Honoring the Fallen? Exactly who are you respecting?

[celtic_crippler]

There is an intersting dynamic here that this discussion raises. In pre-modern warfare (before firearms) and first, second and third generation warfare (post-firearms), a war was generally fought between soldiers employed by opposing nations. Sometimes they spoke the same language, other times they didn't. Sometimes the combatants looked the same, sometimes they were vastly different. When swords clashed and rifles fired, there had to be a certain dehumanizing of the opposing force in order to effeciently kill them.

Although the person on the other side was trying to kill you, there was often a respect there knowing that the he was a member of the same fraternity as you. Someone who follows orders to win for their side. In many of the great leaders (Generals on down to Squad leaders) eyes, a brave soldier is a brave soldier, no matter what the uniform.

In fourth generation modern warfare, insurgency is the flavor. It isn't a paid soldier who is fighting an open war. It is a shopkeeper who is more afraid of the home team than the visiting team. It is the mentally challenged woman who doesn't know she has a bomb strapped to her back walking though the marketplace. Those people are victims, not combatants. The combatants are the planners and the thinkers behind mosque bombings and the like.

This new generation warfare doesn't so much break the rules as writes new ones. Those new rules make it very difficult for someone from previous generations to honor the enemy. As one of those folks, let the bastards die, burried alive in unmarked tombs filled with pigs blood. I'll save my tears for my brothers and those who fought honorably, no matter what their flag.

Good post Stoney.

Hmmm...pig blood? If used properly could actually go a long way to ending the war actually! Just ask General "Black Jack" Pershing.

I guess it may have started with 'Nam perhaps, but people in general these days have a pretty strange view of what "war" really is. There's a reason General Grant said, "War is hell." He wasn't kidding! People die, soldiers and civilians alike. This concept of only military targets (including personel) being destroyed is ridicuous, idealistic yes, but still ridiculous.

War should not be made comfortable. Perhaps that's why we as a people don't do much to avoid it? Not only is it out of sight-out of mind, but it's been made "comfortable" for too many.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Good post Stoney.

Hmmm...pig blood? If used properly could actually go a long way to ending the war actually! Just ask General "Black Jack" Pershing.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pershing.asp

 

[celtic_crippler]

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pershing.asp

Status: Undetermined

Not only did you miss my sarcasm, you missed my point.

 

[Archangel M]

All this "warm and cuddly" talk about honoring the enemy is easy for armchair soldiers......

 

[Sukerkin]

As far as honouring the fallen goes, Caver, I suspect that it has an awful lot to do with how the war is fought, or at least an individuals experience or perception of it.

For example, both my grandfathers didn't have a great deal of ill will to the German's they fought during the Second World War, except towards the various SS/Hitler Youth units they encountered. They had a lot of respect for the ordinary German counterpart they engaged, considering him well disciplined and tough as anything in the face of adversity.

The current conflicts are marked by the fact that the 'enemy' is not a country fighting for what it believes in or for defence, as such, but an amorphous, faceless, sneaking 'assassin', who fights cloaked in dishonour.

Now, as an individual, I don't see how they have any other choice, as any conventional engagement would see them eradicated in short order. But, given the chivalric myths with which we grew up, however fallacious they may be, it makes it hard to honour such an enemy.

The passage of time will ease that, I am hopeful. The Vietnamese, for example, are, now that enough time has passed, respected for the utterly dedicated and implacable foe that they were - this being despite the fact that, of necessity, they fought 'unconventionally'.

The supposedly Islamic forces ranged against Nato in Afghanistan are no less the poor misguided pawns of their commanders than our troops are of our governments but it is sad that they are being spent so pointlessly. They may believe what they are told they are 'fighting for' or they may be pressed into service - either way they end up dead for an unobtainable goal and their loved ones suffer for it.

Sympathy in the abstract is one thing, however, facing up to the fact that these people (whether fanatics or victims) are seeking to kill troops sent by our governments into harms way and are doing so in ways that we do not recognise as 'honourable'.

For now, I do not 'honour' the fallen of the Taliban, tho' I do feel sorrow at their passing, as I do for any needlessly spent human life; I also pity those that are forced into this path who do not wish it. The fight is still on-going with no end in sight - that means the wounds are still going to be raw and repeated. So, whilst we should honour the passing of other humans with due dignity, the time is not yet here where forgiveness can leaven that with the nobility of respect (not of the sort I would wish for myself to hold for an enemy at any rate).

