Druidry & Military Service?

[Michael C. Page]

Feels to me like you are repeating "The Ethics of A Soldier" or some lessons given to you by your superiors..

Dear Hennie,

No offence intended Sir, but I don't really see how you can justify your statement, given all that she said with regards to the subject of this thread. I'm quoting her again so that we may re-read the points Avariel made, which IMO are summed up very well. I felt that the second paragraph especially made very good points for this thread. See below -

"[quote="Avariel
[/quote]

Having served in Iraq and having killed others, (all who were definitely strangers to me), I don't think it's as simple as "spiritual = non-warrior, non-spiritual = warrior." Taking the life of another is not a simple matter of "Ok I'm going to kill now," nor is it rarely a matter of just mindlessly doing what you're told. ESPECIALLY in combat; battle is such a mash of noise, sound, instinctive action and the training you've received, as well as the emotions and intellect that you try to keep under control throughout in order to keep your friends and those who are depending on you alive. We who are soldiers, and who have served, are not mindless wardogs, to be released on the enemy slavering without thought to what we're doing. We carry the weight of death on our shoulders and the knowledge of what humans can do to one another for those who choose not to fight. Someone has to. And I think that many soldiers end up being MORE spiritual for their experiences and not less so.

Let me ask you; if you truly think that war can't possibly integrate into the life of a spiritual person, then why do we as druids have The Morrigan as a war goddess? Why pay any homage at all to the apparently base and unspiritual practice of battle? Had I not walked the battlefield, I would not be the woman I am today; I would not realize how fragile or precious life truly is, and how easily we can destroy it. But because I do not shrink from killing someone who definitely has their sights set on killing me, does that mean that I am not a spiritual person? I don't think so at all, and I think that such experiences can only lend to the spiritual walk of a person, not detract from it.

Do I like war? Do I like killing? Certaintly not. Does being spiritual and a professed killer as well mean that I may suffer sometimes, and that I've been changed irrevocably, because I'm spiritually aware of my actions and the pain that they have caused other? Do I carry the weight of what I've had to do, and what others have had to do to me? Yes. That is why they call serving your country a "sacrifice."[/quote]

[Avariel]

Feels to me like you are repeating "The Ethics of A Soldier" or some lessons given to you by your superiors.

Never read it.

I have never asked for someone to defend me so I can make the choice not to fight; on the contrary I have stated on all occasions where the government of my country commanded "our soldiers" to fight for "us" that they didn't do it in my name or for my sake.

I don't remember stating any of that; I remember stating that a person who chooses to kill to defend themselves, and others from harm, is not by default a person who lacks spiritual growth and awareness.

Edit: However, you bring up a point that a lot of people like to hammer home sometimes in discussions like this; "I would fight, but it has to be for a 'cause' that I believe in" or "I would only fight and kill to defend myself."

Let me pose this question, if I can; what if the cause, the meaning, for the fight was unjust...but people were still suffering? What if by fighting for an unjust cause you could still place yourself in a position to do good? What if said suffering risked spreading to your own lands, homes, families, and yourself, if allowed to happen unchecked? It's very easy for people to say "that will never happen." I've never met anyone who's survived in a country that lacks the freedoms we enjoy in 1st world countries ever, EVER say "That will never happen." Once you're exposed to places like this, and you realize just how fragile and temporal our freedom is unless we guard it, you simply know.

It's happened so many times in the past, in past cultures and empires, that I still to this day don't understand how people can still think "It's the government simply trying to control us with fear." Take the government out of the equation for a moment, and really look, LOOK, at history and how it's repeated itself over and over again. Even the Iceni and the Pictish tribes of Scotland were as free as they could ever be, and all it took was a little attention from the Romans. The only reason why they weren't completely decimated and lost to all time is because when they were challenged, they fought. Do you think a lot of soldiers under Boudicea were miffed that they had to leave their families and risk their lives because their queen was flogged in the center of the town and her daughters raped? What did it have to do with them? Who was this woman to tell them that THEY had to go fight? She never asked any of them if they wanted to go to war.

They fought because they understood that what happened to their Queen could happen to all of them. Because it HADN'T was a moot point.

Just an example to chew on.

[Hennie]

Time has changed since Boudicea, as you know very well. So have power structures, wars are now fouht in far away places for politics that are supposedly for the good of the whole world. You can't compare the state of the world (and the gods) of 2000 years ago whith the mess we are in today. Perhaps then and there fighting a was a fairly "sensible" thing to do in trying to keep your freedom and such. Nowadays I think, that having troups only for the defense of your border is alright. The Irak war was about economics (oil) and the Afghan war nobody knows for shure what that is al about . I don't feel someone fighting there is defending my wife, children or myself. Get out and leave the afghans to themselves.

