Taking a Chance to Question the Sacred Cow of the Military
I send this message with love to the military, the families and supporters and the targets, the other side and their families and supporters who suffered equally. I have met many soldiers, listened to their stories and atrocities and those opposed to war.
It is important to question, questioning is at the heart of democracy and always it comes from the heart.
When I was in the United States down at Oceanside I saw the admiration of the military. I met a veteran and spoke to him directly. I asked him ‘what is peace?’. He became defensive as if peace was a problem, yet many state they are fighting for peace or in the name of peace. It is fair enough to ask what it means to him as it varies. I saw the respect of others in this space and I felt that you could not question the military in the US. I have seen and heard that they respect the war veterans and see them as having heroically served the country. Yet some soldiers would feel the shame of Vietnam and Iraq and that they were not seen as heroes, so I am mindful of a range of perceptions.
Overall military appears an unquestioned sacred cow for many. I have always marveled at the glorification of war and the marketing of the military as a form of defence or defender of democracy. The very act of killing is not democratic at all and in reality is illegal in civil society yet it is perceived as a solution to destroying an ‘evil’ other. Yet can you kill evil or negativity? Can we find other ways to resolve conflict globally without young people dying on behalf of others. These days more cynicism is emerging in terms of who is orchestrating wars? Who is funding terrorism in endless wars? What is the real purpose behind them – economic, dominance or real defence? If the country is not being attacked but involves itself why is it involved? Who is supplying the weapons? Is it possible for there not to be an economic interest in the provision of arms? Therefore there is an interest in conflict continuing. Yet the reality of the price that is paid in human terms is overlooked, ignored, denied or justified as the full details are not shown on the nightly news. So the population do not get the real story as it is. Democracy, if truly lived, would ensure that truth is revealed so the community can make clear decisions to their representatives. In reality war does not represent the people it is decided behind closed doors, legislative acts of secrecy and is not accountable in courts of laws globally.
I have no doubt that the reality of being in a war zone is horrifying. I think it is a nightmare for all involved – the soldiers, the civilians and especially the children. Soldiers return with PTSD, some are exposed to depleted uranium in munitions or other war induced illness. These days 90% of fatalities are innocent civilians. That is the key issue. As I’ve said in other blogs traditionally war was army against army. It is a masculine way of exerting force to scare off an attacker or to dominate another group for some form of supremacy or gain. It is not unlike bullying. In these types of scenarios one wins the other loses. I believe the world is slowly starting to look for another way. I am very pleased to see brave film making questioning the myth of war. I say this very mindful as I know that all war should be on paper not undertaken in a battlefield. I can see a long line of men framed as heroes from wars since humankind became organised as groups. You don’t see women organising this way to attack other women, it would be seen as crazy not heroic. I believe more women must become involved not to mirror the narratives of the masculine but to bring in the understanding of the feminine as their children are the ones who die.Moreover women typically are better communicators and naturally seek for harmony in relationships. Not always but mostly. It is the nature of women to talk through issues. Women suffer the greatest from war as their children come from their bodies and they physically feel great pain at the loss of a child from which they never recover, so the real targets of war are the families as they live with it, the person when killed is gone to a better place, it is the living that pay the price of war. So women have an interest in seeing an end to the destructive nature of war and a call for new ways of addressing conflict. I always remember the women in the former Yugoslavia being bused to call for a stop to the war. Then men ignored them. Now money is spent in war crimes tribunals for those seeking justice as you would peruse in any country where murder has taken place. Such a waste of money when we could be working on global harmony – finding ways to build effective communication, values – empathy, peaceful pathways, shared interests, interest based negotiations, mediation, cultures of peace and so on. Economically and psychologically it is far better to not have a war. Economic disaster is the consequence as people try to rebuild their lives, dig up unexploded landmines, rebuild shattered families and lives, find forgiveness (eg. Rwanda) and livelihoods when infrastructure is destroyed and critical services such as hospitals in ruins. The Geneva Conventions have gone out the window as detachment from emotions is the modus operandi that sanitises or mutes the screaming outside. How can a soldier listen to music in head sets to make it like a war game rather than real. The key question is – is war a crime?