 

[seasoned]

All this "warm and cuddly" talk about honoring the enemy is easy for armchair soldiers......

Thank you, your above, is a very good point. I don't just know someone over there fighting, my only son is there. Sitting here and worrying about anybody except him and his follow solders is just not in my vocabulary at this time.

 

[MA-Caver]

All this "warm and cuddly" talk about honoring the enemy is easy for armchair soldiers......

I'm not talking about being warm and fuzzy and cuddly and I for damn sure don't consider myself an armchair soldier even though I've never been in "military combat" situations (urban yes but not against trained killers such as soldiers are). I'd appreciate not being thought of as such. :asian:
The enemy is the enemy is the enemy and you have to kill the enemy more than they kill you so to win the war/conflict. Japan showed that, Germany showed that (TWICE) and so forth.
Yet there is something to be said for DYING for your country no matter whose side you're on. That needs IMO to be respected and honored. The ultimate sacrifice, to which I myself am willing to do should we wake up one morning and find armed combatants within our borders. The same thing that our present and future enemies feel when our Presidents sent our troops overseas.

 

[arnisador]

Demonizing the enemy via propaganda is a sensible tactic for a govt. to use on its young and impressionable army members. That doesn't mean it's other than that--a tactic. Surely far from an actual battle we can do better? Does only one side merit respect in the 30 Years' War?

 

[Tez3]

To talk of mutual respect in the current war situation in Afghanistan is to sound like some old buffer in an Englishmans club in the last century I'm afraid. The British troops out there and I very much expect that the American troops are the same, are professional soldiers doing a brilliant job under impossibale conditions. Respect isn't given to cowards who put down roadside bombs then use intimidation to make the local villagers to dick the troops. Respect isn't given to people who throw acid over young girls to stop them going to school, respect isn't given to killers of women and children. This isn't propaganda, it's fact.
The troops out in Afghanistan do their job professionally, with courage and humour. They often risk much to help the locals and attempt to make life better for them, although they don't have to and often it's not appreciated.
To talk of dying for your country makes nice patriotic speeches, defending your country as Churchill says 'on the beaches' etc but the reality is that the troops are dying a long way from home. War isn't a noble thing, something to say as at Agincourt, 'I was there', its sheer bloody hell, don't make it sound as if it was a great adventure.
Respect for the enemy here? No. Sadness for the enemy? No.

When you talk about the German soldiers etc bear in mind that they weren't just innocent troops fighting and dying for their country, the German people voted Hitler into power in the thirties, that the concentration camps weren't just a wartime thing, that anti Semitism, beatings, the killing of handicapped children etc stared before war was declared so I have no respect for them either.

Seasoned, I understand.

 

[seasoned]

As far as honouring the fallen goes, Caver, I suspect that it has an awful lot to do with how the war is fought, or at least an individuals experience or perception of it.

For example, both my grandfathers didn't have a great deal of ill will to the German's they fought during the Second World War, except towards the various SS/Hitler Youth units they encountered. They had a lot of respect for the ordinary German counterpart they engaged, considering him well disciplined and tough as anything in the face of adversity.

The current conflicts are marked by the fact that the 'enemy' is not a country fighting for what it believes in or for defence, as such, but an amorphous, faceless, sneaking 'assassin', who fights cloaked in dishonour.

Now, as an individual, I don't see how they have any other choice, as any conventional engagement would see them eradicated in short order. But, given the chivalric myths with which we grew up, however fallacious they may be, it makes it hard to honour such an enemy.

The passage of time will ease that, I am hopeful. The Vietnamese, for example, are, now that enough time has passed, respected for the utterly dedicated and implacable foe that they were - this being despite the fact that, of necessity, they fought 'unconventionally'.

The supposedly Islamic forces ranged against Nato in Afghanistan are no less the poor misguided pawns of their commanders than our troops are of our governments but it is sad that they are being spent so pointlessly. They may believe what they are told they are 'fighting for' or they may be pressed into service - either way they end up dead for an unobtainable goal and their loved ones suffer for it.

Sympathy in the abstract is one thing, however, facing up to the fact that these people (whether fanatics or victims) are seeking to kill troops sent by our governments into harms way and are doing so in ways that we do not recognise as 'honourable'.

