This is something which I have been writing since quite a few weeks, but have never been able to finish it for some reason or another; also I am not sure about the kind of reaction I will receive after someone reads it. But nonetheless, I am going to write it after all.
We live in times of war. while most of us liberal thinkers, free thinkers, conservatives, rightists, leftists and still many others debate about the futility of war, and either are completely for or completely against it, we are very wary about saying anything against the soldier who is on the field laying down his life for the country. At best, we all like to say “I support the soldier, he is just doing his job, but it’s the war that I don’t supportâ€.
For a while now, I have begun to think that this argument is quite phony and at times ridiculous. How can someone not support the war, but support the job that the soldier is doing in the war? If someone doesn’t support the war, technically, that someone does not support the soldier either – saying that the soldier is merely doing what his superiors say is not a valid argument. Because, invariably the soldier is doing something his superiors say, and you don’t agree to what his superiors say. His superior might be acting on higher powers, so he is not to blame either; and neither is his superior by that argument. So the only person who is actually responsible for the war is the president or prime minister himself and the only person you can say is wrong is the president. Right?
Wrong. If Donald Rumsfeld told people that he’s acting only on President’s behalf, that doesn’t make him any less guilty than others of harboring a wrong war (or a right war, depending on how you see it). We are all prepared to be against everybody down the food chain, except when the army or soldier gets in. That’s where leniency sets in the name of patriotic favor. And we allow soldiers to get away with a war they might also think as wrong, just because it is termed as “call of duty†of nation. Why?
Let us look at the other side of the equation. We all do our jobs only if we are happy doing it. If we don’t agree with kind of job we are doing, most educated people will quit the job. They might tolerate the job to a certain extent, but they won’t continue in the company if they don’t agree their superiors, the overall company ethics and such. Most educated people quit if they are asked to do something they don’t like for a long time. Then why don’t the soldiers have that choice? Or is it a choice they are not willing to make?
A soldier is doing a risky job, where in his own life is at stake – its of paramount importance to him to know whether he is fighting for a right cause or a wrong cause; merely “its my duty†is not enough. Why should a soldier lay down his life for a wrong cause? Conversely, if the soldier doesn’t believe in the war he is about to go, what stops him from quitting the war? And what stops the soldier from making that decision perhaps after being the war for say 6 months. Its not as if he needed to make that decision on the day they went to war. And then, if he quits, how is it that he becomes “less patriotic†towards his own nation? If we are ready to equate a soldier’s job as just a job, then he has the option to quit the war too if he wishes, without the need of being labeled as a non-patriot.
And I think soldiers who don’t make that choice, are then agreeing to the concept and logic behind the war in the first place. Thereby saying that “I support the soldier†and “not the war†is a phony argument. You either don’t support the war and the soldiers dying for a wrong cause, or you support the war and the soldiers involved. Trying to walk the middle line makes one look like a hypocrite.
There is another argument – one might argue that there are so many people in the world who their jobs just because they have to. In fact many people actually take up jobs in the army because it helps pay their tuitions, get discounts on loans and more. And given all that is at stake, the soldier may decide its worth killing the enemy in war for his own livelihood. But then, that’s a conscious choice he as a soldier has made – because he is doing it for his family or his livelihood does not really mean that others need to be sympathetic towards his actions. Do we sympathize towards those bonded laborers in Dubai? Do we think of those Philippine men who work in Taiwan and get a week’s holiday in three years, and toil hard because of their family? Do we bother about the miners working in West Virginia? Often, they too work in sub-human conditions and equally dangerous workplaces, where many a men lose their lives. Because they are not doing a patriotic service, is their job any less worthwhile than others?
In a war, nobody’s right. If a soldier is willingly or unwillingly part of a war he doesn’t agree with, then he is as much to share the blame of the war. If someone doesn’t support the war, doesn’t mean they have to support the actions of their soldiers. They are humans after all, and just doing their job. Treat them as equals. Conversely if a soldier truly believes he is in a wrong war, then he should quit the war, without the need of the society labeling him as unpatriotic.