[Avariel]

Time has changed since Boudicea, as you know very well. So have power structures, wars are now fouht in far away places for politics that are supposedly for the good of the whole world.

They haven't really. Boudicea used to cut off the breasts of Roman women that were captured whenever they razed a town, and she did this to ALL of them, as repayment for the rape of three virgin women (her daughters). Thousands of Roman women were brutalized, raped, and killed in this manner. How is that any less brutal than what goes on today? Just because something happened in antiquity and is heroized in myth and legend doesn't mean that such times were glowing with good intention and honor. Do I adore Boudicea and stand behind what she did? Hell yes. Do I think it was particularly noble? Nope. I think brutality has a place just as nobility does, and nature should be a good example of the balance between these two creating a harmonious whole.

You can't compare the state of the world (and the gods) of 2000 years ago whith the mess we are in today. Perhaps then and there fighting a was a fairly "sensible" thing to do in trying to keep your freedom and such. Nowadays I think, that having troups only for the defense of your border is alright. The Irak war was about economics (oil) and the Afghan war nobody knows for shure what that is al about . I don't feel someone fighting there is defending my wife, children or myself. Get out and leave the afghans to themselves.

To be honest, I think you can compare them; what motivates people to war is usually colored with a rosy glow in order to make it palatable for those fighting it, and this has never changed throughout history. In truth, what I experienced in the war at a personal level was a lot of brutality, but there was still good being done, because a lot of people joined the "fight" in order to make a difference, not because they believed in our country killing some random arabs for oil. Because that's what we believed, it's what we accomplished, if only at a smaller level. My point was that while the motives of our leaders were questionable, the hearts and minds of many a solider that went over to fight were pure, and intentions were pure; and if the only argument against bloodshed is "the intention has to be right" then shouldn't this matter to you as well? Shouldn't the good that's accomplished by war be noted as well as the bad?

Many of you will disagree with me when I say that I think some things are worth killing over, and worth risking my life over. I saved a 15 year old girl from rape and probably murder, and I saved plenty of my friends from death as well. Down to it, combat is a choice between a stranger and someone I love who's fighting next to me, and I think a lot of books on war and military what-have-you have mentioned this, as well; most people won't be willing to make that choice, but in my case I HAD to, for opting out of not doing either wasn't an option. I chose, and I don't regret it at all. Nor do I think it makes me less of a spiritualist, or less in touch with my spiritual side because of my actions.

[pangurban]

You waste your time Avariel they will never agree. I actually believe that to say I will defend my border and the rest of the world can take care of itself is not a very spiritual stance.

[Hennie]

I am not saying the individual soldier is a bad person. My father was a military man and I have seen him fighting his nightmares. My uncle went crazy during combat in the '40; I have only known him as a sad (and mad) man in an asylum for the mentally ill.
What I am saying though is that the wars my country has fought over the past years were unjust (except for maybe some real peacekeeping operations).

[pangurban]

I am not saying the individual soldier is a bad person. My father was a military man and I have seen him fighting his nightmares. My uncle went crazy during combat in the '40; I have only known him as a sad (and mad) man in an asylum for the mentally ill.
What I am saying though is that the wars my country has fought over the past years were unjust (except for maybe some real peacekeeping operations).

You may not say that they are bad people but you certainly inferred that they were sheep that blindly followed their leaders and did not think for themselves. In reading Avariel's posts I do not see this I see someone who thinks about her actions, it is just that she comes to conclusions that you do not like.

[Hennie]

Ever heard of a soldier who when he is ordered to go and fight, thinks about the task and says :"sorry, old chap, can't fight for you on this one". The whole point of having an army is that they will do about just anything that they are ordered to do.

[Avariel]

Ever heard of a soldier who when he is ordered to go and fight, thinks about the task and says :"sorry, old chap, can't fight for you on this one". The whole point of having an army is that they will do about just anything that they are ordered to do.

Military subculture doesn't really work that way. Most military members in a position to give me orders also felt the responsibility of human life; a majority of the time, there is not one dumbass simply pointing his finger and ordering us to kill, which is a common misconception that many people who prefer not to fight like to carry around, because it makes the choice of not fighting more palatable. I myself was in a position to order others in the last two years of my enlistment; and while there's a strong sense of discipline and following orders in the military, there's ALSO a strong sense of keeping one another accountable and speaking up for what's right REGARDLESS OF RANK. They teach both just as intensely, and soldiers are more often than not held accountable for NOT saying something when a senior member is doing something wrong.