For now, I do not 'honour' the fallen of the Taliban, tho' I do feel sorrow at their passing, as I do for any needlessly spent human life; I also pity those that are forced into this path who do not wish it. The fight is still on-going with no end in sight - that means the wounds are still going to be raw and repeated. So, whilst we should honour the passing of other humans with due dignity, the time is not yet here where forgiveness can leaven that with the nobility of respect (not of the sort I would wish for myself to hold for an enemy at any rate).[/quote]
.

 

[Tez3]

It's very dangerous to have pre conceived idea about Afghanistan, that it's a country of down trodden peasants being forced by the Taliban to fight against the Allies. The Taliban are the peasants, there's far more sympathy for them than you may imagine. The Afghans don't want us there and a lot of them were happier under the Taliban than they are under what they see as the foreign invaders. some are intimidated into helping but basically their sympathy lies with the Taliban anyway.
Where the Taliban has been moved on, you would imagine life would be different from how it was under them, it's not, it's exactly the same, thats because they don't want change, they want the women not to go to school or have jobs, they want things kept in a strict Muslim way.
We are deluding ourselves if we think these people actually want us there and want our help, they'll take the medical help, the power stations etc but they want us gone and if they can help make that happen by killing our troops they will do it, make no mistake. Every Afghan is hostile even if you think they are being friendly.

 

[arnisador]

Am I the only one who's noticed that the way the Afghani people are being described here is a lot like the way the British would've described their opponents in the American colonies during the Revolutionary War? Not standing up in uniform and fighting, using ambushes, not even acting on behalf of an actual country, armtwisting the locals to help them, etc.? Aren't these the very same 'dishonourable' tactics the British accused the rebel forces of using?

 

[celtic_crippler]

All this "warm and cuddly" talk about honoring the enemy is easy for armchair soldiers......

No doubt! It's real easy when you ain't got bullets whizzin' by yer head and sand blasting yer face from incomin'.

I feel that this topic is a little deeper than what's been presented. There's not a right or wrong answer; no black & white here.

Some of my thoughts at the moment:

Some choose to fight, some are forced to fight.

Those that choose to fight I can respect if they are fighting for something they truely believe in to the extent that they follow some sort of honorable path. In other words, it's expected that the enemy would try to take strategic targets; however, to rape and pillage afterwards is not an honorable thing to do. Civillians suffer and are killed in war, but when it can be avoided it should be out of basic respect for a fellow human being.

Those that are forced to fight I pity and have no respect for those that force them.

 

[seasoned]

Am I the only one who's noticed that the way the Afghani people are being described here is a lot like the way the British would've described their opponents in the American colonies during the Revolutionary War? Not standing up in uniform and fighting, using ambushes, not even acting on behalf of an actual country, armtwisting the locals to help them, etc.? Aren't these the very same 'dishonourable' tactics the British accused the rebel forces of using?

With all due respect, arnisador, that was then, and this is now. The face of war has changed a lot from then till now. We are showing the enemy a lot more respect then we get in return. The fact of the matter at hand is, "our" arms are being twisted. In a lot of cases we fight the same people at night that we help during the day. This is because we can't tell them apart. If we are going to respect the enemy at war time, then let us respect the criminal element among us, as people that are down trodden and just trying to get by, by feeding off of society. Let us keep in mind that this thread could be read by people that are in or about to be in harms way. That my friend, is where our honor should be directed.:asian:

 

[MA-Caver]

I feel that this topic is a little deeper than what's been presented. There's not a right or wrong answer; no black & white here.

Some of my thoughts at the moment:

Some choose to fight, some are forced to fight.

Thank you for seeing that there is more to it than just how bad the enemy is and how we should dis on them.

Also thanks Arni for that post as well.

There is no right or wrong in war. It brings out the best and brings out the worse in people.

I never said that ALL the (fighting) dead in a particular war should be honored. There are bad guys on BOTH sides, one may have more than the other but War/combat conditions are a great place to do all the things you ever wanted to do to someone without getting caught or in trouble.

As for the Afghanistani people... their plight is bad and they probably want everyone to just kiss off and leave them alone. We are the aggressors who go into their country and try to impose OUR beliefs onto their lives when we broke down their door in search of terrorists who killed American and British civilians. As I see it what they've been doing is their version of the French resistance to the occupying German army during WWII. We would do no less if there were an invading country on our lands.

