Pick up your gun and shut up.

I’ve been resisting the urge to write anything about the current flap concerning Armed Forces members being “abused” in Peterborough. The story appears to be a thin concoction based on a single incident some 15 months ago. Nor, as it happens, do I see much point in hurling verbal abuse at squaddies, anyway. Unfortunately, the sheer inanity and reflexive nationalist windbaggery that the story has called forth (exemplified by the pre-fascist racist bear pit that is the BBC’s Have Your Say) is just too maddening. I shall try to be brief.

Argument number one from the blusterers is that the troops deserve our support regardless of whether we agree with the war(s). Our anger, they say, would be better directed at the Government who sent them. This position is similar to that which the Liberal Democrats adopted during the invasion of Iraq -their “opposition” lasted only as long as it hadn’t happened. The moment it did they fell meekly into line and supported “our boys”.

I have little idea what the exhortation to support our troops really means, particularly when it is said that we can support them without supporting the war. If this is so then clearly it cannot mean wishing them success. Rather, it must mean wishing that they don’t get hurt. Well, fair enough, I don’t want to see British troops get hurt. But then I don’t want any troops to get hurt. I do recognise that it's inevitable, however, so if combatants on one side or another have to get hurt, as complicated as matters may be, I’d rather it was the aggressors. The logic of this is clear. If I see a man attacked in the street, I do not want to see either him or his assailant hurt unnecessarily but, since I recognise both the victim’s right to self defence and the attacker’s aggression, I’d rather see the latter hurt than the former. The same is true for our troops in Iraq. I don’t want to see any of them killed but if they continue to aggress against the Iraqis, then I’d rather British troops were hurt. Anything else is simple racism. Yet those who call on us to support our boys, while saying that we don’t have to support the war, were they to apply their principle evenly, would be calling on us to support the mugger even if we don’t agree with mugging. “Just doing my job” is no defence if your job stinks.

As a side point, it’s also worth stating something else that really should be obvious: there is nothing intrinsically honourable about serving in the Armed Forces. The Armed Forces are an organisation maintained to pursue certain goals, frequently through violence. How honourable it is to be a soldier depends upon how honourable the goal is and the methods one uses – if you’re defending a people against aggression with minimum force, be proud. If you do it with excessive force, be less proud. But if you’re inflicting aggression against a defenceless people, hang your head. I might feel proud of getting involved in a pub fight if the cause of my violence was to defend a man from a racist attack but I would feel ashamed if I was involved in the same fight in order to commit such an attack. Nor is being a soldier honourable becaue they are often in genuine danger and carry out their orders knowing that there is a serious risk they might be killed. Otherwise,  being a terrorist would be honourable for the same reason and suicide bombers would be confered even greater respect. There is nothing intrinically honourable or dishonourable, respectable or ignoble, about placing oneself at risk. Again, the cause in which one does it is key. Nor is bravery an issue: I’m not brave enough to be an armed robber, doesn’t mean I can’t condemn them.

Nor do I accept the defence that soldiers are only obeying orders and have no choice. Of course they have a choice, they can refuse to obey orders, which I believe they should. Yes, consequences flow from that choice but I'd rather go to the stockade than kill innocent people. I'd also hope that I'd be brave enough still to take that stance if I faced a firing squad instead. To argue in the 21^st century that “theirs is not to reason why” is actually an insult to them -it suggests that either they are incapable of moral judgements or that they should ignore their own consciences. I believe the first is false and the second indefensible, not least because those who take this line are unlikely to apply it universally. Would those who believe that our troops should follow orders without question have condemned Iraqi troops who defied Saddam? Or German troops who refused to take orders from the 3^rd Reich? Of course not. Certainly, it is true that many of our forces, from the poorer and less educated parts of society, may have joined the army because they needed a job and are very likely heavily indoctrinated once they’re in. But this can only be a mitigation. If they are fully aware of what they are doing, disagree with it, yet do it anyway, they are cowards. If they are propagandised then they are to be pitied in the same way that some who are convicted of a criminal offence are judged to be less than competent and so not entirely responsible for their actions. Uncritical devotion to authority is not honourable, it's pathological.

Then there is the argument that we should support our troops out of gratitude, for defending us now or for having defended us in the past. Both arguments are misguided. It is no more logical to support the army uncritically because of good it does in some areas than it would be to support any other organisation for similar reasons. I’m grateful for nurses: doesn’t mean I have to support them when they start offing pensioners.

The argument that we should show respect because of the British Army’s defence of Britain during WWII is similarly vacuous. What it actually amounts to is capitulating to a group of people today because a group of people under the same name 60 years ago did us a very big favour. In fact, it is entirely the same principle that a few people still use for disliking Germans today -because of what ‘they’ did 60 years ago. In fact, with a few exceptions, Germans today did nothing 60 years ago -it was another bunch of people who happened to live on the same piece of land.

Nor is true, in any case, that the army is defending us now. In fact, it is much more plausible to make the case that they are actively endangering us. Several studies have shown that, by “riding pillion” on US policy, the British Government and its Armed Forces are actually putting all of us at far greater risk. Having been reduced to a mercenary force for US strategic interests, it should hardly be surprising that the actions of the British Army have made us a target for terrorists.

In any case, it’s a pretty repugnant argument that our gratitude to troops for services rendered to us excuses atrocities committed against others. It’s a selfish assertion that our welfare outweighs that of someone else. I might be grateful to my next door neighbour for the loan of his lawnmower but I don’t have to defend him when he’s found guilty of beating his wife.