Soldiers are to follow "lawful" orders. If the order isn't "lawful" they are not required to follow it.

If you didn't know this before, now you know, and hopefully this at least changes your perception of how the military works as far as "ordering about" goes.

[pangurban]

Ever heard of a soldier who when he is ordered to go and fight, thinks about the task and says :"sorry, old chap, can't fight for you on this one". The whole point of having an army is that they will do about just anything that they are ordered to do.

Of course a soldier obeys his orders that is what they do as other soldiers lives depend on this. The thinking goes in before and after and I am sorry you cannot accuse Avariel of not putting thought into her actions you just do not agree with the way those thoughts lead her. In one of your earlier posts you say that you do not ask people to fight for you but I would bet any amount of money that your countrymen in the second world war were pretty grateful to the allied troops.The trouble in saying military action is wrong is that life is not that simple.

[Hennie]

I bet you most Iraqis and Afghans are not happy with the troops that came to visit their lands.
And in WW II our land was occupied by troops who we hadn't invited in; you can guess most people were happy when other troops (the Allied) threw them out, right. And I think I would have been too; but perhaps I might have thought "So what, one oppressor goes, and the other one comes in". Not the English troops, they left, but there are still American troops all over Europe in strategic places (for instance guarding atom bombs and missiles that have been put in our country), so... the beginning of the Pax Americana (and I am not very pleased about this situation).

[Aelfarh]

If any comparison has to be made between the past and the present it is that the US behave pretty much like Rome, only worst. Iraq was invaded for pure economic and geostrategic military reasons, not because it was a threat to the US government and/or citizens. I also very much doubt that the people who work for the military can choose which campaigns they want to be involved in, and if refuse to work in an unjust one, they are just said, ok, no problem, see you next time. I’ll not work for the military institutions simply because I firmly believe that force and fight shall be used only in just and necessary stances, for your defence or defence of your friends and I will refuse to fight for the economic interests of a group.

I'm very glad that the invasion of Iraq is going to an end, and hope that the Afghan one end up soon.

[pangurban]

I bet you most Iraqis and Afghans are not happy with the troops that came to visit their lands.
And in WW II our land was occupied by troops who we hadn't invited in; you can guess most people were happy when other troops (the Allied) threw them out, right. And I think I would have been too; but perhaps I might have thought "So what, one oppressor goes, and the other one comes in". Not the English troops, they left, but there are still American troops all over Europe in strategic places (for instance guarding atom bombs and missiles that have been put in our country), so... the beginning of the Pax Americana (and I am not very pleased about this situation).

Of course that "oppressor that came in place of the other" was not intent on destroying a whole race were they? It is quite skewed to try and compare the Americans with the Nazis.As for all your other complaints none of this could have been done without your governments and thereby the tacit consent of the people.

[Hennie]

The people were not "tacit". The first elections after the war were won by the Dutch communist party; they were the biggest party, had the most votes, but were kept out of the coalition. You know over here up till now since WW II there have always been coalition governments. So "the people"made it fairly clear that the y weren't that pleased with the Americans. (They other big parties were some christian parties (we had several of those then, still have) and the social-democrats).
And your remark about destroying a people is rather false. During the war no one gave a sh*t about the gas-chambers and the camps.

edit : Keeping the largest party out of government is considered not done. It normally would have been up to the largest party to form a coalition or choose to be in opposition.

[Explorer]

I think we should distinguish between global politics and the human factor.

I don't think that a soldier generally become a soldier because he or she wants to go kill people, or expects to end up in that situation. Soldiers are people also.
Global politics caused the war in Iraq. Or perhaps the paranoid idiots at the top who used the power of Goddess Media to cause a mass hysteria that made it possible.
And somewhere very far down the line we finally find a soldier facing the most important decision in his or her life, the decision about who lives and who dies when she has to pull the trigger.

To be honest, I don't really like those one-dimensional simplistic remarks thrown against Avariel all the time. I see a woman who thinks and feels deeply, and who tries to explain to us what happened to her with a great sense of patience and a great sense of responsibility.

