A wedge too far? When the Anzac parades are over
Tony Smith*
May 2005
Published at: acmica.org
One very incisive Non Sequitur cartoon has a highly decorated
general approaching the pearly gates. St Peter asks: 'Just
what is it about "Thou shalt not kill" that you
don't understand?' In the weeks surrounding Anzac Day each
year, this question, which should form the basis of any Christian
attitude to warfare, is conveniently shelved.
The reason for this is plain. In order that a reasonably
broad consensus might prevail around the notion of Anzac Day,
attention is focussed exclusively on the sacrifices of those
who, according to the Day's rhetoric, answered their country's
call. Provided that Anzac Day is about honouring those who
made some sacrifice in defence of Australia, then most Australians
can agree that the commemorations are justified.
However, the maintenance of this specific focus depends
upon the development of a paradigm in which soldiers do not
ask about the justice of the cause involved, but simply obey
the orders of the government of the day. Knowing this about
our service men and women, few Australians withhold support,
as is shown by the reactions of war sceptics in early 2003.
As an invasion of Iraq by the Coalition of the Willing, without
UN approval, seemed imminent, opinion polls suggested that
most Australians opposed the participation of our forces.
Once the war had begun however, many opponents felt a duty
to support the military. They set aside political preferences
because that is what soldiers do also. Clearly, people distinguish
between the issues at stake and the duty to support those
who are fighting on our behalf.
No government could fail to notice this effect. A cynical
government would attempt to exploit support for military personnel
and turn it to political advantage by making it seem that
the forces and the politically driven military campaign are
indistinguishable. It was no coincidence that in the days
before the Iraq invasion, television interviews of US troops
in Kuwait blurred this distinction. Despite the strictest
controls possible on media in this campaign, Jim Lehrer's
News Hour, screened on SBS, showed that soldiers believed
that they were 'over there' because the Iraqis had gone to
the US to mount attacks. The perception, which was presumably
that officially endorsed and fostered by the military propaganda
machine, was that the Iraq invasion had a direct connection
to the murderous terror of '911'.
There is no way of knowing exactly how the US military motivates
its soldiers. Subsequent events, such as the abuses of prisoners,
suggest that the top brass would know exactly the kinds of
sentiments that prevail amongst their recruits. Despite all
the rhetoric about freedom and democracy, US society displays
problems such as huge socio-economic inequality, racist attitudes
and extremely high homicide rates, and it would be surprising
if these problems were not present in the military as well.
The US might have told the rest of the world that it had no
proof of an Iraqi connection to 911, but it seemed content
to allow rumours to inform domestic opinion. This might be
useful for maintaining rage, but there are dangers in allowing
your troops to speak out. If they state obviously wrong or
even just controversial views, then the consensus of support
for them is endangered.
This might seem far removed from Anzac Day, but that a soldier
in the advance party of the Australian force being sent to
Iraq, made a similarly controversial statement. On national
television, the soldier said that he was pleased to be doing
something to fight terrorism. If he had said that he just
went where the government sent him, then no Australian would
have any qualms about supporting the military on principle.
However, as soon as the soldier begins to reason why, then
he or she is inviting the public to judge the army's role.
Australians who doubt that the occupation forces are defending
this country against 'terrorism', can feel only qualified
support for the military expedition.
It should be becoming clear that hatred of the enemy is
not a lasting motivation for soldiers. Yesterday's enemy becomes
today's friend, as Michael O'Brien's Conscripts and Regulars
clearly demonstrates. One soldier who served with the Seventh
Battalion in Vietnam noted that his hatred of the Viet Cong
faded but his bitterness towards certain politicians who sent
troops to Vietnam remained. He blamed also voters who put
these politicians into positions of power, but who withdrew
their support once the troops returned. This soldier must
have noted the begrudging attitude of Governments towards
the compensation claims of Vietnam veterans, the failure to
supply adequate debriefing and counselling services, and the
ongoing hypocrisy of promising the earth to those who enlist.
Another Seventh Battalion infantryman noted his concern
about one particular ambush patrol. He knew that his mates
would behave courageously, but was worried because the Chaplain
had come out with them, and there was concern at how he might
react to the killing. The knowledge that killing is wrong
is perhaps the soldier's greatest burden, and one that we
impose all too lightly on military personnel, without recognising
the disservice we do them.
It is good that on Anzac Day, Australians express gratitude
to military personnel. But there are some unfortunate reminders
that supporters of recent wars are not grateful towards our
veterans. In the case of Vietnam, the fate of individual veterans
depended upon the outcome of political discussions over the
advisability of the commitment. When it was shown to be shameful,
respect for veterans was endangered. Allowing military personnel
to speak about foreign policy is a dangerous practice that
could prevent war critics from supporting the Australian military.
Only a cynical government would attempt to exploit support
for the military in order to silence critics of its foreign
policy. Surely, this would be a 'wedge' too far.
»«
* Tony Smith is a writer based in country NSW. He holds a
PhD in political science.
|