Another important point is the firepower of weapons and the destruction not only to the physical buildings but the total destruction of targets (and environment). There is no place for injury if you are under a bomb, no chance of surviving a strike when under these massive weapons. The person is blown to pieces. The bullets explode inside. Incredible.
War mentalities still place the world on a hair trigger alert in respect of nuclear weapons. If we get gun ho leaders who believe bravado and chest beating reflects strength and manhood they can become a problem if they have access to nuclear weapons. It is a matter of when not if. The setting off of nuclear weapons creates a counter strike scenario and the fear of mutually assured destruction (MAD) becomes a real possibility. There will be no life on earth – whose interests does this serve? That is the serious nature of war and why it has to be questioned responsibly to resolve for a peaceful future. As a peace educator myself I know that we have to look at ourselves, at our own discord, our own fear and take responsibility for how we feel. We have to look at education, conditioning, movies and what defines our identities? We have to investigate discrimination, vested interests, military mindsets and the faceless faces orchestrating conflict and then calling it honour. How can it be honourable to kill a child? That question was asked of Colonel Dyer who was the British officer responsible for the Jallianwala Bagh massacre in India, also known as the Amritsar massacre. His mindset is reflected in the statement below:
The following is the English translation of Dyer’s Urdu statement directed at the local residents of Amritsar on the afternoon of 14 April 1919, a day after the Amritsar massacre:
You people know well that I am a Sepoy and soldier. Do you want war or peace? If you wish for a war, the Government is prepared for it, and if you want peace, then obey my orders and open all your shops; else I will shoot. For me the battlefield of France or Amritsar is the same. I am a military man and I will go straight. Neither shall I move to the right nor to the left. Speak up, if you want war? In case there is to be peace, my order is to open all shops at once. You people talk against the Government and persons educated in Germany and Bengal talk sedition. I shall report all these. Obey my orders. I do not wish to have anything else. I have served in the military for over 30 years. I understand the Indian Sepoy and Sikh people very well. You will have to obey my orders and observe peace. Otherwise the shops will be opened by force and Rifles. You will have to report to me of the Badmash. I will shoot them. Obey my orders and open shops. Speak up if you want war? You have committed a bad act in killing the English. The revenge will be taken upon you and upon your children.[32] Refer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jallianwala_Bagh_massacre
Another excerpt highlights how repression is justified with unquestioned beliefs in supremacy…
Dyer wrote an article in the Globe of 21 January 1921, titled, “The Peril to the Empire.” It commenced with “India does not want self-government. She does not understand it.” He wrote later that:[59]
- It is only to an enlightened people that free speech and a free press can be extended. The Indian people want no such enlightenment.
- There should be an eleventh commandment in India, “Thou shalt not agitate”.
- The time will come to India when a strong hand will be exerted against malice and ‘perversion’ of good order.
- Gandhi will not lead India to capable self-government. The British Raj must continue, firm and unshaken in its administration of justice to all men. Refer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reginald_Edward_Harry_Dyer
Violence is perceived as firmness, enlightenment is British, democracy distorted by the word ‘agitate’, violence justified by the perversion of good order and undermining leaders as incapable. This is the power of language which distorts the other side which finds ways to feel good about violence and control. Yet it has nothing to do with democracy ‘shared power’ or representation of the people by the people.
Here are excerpts from the movie ‘Gandhi’, it is powerful.
A Commission of Inquiry (see below) was set up and here are some of the questions asked of Colonel Dyer which exemplifies why mindsets have to change as the military mind sees duty the civilians are asking for democracy and a right to self rule. Refer http://www.hindustantimes.com/ht-view/i-had-to-fire-well-jallianwala-bagh-butcher-gen-dyer-s-testimony/story-C68lHCuJBYfSjfBlng6XKN.html
In 1919, an inquiry committee was formed under the chairmanship of Lord William Hunter, the former Solicitor-General of Scotland and Senator of the College of Justice in Scotland. The panel came to be popularly known as the Hunter Commission.
