Posted on 11/21/2005 8:04:10 PM PST by NZerFromHK
If enterprise and moral rectitude are what defines militarism these days, then we need more of it
---------------------------------
I don't think I have to explain to readers of this magazine why a country would want to have military forces. It's one of those things you either get or don't, and as I've noticed from reading The Globe and Mail, if you don't get it, arguments aren't going to help you.
The guys who do the fighting do not choose the war. I would have thought this an elementary observation, but it is lost on a large section of the voting public. The idea that "militarism" is a great evil is received without reflection in institutions of higher learning. Which is true enough, if you have the fondest idea what the word "militarism" might mean.
Over the last several years, writing for dailies about the Afghan and Iraqi campaigns, and other fronts in the international war against Islamic fanaticism, I have had the honour to be in touch with more soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines than ever since I was a very young man in Cambodia and Vietnam. Through the miracle of e-mail, I have sometimes found myself exchanging notes with, for example, a U.S. marine near the action during the battle for Fallujah.
What has most impressed me, especially in communication with members of the more elite fighting forces, is their real enterprise and moral rectitude--qualities seldom encountered in "civil society," or even, these days, in religious orders. My thought being, if this is militarism, we could use more.
Consider what I recently learned from a gentleman in Iraq, who had been working in a mission with Britain's Special Air Services. Did you know that . . .
-- The original model for the SAS was the Artists' Rifles, formed in 1859. These were young London artists (literally) who volunteered to give the British Army some capabilities a little more imaginative than what they then had, in light of such problems as the Indian Mutiny.
-- The concept of "hearts and minds" (as in, "winning their . . .") was devised by the SAS as an integral part of the fight against the Communists in Malaya in the early 1950s. The idea was, since they needed the help of the aboriginals of the Malayan jungle and hill country as trackers and to teach them local survival techniques, why not play nice with them? Core concept: always treat your allies' women as if they were poison, and never mess with one. (What a brilliant place to start!)
-- Before every SAS operation, the troop (generally, four patrols of four men each) holds a "Chinese parliament," in which they review their commander's plan of action, and the fallback plans, and anyone may offer criticism and suggestions, without risk of reprisal from that CO.
-- This is possible because, like the Israeli army, the SAS cultivates freedom from class and rank distinction. They are all trained to respond to "developments" without orders.
If a patrol is fired on, they will instantly disperse into positions where they can kill the enemy without risk of hitting one another. (And they do, invariably, kill the enemy.)
-- In each patrol of four, you have a signals expert, a demolitions expert, a medical expert, and a languages expert. Yet each of the four will have cross-training in the other specialties.
-- The SAS also cultivates freedom from what members conventionally call "bullshit" (example: keeping your kit neat and tidy beyond the requirements of good order and hygiene).
-- An intrinsic part of the SAS creed is moral, and extends to their "private lives" (so far as they have anything resembling one). They boot out people who behave contrary to Christian norms, anywhere, anytime. They consider themselves to be, in effect, "fighting monks."
That last phrase was my informant's, not mine. But I think it opens the door on a world nearly lost; on human capabilities that are needed for any civilization to survive. The ancient Spartans had a whole society built on SAS principles. That we don't want, but we do desperately need such "special forces."
I thought they just voted to let their military have immoral rectitude.
Warren is a treasure.
Fighting monks indeed. Interesting perspective.
Canada needs more of him. Not less.
Moral Absolutes Ping.
I like this article and the writer. "Fighting monks". I like it.
Freepmail me if you want on/off this pinglist.
No one said that virtue and namby pambyism are synonymous. Or if they said it, they were very, very wrong.
Saw "The Transporter 2," and loved it, and particularly liked the fact that the protagonist TURNED DOWN A CHANCE TO COMMIT ADULTERY with an attractive woman.
Wow.
"Fighting Monks" ping.
Warren is scratching the surface here, of a really big concept. I'm reminded of the "warrior poets".
That is one major reason wy the left is hell bent on eliminating the armed forces.
Was it better than Transporter 1, b/c that was a tad corny.
I have not seen "1", but I expect "1" was also wonderful, which is why they made "2" which is wonderful.
"Fighting Monks", most excellent!
Bravo Zulu! Foxtrot Mike!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.