Howdy folks,
For those who don't know me, I'm James, I used to post on the old SpaceFreaks weblog and spark vicious flame wars with DDB. Art's told me I can post stuff that interests me to this blog.
Chris McMahon has said that war is a process of sacrificing the soldiers that fight it, a human sacrifice rather than self sacrifice. I think that makes a lot of sense.
The fact is that people who fight and die in war are negatively motivated (to use psycho-analytical language), they are avoiding something rather than trying to achieve something. They are avoiding "letting their mates down", they are avoiding disobedience, and in many wars they were avoiding the execution that was the punishment for "cowardice". The society that sponsors them puts them in a situation where the only way to avoid these things is to fight.
Here is an interview with the widow of the only Australian serviceman to die in Iraq, Flight Lieutenant Paul Pardoel. Apparently he wasn't a believer in the cause he was fighting for. I post this because I think that when Anzac day comes around, maybe we shouldn't talk about the sacrifices made by our servicemen, maybe we should instead talk about how our country or society has sacrificed them.
James
A Gen-X View of the Universe.
"The Issue Isn't Pussy, It's Monkey" - from The Right Stuff
Film, Cinema, Movies, TV, Music, Rock
2005/11/30
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Blog Archive
-
▼
2005
(366)
-
▼
November
(33)
- War and sacrifice
- More From The Crypt of (Anti-)Terror
- Thing Crimson
- Here Comes The Flood
- Australia Invents New Class Of Human Beings
- Slow Off-Season For The Yanks
- Today's Gossip
- Mailbag Stuff
- Space Station Move Lifeboat
- Bill Clinton Weighs In
- NASA's Plans According To Griffin
- Spanish Civil War And The War In Iraq
- The Home Game
- Mailbag Stuff
- Memoirs Of A Hot War
- Darwin's Legacy To Australia Was A...
- Penny For My Thoughts On This Man
- Stopping 'IDiocy'
- My Own Private Australia
- Godzilla Croc
- Terror-Flops
- Today's Belated Review
- The News Of The Day
- The Thames On London...
- Today's Guff Of Terror
- Putting the 'ID' Into 'Idiot'
- Did Anybody Mention State-Sponsored Terrorism?
- Need Another Shuttle Again
- Some Pictures Came In
- Sedtion Before The Law
- More On The Terror Bill
- Today's Guff
- Leadership Screw-Up In Boston
-
▼
November
(33)
3 comments:
Flamewars with DDB are so easy as to be inevitable. That part is no bad reflection on you ; )
Interesting viewpoint James and I agree about most of it. However I think it is too one sided. Countries DO indeed make a sacrifice of their servicemen & some unwillingly but it is too strong to imply this is always the case. Many have died believing in what they did.
Likewise, though many may be avoiding something I see no basis for the generalisation. Some join, fight and strive (even die) because they ARE trying to achieve something. This may be idealistic or even foolish but I beleive they (sometimes) tell the truth when they claim this of themselves. e.g. The International Brigade in the Spanish Civil war seems not to fit your model well.
I am interested in your assertion of negative motivation but the onus remains on you to make the case.
On the whole I agree with you James.
Tangentially, I'm thinking about the difference between guys who were put into impossible situations and those who were solicited to do suicide missions and trying to draw a line in there somewhere (as arbitrary as that may be).
Like, landing on Anzac Cove was an impossibly hard situation that came about from bad planning etc., but hte brits didn't AIM to sacrifice the ANZACs there.
Then there are Kaamikaze missions where you're just not meant to survive if your mission is successful. Anyway, thanks for posting up that thought-provoking link.
I agree - PLEASE don't "keep score" - it causes pain and unreasonable exchanges ; )
I think what you say has merit James. However it is probably overstated in proportions (99% is far too high). As you yourself point out there are many examples that don't fit so it cannot be a general principle. It may however be a dominant one & maybe even the one our own mil tends toward.
I don't think your conditions hold up either. "Informed choice" is almost unheard of on the sort of historical choices under discussion. At least until 50 years or so have passed. Far too late. Nor is it fair to devalue peoples 'ongoing commitment' as 'disalowing choice'. We make such choice denying commitments when we marry or take some other oath too & this has considerable social value.
Like you I favour a Sartrian view of choice and responsibility but his extreme of total ongoing choice has never been developed into a workable ethic to live by. Even buy Satre himself.
Sadly we must live with more muddy, balanced positions it seems.
db
Post a Comment