004
- February 2004
- March 2004
- April 2004
- May 2004
- June 2004
- July 2004
- August 2004
- September 2004
- October 2004
- November 2004
- December 2004
- January 2005
- February 2005
- March 2005
- April 2005
- June 2005
- July 2005
- August 2005
- September 2005
- October 2005
- December 2005
- January 2006
- March 2006
- April 2006
- May 2006
- February 2007
- June 2007
- March 2008
It's only semi autobiographical
Wednesday, January 04, 2006
The crime of war
The armed forces are an organisation that brings, by and large, suffering to the world.
Funny thing is, many people were saying, at the outset of the war in Iraq, that they did not support the reasons for going to war, but now that the troops were out there, they supported our brave lads. I do not know why they said that, perhaps it was because they did not want to be seen as uncaring, or unpatriotic. Perhaps they had genuine empathy for those whose lives were at risk.
I, however, have come to the opposite conclusion. There is a clear need for our armed forces, they provide us with safety, and work as a fulcrum for what leverage we have in the world today. In the current world climate, having an army, navy and airforce is no luxury, and I understand why some people insist on pouring public money into it. It is a tool we need, just as America needed its nuclear weapons in the cold war.
This does not make it a good thing.
The people who serve in the forces are needed, not all weapons of war can be automated after all. We need people brave enough, disciplined enough to lay down their lives on demand, to protect just an inch of our soil.
Are they heroes because of this? Would they still be heroes if they did not serve in the forces?
Just look at the situation with the United States Army, torture, beatings, a degrading attitude to the Arabic people, prisoners and, given the latest information I have seen, one another.
I can only hope that the same is not true in our own forces, for that would stretch the limit of my patriotism far past its breaking point. I do not know anyone serving in the current conflicts, so I can not pass judgment.
When you ignore the fact that you have a loyalty to your own troops, and look at it objectively, what do you have in a war? You have two (to keep it simple) rival factions fighting, with lethal force, over an issue, be it territory, honour, ideology, resources, or any other reason you care to name.
It was the word territory that made me think "gang warfare" which is, essentially, the same thing. Yet the same people who tell you that what we are doing with regards to war is right, will surely tell you gang warfare is wrong.
If it is wrong to hold each soldier to acount for each of his actions, then perhaps it is also wrong to attatch merit to them.
Reductively, think of it like this. Two men are fighting over something, a strip of land in their back gardens, say, and it may well be valuable, perhaps it has an old oak tree in it. The men reach breaking point, both go to their houses and take out guns, shoot, and...
Who do you hope wins? Is this situation right? Lets make it easier, man A is legally in the right, man B is not, but feels morally right, perhaps his great grandfather planted the tree in question. Now who is right?
Everyone hates lawyers (in general) but they seldom operate outside the law. Robin Hood was an outlaw, but loved by many. And yet the excuse for going to war is that a country may have broken international law... What decides which morals we should follow.
As normally happens, I have written this in pieces, interdispered with discussion, over the course of several hours, so I reserve the right for it to be disordered and making little sense in places.
This is clearly a longer debate than I have time to write about now. But think about it. I know I will.
Comments:
Just a few points here. Far from "by and large bringing suffering to the world", I think you'll find that the armed forces do do some good. Apart from the work done within the UK, (ie. Search and Rescue helicopters operated by the RAF and Royal Navy which save hundreds of lives every year; the fire cover provided by the Royal Navy whilst the Fire Service was on strike; and fishery protection craft combatting piracy) I would point you in the direction of the work done by the crew of HMS Chatham during the Asian tsunami to provide humanitarian aid, as well as countless instances of the British military contributing to relief efforts after natural disasters. I can understand how it is easy to think otherwise, given the the Armed Forces only really seem to get coverage when a small minority break the rules. Whilst I understand that most of what you have written seems to be levelled at the US military, you cannot deny that certain aspects can be applied to any serving member of any armed force in the world. Whilst I won't pretend that every member of the Forces joins with the intention of doing good, I'd hope that you recognise that certain people do think beyond their own four walls and want to go out and make a difference in the world. By this, I don't mean just blowing things up. I myself found myself envious of those on board the Chatham who did so much good work after the tsunami, just because they played a real part in helping rebuild the areas affected. For those who don't already know me, yes I am a member of the forces, and by writing this it would seem I am capable of more than just inflicting death and destruction upon the planet. I just ask that not all military personnel are tarred with the same brush as the ones who (quite rightly) get caught and prosecuted for crossing the line.
# posted by 
: 2:06 pm
: 2:06 pm
Indeed, as Andy says. Also UN peacekeeper's main role is to protect the innocent, and you could argue they do good.
The fact is that in the US at least, the uneducated and underpriveleged make up the army, as it is actually probably their best route in life. You make interesting points, but I do generally suppor my troops in that I hope they get home ok, just as I hope most Iraqis are ok. Mmm, I do get your point though, and it's a tough one.
The fact is that in the US at least, the uneducated and underpriveleged make up the army, as it is actually probably their best route in life. You make interesting points, but I do generally suppor my troops in that I hope they get home ok, just as I hope most Iraqis are ok. Mmm, I do get your point though, and it's a tough one.
I take into consideration Mr K's comments about the US forces being made up of the underpriviledged and the uneducated, i think however that he must consider the sheer size and magnitude of the armed forces in the US, the proportion of those forces which is uneducated is relatively small compared to that in say Russia or Iraq or Africa and you cant cast the same brush over all those who serve, i konw many fine people who are highly educated who serve in the Royal Navy and everyone of them woud be offended that people believe them to be uneducated because of their desire to be part of an organisation designed to protect freedom. I agree with Andy that the majority of the work carried out by the military is peace keeping or patrolling or even training those from other foreign armed forces in order to make them safer and less likely to irrationally kill. I believe i am the person whom Richard is talking about when he says that he had a converstion with someone recently and i still have the same view i have then, that the armed forces is needed and they do not bring suffering to the general public - consider his comment about the two men fighting over the tree, he believes that the men are wrong to fight over it, but if a man drew a gun and aimed it at your heart would you just stand there and let him shoot you? I think not! Its the same situation with war, if an army attacks your for land you
you wouldnt just let him kill you and take it from you, you would fight for it and so protect what it is you have built, how is that suffering to the world? It is true that men have used war as an excuse to fight over their beliefs and to drive others from there land, but it does not make you as richard said a bad person for following orders or fighting to protect your family. The armed forces is far from an 'evil organisation' which brings only suffering, if we allowed people with guns and bombs to mow over those who dont have them then we are no better then those causing the suffering and we should be held accountable also.
Post a Comment
you wouldnt just let him kill you and take it from you, you would fight for it and so protect what it is you have built, how is that suffering to the world? It is true that men have used war as an excuse to fight over their beliefs and to drive others from there land, but it does not make you as richard said a bad person for following orders or fighting to protect your family. The armed forces is far from an 'evil organisation' which brings only suffering, if we allowed people with guns and bombs to mow over those who dont have them then we are no better then those causing the suffering and we should be held accountable also.
# posted by : 8:47 pm
: 8:47 pm
