|
|
from Bernard Dubé
Mr. Lewis. Your prose brings a reader into complicated arguments
rather easily. But there are instances of unexpected rancor
that detract from your case. For example, you write:
For the sake of some desk-bound general's blasphemous,
hypocritical notion of honour and dignity, what the tidy conventions
of war demand of the soldier boggle the mind in the context
of lethal conflict.
In Word War II, in fact in every war, we must be thankful
that we have some sociopaths on our side. I am personally appalled
by the capacity of a general to engage in outright, merciless
brutality. Remember how the American Forces annihilated the
retreating Iraqi army -- I'm sure you saw the news footage of
the carnage. I designate that as an example of killing a wounded
soldier. But that was the job of the generals. And, I think
that despite our repulsion to war, we are nevertheless, though
regrettably so, thankful we have such sociopaths. Lets face
it, if someone declares war against us, we may discover aspects
of our ourselves that terrify.
Here’s another sentence that appears as an outburst in
what begins as a reasoned line of argument.
May these soldiers’ survivors track you
down and tear you apart and feed your remains to the dogs of
war.
One is forced to ask: who is the sociopath here? The sentence
is a scary one.
These examples stand out quite unexpectedly. They are out of
tune with the general tenor of the piece. The result is that
people may decide the writer is some sort of hot head.
The first example states the problem but it casts an accusation
in the process concerning generals with whom some people may
feel uncomfortable. As I said, we, after all, need our sociopaths
in charge of the armed forces and when they win the war for
us they are heroes -- they saved us from hell and they saved
our lives.
I wouldn’t be surprised if in fact a lot of wounded enemy
end up shot just the way you describe. None of us can imagine
how minds can be twisted in the inferno of war. But one must
also consider the need to capture enemy soldiers. First, for
prisoner exchanges, second, for "questioning." And
by the way, I have heard that the idea is not to kill the enemy
but to wound them severely. This puts a greater strain on the
enemy. They have to use up medical supplies and care for somebody
who can no longer make a fighting contribution to the war. A
wounded soldier also puts the life of his comrades in danger.
They are under an obligation to rescue him and in the process,
more of his comrades are killed. A wounded soldier slows down
a mission and if he cannot be left behind or immediately returned
to the rear lines the mission is in jeopardy. Bringing in a
helicopter to remove the soldier can betray their position to
the enemy and even bring them under fire as the helicopter tries
to land. And of course this endangers the helicopter, involves
the expenditure of fuel and endangers the highly skilled pilot
that cost the government thousands of dollars to train and of
which the country has only so many.
So your ‘modest’ proposal that a soldier
aught to kill the enemy he has wounded has its logic but there
are all these other advantages to letting him live which puts
additional strain on his unit or platoon. Imagine the effect
on the general military and then the general population to see
such wounded people returning from the front lines to live among
them. The same psychic strain exists for them as it did for
his comrades and the more there are of such wounded the more
intense the strain on the population. There is also the cost
of long rehabilitation and the financial burden involved in
supporting someone whose capacity to earn a living is severely
undermined. Imagine that instead of killing a soldier you tell
him you are going to blow his legs and his balls off and cut
his hands from his arms? But you can see how it compares to
finishing the job with a single bullet. It scares the hell out
of me just to say such things. The horrible truth is that in
the inhuman conditions of war, we can see the logic of it and
even accept it as a reasonable course of action.
|
|
|