Another argument in the windbags’ arsenal is that one shouldn’t criticise the troops because we don’t know what it’s like on the front line. Again, it's a specious argument. Otherwise, it would be wrong for me to criticise the “enemy” troops as well. I certainly don’t recall criticism of Iraqi troops being off the table during the Gulf War because we didn’t know what everyday life in the Republican Guard was like. The argument makes about as much sense as saying that we shouldn't criticise a murderer because we don’t know the circumstances in which he did it. If one disagrees with the objective then the circumstances of its pursuance are simply not relevant.

Our troops may fight bravely sometimes (when they're not slaughtering people from miles away at sea or up in the air) and, amongst the imperialist carnage, there are doubtless genuine acts of bravery and heroism. Nor do I believe that every squaddie out there goes to the Middle East with the intention of doing ill. In the end, though, this does not matter. What matters is that they are thinking, feeling human beings who are responsible for their actions. If they agree with the war(s), they are culpable, if they oppose them yet fight anyway, they're cowardly. If they 're conditioned, they are pitiable. True bravery is not to fight against people who are not your enemy -it is to make a stand for what you believe is right, even knowing that you may suffer greatly for doing so. Sometimes that can mean picking up a gun. Too often, it means never picking it up to begin with.

 

Comments

[XT]

I have little idea what the exhortation to support our troops really means, particularly when it is said that we can support them without supporting the war. If this is so then clearly it cannot mean wishing them success.

I think they are promoting the idea that the war was a 'mistake' rather than a 'crime'. To be fair, a lot of people in the mainstream who oppose the war often seem to see it that way. I've lost count of the times I've heard people say: "they should have done it in 91 when they had the chance"...."I would have supported it if it had a second UN resolution"...."by not sending enough troops they messed it up", and so on.

[JamieSW]

The most sensible statement I've read on the matter - nice one. It should all be so obvious.

Would you mind if I posted this on UK Watch when the server's back up (with proper attribution and a link)?

[Ekk]

I wasn't going to comment on your argumentation, because it is superb/brilliant (what more can one say :), but found it touching some deep streams I had not swum in lately.
So call this supportive argument/supplementary comment:

When I decided to become a conscientious objector refusing to join the [West] German military my main concern/objection was, that I could/would be ordered by someone else [superior officer] to go and kill another person against my own/better personal judgment. (In times of war much of that judgment is already no more 'personal', but clouded/biased by outside propaganda).
Genetically I've inherited the poaching/hunting/killing instinct from both sides of my family, whose men/fathers literally brought home the [wild] meat during/after times of war when famine meant other local families went hungry. Killing fish/game to be eaten is a red/raw streak, something I've done myself. Nothing to be proud or ashamed off , just something that is not unusual/unnatural IMO, something people may well be going back to if/when the/this next financial/economic collapse comes about.

However, your excellent exposition has reminded me of nightmares experienced as a young man, whereby I was ordered to kill another human being against my will. IMO something inevitable once you've been shipped abroad to fight in a/any war. I have it from trustworthy first-hand sources (my dad, his step-dad [father died in WWI] grandfather on my mother's side & surviving uncles), that there was no choice when you are in military uniform in wartime.
The stockades should be employed much earlier on to bow the head of those promoting wars.
Ekk

[Gerbil001]

XT -'mistake' is a term often applied to the invasion of Iraq. I don't agree that it was a mistake -in the commonly understood sense of a misconceived but well-intention act- I think it was a crime, pure and simple. However, by doctrinal convention "we" can never commit crimes because it is assumed from the start that our intentions are always good. Hence a mistake is the worst of which we are capable.

Even if I did think it was a mere mistake to invade Iraq (or Afghanistan), I would still argue that supporting the troops in the ongoing exacerbation of that mistake would be wrong. The argument used by many now is that, yes, the initial invasion was a mistake but that we should now stay there to correct it. This is a standard imperialist argument, which overlooks the obvious fact that it is not our right to decide how to correct our mistake. This is all the more clear when our continued presence is in direct opposition to the wishes of the Iraqis themselves.

JamieSW -please feel to post this wherever you wish (with links and attribution, as you say). I'm glad that you appreciate what was very much a spur-of-the moment piece.

Ekk - I'm glad to have written something that has struck a chord with you. Clearly, you have more first hand experience of the matters I have discussed. Conscientious objection is more needed now than ever.

G001

[Chris]

Well, it was definitely well written. However, myself being a windbag and all, I can't help but be angered by your anger toward the military. I've never been one to write my feelings down, or express them properly for that matter, but I will write just for the sake of.

You're kind of right. I find it a bit embarrassing to be getting all this attention as a soldier, when I know that the praise is to be meant for soldiers better than myself, who’ve sacrificed a lot more than I have, and actually lives the life of protecting innocents and cleaning up the world’s dirt bags. And yes, there are bad people in the world, and by everyone's standards too.

Slightly off topic, I will say that those who rely on the News for all of their credible information are incredibly naïve. Believe it or not, the media is a business and they stand to profit or lose from what they decide to publish. Many distort the facts to improve a story or even push their own agenda/propaganda (Al Jazeera News for example). Just remember, there are always things’ happening outside of the general public’s knowledge. And to all those who say that everything can be solved without violence… well lets just agree to disagree.

Back to the topic, I say it’s easy to be a critic. You risk very little yet get applauded for your opinions. Not just in reference to movies, but in real life too. And just like real life, there are things that people won’t understand unless they can say, “I was there.” or, “I was part of that.”
And even then, there are still very few who can say they really have a good “big picture” overview of any given situation.

You don’t support troops, fine.

My way of thinking is if you feel so strongly about something, then do something about it. Rather than argue about who’s right, who’s wrong: join a side already. In the case of foreign affairs, become a politician. Become a country-specific journalist. Join NATO. Join the military. Join the terrorists… or freedom fighters. Whatever. Then come back and tell everyone your unbiased opinion. Otherwise you’re a critic with an uninformed opinion.