Dyer was called to appear before the commission on November 19 that year and what he had to say will leave most people dumbfounded. The commission’s interactions with Dyer have been documented in Nigel Collett’s book The Butcher of Amritsar: General Reginald Dyer published in 2006.
1. Dyer said he had indeed not issued a warning before the shooting and that he felt an obligation to continue firing till the crowd dispersed. “At that time it did not occur to me. I merely felt that my orders had not been obeyed, that martial law was flouted, and that it was my duty to immediately disperse it by rifle fire…If my orders were not obeyed, I would fire immediately. If I had fired a little, the effect would not be sufficient. If I had fired a little, I should be wrong in firing at all.”
2. Dyer told the commission that the gathered people were rebels who were trying to isolate his forces and cut them off from supplies. “Therefore, I considered it my duty to fire on them and to fire well.”
The clincher came next: “I think it quite possible that I could have dispersed the crowd without firing but they would have come back again and laughed, and I would have made, what I consider, a fool of myself.”
3. When confronted with the fact that he did not provide any medical attention to the wounded, Dyer replied the military situation did not allow that. He further defended his refusal to help the wounded by saying, “It was not my job. Hospitals were open and they could have gone there.”
4. An instance of another remorseless response from Dyer was when the commission asked him about the probable use of machine guns.
Commission member: Supposing the passage was sufficient to allow the armoured cars to go in, would you have opened fire with the machine guns?
Dyer: I think probably, yes.
Commission member: In that case, the casualties would have been much higher?
Dyer: Yes.
5. Another angle which Dyer insisted on during the interrogation was that he wanted to create an impression on “the rest of Punjab” and therefore the order to open fire.
Dyer: They had come out to fight if they defied me, and I was going to give them a lesson.
Commission member: I take it that your idea in taking that action was to strike terror?
Dyer: Call it what you like. I was going to punish them.
Punished, indeed, the innocent people were, but not Dyer.
The Hunter Commission did not impose any penal or disciplinary action on Dyer because of politico-legal limitations and several senior officials condoning his act.
To avenge the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, revolutionary Udham Singh killed Sir Michael Francis O’Dwyer, who was Lieutenant Governor of Punjab at that time, in London in 1940. O’Dwyer had called the massacre a “correct action”.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Nonviolence is not the enemy it is the unquestioning compliance with authority. The group think around military actions that are unquestioned is the kernel of wisdom that needs to be questioned for the good of the military. It becomes a zero sum game when no-one wins as we spiral into anarchy and more violence. The solution is worse than the problem as we see today in Syria and the middle east. What I see in respect of my training in bullying is the cold detachment that compartmentalises duty without an ability to integrate humanity. I don’t blame Dyer what I see is that he is trained to detach, he is trained to take orders, he is trained to not get emotionally involved as it distorts his clear decision making. This plays out in bullying issues where the bullying seeks power over the other. They detach from their humanity in order for abuse to occur without remorse. We see it in psychopath dysfunction. It is like living as an observer but not a participant. That is what violent video games in my view teach. That is what violent movies teach. So to have a film that is questioning war is a relief that maybe the illusion is coming down.
Here is some information about the film leaving questions in the minds of Americans (and the world) about war. Thank goodness another perspective at last. I want to just add that I watched a young boy annoying his sister and I felt the seeds of bullying in his behaviour. I saw a strong sense of inadequacy in him. If he didn’t get his way he would pester to get what he wanted. This is how powerlessness starts. He wasn’t corrected I noticed. This is how the seeds of war get started by a society that is unaware of its own powerlessness and the patriarchal conditioning of males to be superior and dominate as superiority. It is a false teaching and paradigm. It reveals an imbalance between the masculine and feminine, which naturally balance each other when not distorted into strength and weakness. We are all equal, that is the reality of who we are on this planet, when we live in realisation of this we will treat all people with respect. We will never seek to harm another. As a clown I came to realise that there was great love in everyone when we create the conditions for peace. Safety is not about security it is about feeling loved and that is the real security all are wanting. Ultimately it will come down to self love, not needing to prove anything and taking ownership of our own problems and discord. This is where true courage resides. Looking into the mirror is the hardest thing to do but when you do it, you will overcome all fear. That is the purpose of the warrior to face fear within. That is the heroes journey in truth. When men do this it will change the future of boys and rebalance the world.