 

[celtic_crippler]

With all due respect, arnisador, that was then, and this is now. The face of war has changed a lot from then till now. We are showing the enemy a lot more respect then we get in return. The fact of the matter at hand is, "our" arms are being twisted. In a lot of cases we fight the same people at night that we help during the day. This is because we can't tell them apart. If we are going to respect the enemy at war time, then let us respect the criminal element among us, as people that are down trodden and just trying to get by, by feeding off of society. Let us keep in mind that this thread could be read by people that are in or about to be in harms way. That my friend, is where our honor should be directed.:asian:

Yeah...it would be a lot easier if all our "enemies" wore red and marched in straight lines while we wore what we wanted and moved around freely from behind rocks and trees taking pot shots at them wouldn't it?

Wait a minute...:uhohh:

 

[Tez3]

Am I the only one who's noticed that the way the Afghani people are being described here is a lot like the way the British would've described their opponents in the American colonies during the Revolutionary War? Not standing up in uniform and fighting, using ambushes, not even acting on behalf of an actual country, armtwisting the locals to help them, etc.? Aren't these the very same 'dishonourable' tactics the British accused the rebel forces of using?

Oh of course you've been there haven't you?
I'm not saying they are using 'dishonourable' tactics, I'm saying we've damn well invaded their country and they don't want us there, simple as that. I've said nothing about uniforms, nor anything about not acting on behalf of their country quite the oposite of course but hey if you want to be anti British about all this bring it on.
It has nothng to do with respect it's to do with going over there doing your job and making it back alive and unmaimed.

 

[arnisador]

Let us keep in mind that this thread could be read by people that are in or about to be in harms way. That my friend, is where our honor should be directed.

This thread could cause us to lose the war? Am I guilty of not supporting the troops?!? More jingoism.

It's all good and well to "rally 'round the flag" during war but this is a more general question. There's a time and a place for philosophy. If you're in Afghanistan, you have more pragmatic concerns. If you're sitting at home or in an office typing on the Internet, it's OK to engage ideas rather than mere rhetoric.

 

[arnisador]

anti British

You've got this set to trigger at too low a level. My point was that Americans used similar tactics when it suited them. Then it was patriotic, and we still teach it proudly in schools as an innovative and brave action, but when the tables are turned on us in the U.S. it's apparently dishonourable. That's an illogical and indefensible position, in general. (Whether what's happening in Afghanistan is sufficiently different to make this a poor analogy is another matter.) Tactics are tactics, and classifying some as "honourable" and others as "only used by subhuman savages" could only cloud the minds of actual tacticians trying to find ways to handle the situation. We have to see things as they are. Small people go into Judo for self-defense rather than a striking art for a reason: It suits their situation.

The big issue, of course, remains the crushing poverty, poor infrastructure, and low levels of education in Afghanistan. That's what's making this battle so hard, by allowing the Taliban to continue to thrive. That...and the Taliban's willingness to use tactics (including threats against their "own" people) that we would find unacceptable outside of Guantanmo Bay.

But wailing about how unfair it is that a smaller, less well-organized, less well-equipped force is doing so well against us is like when the biggest kids in school say that "only girls kick (to the crotch)": They know their weakness and are trying to outlaw it by words to help them continue to win. It's a sensible tactic, but getting too wrapped up in an ill-defined and highly culture- and time-bound sense of "honour" muddles the issue.

The Taliban aren't going to start wearing brightly coloured uniforms and marching in formation because we think they way they've been fighting isn't very cricket. Nor should we go back to torturing people because they won't play by our rules when we invade "their" country.

 

[seasoned]

Let us keep in mind that this thread could be read by people that are in or about to be in harms way. That my friend, is where our honor should be directed.:asian:

This thread could cause us to lose the war? Am I guilty of not supporting the troops?!? More jingoism.

Here, let me finish my sentence so you don't misread It again. Let us keep in mind that this thread could be read by people that are in or about to be in harms way. That my friend, is where our honor should be directed, "and not toward the enemy, they are facing". I said nothing about this thread taking away from the war effort or questioning any body's patriotism. I am a little bit closer to this then most, and have a lot to lose. I though I made this clear up front. I'm not here to get into a pissing match about who said what, my son is there and I am with him in my mind every day, until he comes home. Honoring the Fallen? Exactly who are you respecting? This was the original question, and my answer is an unequivocal one. My son and his follow soldiers. Cut and dry.