She has said some very important things.
That even in a warzone she wants to do good. And that she takes a personal responsibility for her choices, even for killing people. Don't take this lightly and try to think about what that means. This is not tough talk, she said that she realises what pain she caused by those actions, and that those deaths weigh on her. And I think that she knows that her conscience will haunt her some day for killing human beings, perhaps it already does. But I also think that one should choose the lesser of evils once you're in that situation, because what would be the alternative? Not pulling the trigger and let your comrades die? Not pulling the trigger and letting that girl be raped and killed? Would that make her a better more responsible person? Like she said, doing nothing is also taking a decision, then you simply let others die.

As far as I see it a soldier has 2 responsiblities.
As a human being to be humane. And as a soldier to stand by her/his comrades, whatever that takes.
And Hennie, soldiers do learn about the geneva convention, they learn how to treat prisoners. They learn how to follow orders, but also which orders not to follow. I know that, because I once taught those lessons to soldiers myself. But thankfully I was never in combat, so I can't even imagine what Avariel has been up against.

It is extremely hard to judge from this distance. But to me it looks that Avariel took her responsibities and chose the lesser evils. If I was in that situation I would probably do the same thing. I would also pull the trigger to save my comrades and the live of that girl. And then I would also live with the consequences of that decision for the rest of my life.

Avariel, I don't envy you, but I respect you and I thank you for sharing those stories and insights.

[Hennie]

C'mon Explorer don't give me the "modern times, clean war" talk; you know better than that or you are very naive or even more corrupt than I already thought you were. Sorry for the shouting...

[Explorer]

C'mon Explorer don't give me the "modern times, clean war" talk; you know better than that or you are very naive or even more corrupt than I already thought you were. Sorry for the shouting...

HAHAHA!!.... coming from you, I think I will take that as a compliment Hennie. You are forgiven for the shouting

[Hennie]

Nice evasion technique.

[Avariel]

I bet you most Iraqis and Afghans are not happy with the troops that came to visit their lands.

Most were, actually. The Shi'ite majority suffered a lot under the previous rule, if you recall, and when I was there most of the locals wanted to work for us (probably to get a relatively safe place on the base in Fallujah to sleep at night) and were very "pro-American." Driving through southern Iraq on our way north from Kuwait was like being in a parade; the waving, blowing of kisses, shouting, etc. Those people were driven into destitution by the warring tribes and when we arrived it was like Christmas for them (except they're obviously Muslim so not really Christmas, but you know what I mean.)

Most Muslims are a lot like many people in many religions; they all have differeng opinions and ideas and they all practice to varying degrees of intensity, much like Christianity (or any religion, really) in our own country. Many people consider themselves "Christian" but don't practice to the extent that some others who call themselves the same thing do, and it's no different in the Middle East. So a majority of those there when I was there actually did want us there, if only to help them deal with the extremists that were terrorizing them to gain control over the vaccuum filled by Sadaam's usurption. Those trying to gain control were not above taking men's families at gunpoint and giving them the choice of "join or die" and with our presence in that area of the country, that problem was minimized to the extent of almost not happening anymore. People were willing to risk their lives just to help us; we had a slew of barbers on the base that we had hired out in order to get some commerce flowing in the area again and when the sunni tribe that was predominant there found out they threatened to kill them if they continued to work for us. and these men REFUSED to quit! This was HUGE in that area, because this is how life was there and had been there for centuries; threat and the use of force is common over there, and many of them are simply used to giving in to keep themselves alive. Our presence there galvanized these people into hope and action and gave them a reason to fight back, which is something that they haven't had in centuries.

Hennie, I'm sort of shocked that you can have such solidified opinions on what the Iraqi people feel or think when you've never even been over there? I'm not saying you can't have an opinion, but you have a lot of people (not just me) who've spoken to them and lived among them and sometimes fought beside them, and we at least have first hand experiences that decry your opinions as being more than a little false. Is this the first time you've spoken with someone who's been there? The Iraqi people certaintly did NOT want us to just pack up and leave, and I could probably name a few of them who threatened to sneak into my seabag the week that I left and come home with me to America.

Explorer, thank you for your kind words; I really appreciate them and I'm grateful that people understand war isn't always just a simple matter of kill-or-be-killed like the movies make it out to be. There are choices to be made like anywhere else in life, and sometimes all the choices you get are ugly.

[Aelfarh]

I don't think that a soldier generally become a soldier because he or she wants to go kill people, or expects to end up in that situation.

Neither do I, I believe that the majority of soldiers work for the military because they want to defend and work for their country, but, I do think they are concious and expect to end up in war sooner of later. Specially in a military force like the US that has a history behind.

because what would be the alternative?

How about refusing to fight in an invasion to a foreign country driven only by economic interests?