I would like to add here that I recall a military guy coming to a cafe where I was around 3 weeks ago. He sought to make eye contact with the men outside. I observed. I noted the men did not look at him at all. They saw him but they ignored him. Here in Australia there is not the same reverence to the military. Yes there are those who follow traditions, yes they stop work on Armistice day, yes ANZAC day is observed however, the nationalism is not as strong here we tend to have a mindset of equality and a dissatisfaction with authority. In addition, multiculturalism is changing the flavour of what it means to be Australian. I see this as good as we become a melting pot reflecting the globe. I want to see every country with all countries in it, perhaps we stop war then as literally we see ourselves in each other.
APOCALYPSE Now. Platoon. Saving Private Ryan. The Dirty Dozen. Black Hawk Down. Full Metal Jacket. American Sniper. The Guns of Navarone. From Here To Eternity. The Deer Hunter. Gallipoli. The Hurt Locker. Patton. Hacksaw Ridge. The Great Escape.
There have been many good and some great war films, but one of the best of all does not feature one single battle scene.
Taking Chance, the 2009 film starring Kevin Bacon, is the true story of Marine Lieutenant Colonel Michael Strobl, played by Bacon, who escorts the casket of a fellow Marine, who has been killed in action in Iraq, back to his home town.
In Taking Chance Kevin Bacon escorts the casket of a fellow Marine home. Picture: HBOSource:Supplied
I decided to re-watch Taking Chance after reading News Corp correspondent Ellen Whinnett’s excellent piece, published on Saturday, with former SAS officer-turned-federal politician, Andrew Hastie, who recounted being involved in calling in an air strike in Afghanistan that killed two non-combatant children.
Hastie is man enough to remain deeply troubled by what occurred. And Whinnett’s account is unusually compelling because it does the opposite of what we see so much: using war as a form of entertainment-glamour. Taking Chance does the same.
It is based on the diary of Strobl, who rose through the ranks while seeing little active service. From Marine HQ in Virginia, he spends a lot of time studying casualty lists from Iraq and tries to rationalise their lives, and deaths.
He sees that Private First Class Chance Phelps — who died in battle in 2009, near Ramadi, at the age of 20 — was born in his own home town of Clifton, Colorado.
WA MP Andrew Hastie pictured in Afghanistan. Picture: SuppliedSource:Supplied
Strobl offers to provide Phelps’ personal escort as a gesture, catching a series of domestic flights, staying with the casket and carrying Phelps’ personal belongings, all the way to his final resting place in small-town USA.
One of the film’s great mysterious powers is that it is not clear whether it is making a statement for or against the Iraq War, or war in general.
What is revealed is a great insight into the American people. All along Strobl’s journey, ordinary citizens thank him for his service; or, when Phelps’ casket is being loaded, tarmac workers stop and remove their caps.
Anyone who has gone through an American airport and seen Marines or soldiers passing knows this is no myth.
Saving Private Ryan trailer
This takes us to another mysterious realm: the complexity of Americans, who may agree or disagree with the war but nonetheless place sacrosanct — and nonjudgmental — value on their fallen and their military; having learned not to repeat the mistreatment dealt out to Vietnam vets.
With much being said at this time about the divided United States of America, it is worth remembering how quickly they can unite. It is this that makes them such a world force.
Taking Chance brings this home — and depicts the full impact of war without showing one soldier being blown to pieces.
Strobl wrestles with the fact he saw only brief action in Desert Storm, and feels guilt he is safely behind a desk and not risking his life with his fellow Marines in Iraq. Andrew Hastie wrestles with what being on the front lines has meant to him.
Over to you. What film, book or account of war has affected you?