War
The New Yorker is always a good source of behind-the-lines war reporting. In the July 6-13 issue, Raffi Khatchadourian writes about Operation Iron Triangle, a "vast air-assault mission" in Iraq in 2006, where eight Iraqi men, apparently unarmed, were shot dead by soldiers under the command of Colonel Michael Dane Steele, forcing comparisons with the 2005 massacre at Haditha (brilliantly dramatised by Nick Broomfield in his film Battle For Haditha). The Iron Triangle killings "suggested a grave problem within the chain of command." Steele stands accused of "cultivating reckless agressiveness in his soldiers, and by interpreting the rules of engagement in a way that made the killing of noncombatants likely." Khatchadourian's piece - which I'm still in the middle of reading (this is the New Yorker), is a close-up chronicle of events leading up to the killings in 2006, and a vivid portrait of Steele.I was particularly interested to read, in great detail, about the briefing/pep talk he gave to his brigade before they left for Iraq in September 2005, in which he mocked the "soft knock" approach of some of the other commanders, and readied the troops for "the moment of truth, when you're about to kill the other son of a bitch." A folded American flag was on a lecturn at the back of the stage. Steele explained that it had been recovered from Building No. 7 at the World Trade Center, and that he had vowed to take it with him into combat in Iraq. "Men, it is time to go hunting," he concluded. "You're the hunter, you're the predator. You're looking for the prey."
Well, by September 2005, as far as I'm aware, two years into the occupation of Iraq, it was well known that the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center had nothing to do with Iraq. (And shame on Oliver Stone for implying the link in his disaster movie World Trade Center - in 2006.) And yet, here was a commander making that link explicit with his symbolic flag. What this illustrates, I think, is the disconnect between the real world and the unreal world of military combat - or, if you prefer, the real world of military combat and the unreal world that the rest of us safely live in. In many ways, although he is a bellicose hawk whose career was ended by the Iron Triangle affair, Steele was simply geeing his men up for what would be a gruelling, extraordinary and probably deadly tour of duty in the desert. So, the World Trade Center flag was misleading, stupid and inflammatory. But it probably did the trick on the day of uniting and inspiring his men. We can sit at home and wring our hands about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but we don't have to actually fight them. I'm full of opinions about our involvement in these American adventures and always have been, having marched to lend my voice to the anti-war movement before we invaded Iraq. But it's gone beyond US imperialism and oil now, into a vast grey quagmire; however, that British operations are underfunded and poorly equipped seems pretty unequivocal, and a real cause for concern. (Generation Kill made explicit the link between bad hardware and mortal danger, even on the American side.) But why would a man like Colonel Steele listen to my namby-pamby opinions about making love, not war? (At the base of 101st Airbourne in Tikrit in 2005, somebody posted signs above, respectively, the wing devoted to practical, military, operational matters, and the wing devoted to administrative, civil and legal affairs: "Carnivores" and "Herbivores.")
All of a sudden, whether carnivore or herbivore, we are supposed to care more about our troops dying in Afghanistan; in that our media has decided to make Afghanistan front page news now that Jacko is in the ground. We've been there for eight years. British troops have been getting blown up and shot since 2004. But what seems to have flicked the public concern switch is that the number killed has now topped the number killed in Iraq. This strikes me as a bit random in terms of sympathy, but the papers do like to number crunch. Clearly, whatever your views on the war - and if you're anti-war, you're presumably pro-compassion - it's an appalling thing to know that a family have lost a son/daughter/husband/father/brother/mother/sister in a foreign war before their time. Some of the soldiers killed last week in Afghanistan, when we were instructed to start caring, were as young as 18. The difficulty for the newspapers reporting casualties is this: one dead soldier is easier to personalise (he was a "great bloke", say, or a "loving dad", or a "proper London geezer" as I saw one described in one of our rubbish London freesheets the other day), but a large number is better for shock value: eight killed in one day, or whatever it is. This conflict is being fought on the other side of the world. Most people in Britain don't really know what the troops are even fighting for - oh yes, to defeat the Taliban and win the war on terror, I forgot; not quite defeating fascism and stopping Hitler invading our shores, is it? But only the most hard-hearted wouldn't feel sad for the bereaved families of mostly young men.
My brother was in the army - he joined at 16 - and did tours of Northern Ireland when British soldiers were among those being killed in that ugly and unpredictable civil war. (Much closer to home, of course.) I know what it's like to have a family member in the armed services, abroad in a potentially fatal situation, although because he is my brother, I never for one moment thought he was going to die. I'm sure the families of the latest Afghanistan casualties felt the same. However, a pacifist I may be, but I have always tried to seek out the truth about army life, via films initially, although these are often limited in their proximity to the truth. I have read plenty of books and articles about combat, especially since 9/11, when "peacetime" ended from where I was sitting. The New Yorker continues to provide vivid insight. And now, we have The Junior Officers' Reading Club: Killing Time and Fighting Wars by Patrick Hennessey, which I intend to buy after listening to David Hepworth's fascinating interview with the 30-year-old British officer on the latest Word podcast. Highly recommended if you have fixed ideas about "our boys" in the desert. I know he's an officer, and all middle class, but that does not come with an invisibility shield in a war zone, so his account of life on tour is highly relevant.
Talking at the weekend to my brother (who left the army about 15 years ago), and thinking about Hennessey's evocative and revealing memoirs; the fatal misadventures of Colonel Steele; Kathryn Bigelow's forthcoming film The Hurt Locker; and the untrustworthy and quite insulting way the newspapers have decided to promote Afghanistan to a lead because of a number, I am currently preoccupied with war, and in particular our civilian relationship with those who - in Afghanistan's case - volunteered to go out and fight for their country. As my brother says, combat is what they join for. It's more true than ever with regard those who have joined since 2003. The adrenaline of combat is something I will never know, preferring the adrenaline of standing on stage or sitting in front of a radio microphone and talking, but it's real.
These boys, and it is still mostly boys, live for the kind of action that could send them home in a bag. They are braver, and maybe more misguided, than you or I, but they deserve respect. I actually think it is important to try and understand why they do it, and what they actually do, rather than to just take the kneejerk liberal stance and dismiss them as political cannon fodder, or take the kneejerk right-wing, patriotic stance and elevate them to instant hero status, like the Sun does. The truth is much more complicated. We're not all carnivores or herbivores.
posted by Andrew Collins @ 11:17 AM
21 Comments
Contact
Andrew at
21 Comments:
On a lighter and utterly unrelated note, I'm currently reading 'Me Cheeta'by James Lever - the fictionalised autobiography of Tarzan's simian side-kick.
This is by far one of the funniest, most poignant and original books I've read in a very long time, a brilliant spoof of both Hollywood's golden age and the celebrity memoir. Have you read this? I don't usualy recomend books - but I think you'd really enjoy it Andrew. It's a comic masterpiece. Wish I'd written it.
GREAT post, Andrew.
Anna
AC, couldn't agree with your post more. I have two brothers who have been in the forces (one in, one who has left) and it imposes a sense of the risk they may have to endure. I too have grave misgivings about the causes and rationale behind all recent conflicts. The routine description of "our boys", all combatants are "heroes" etc. These glib generalisations fail to convey the complexities of the nature of the conflict particularly as it matures. It simply becomes cowboys and Indians, goodies vs baddies. Yet as you convey so well, there are indeed real personal tragedies, loss and grief. Signing up which leads to a tour of duty provides no immunity for the combatant or the family.
I recall in my younger days the unease I felt as November 11 approached with what I saw as a glorification of war. As time has gone on I have realised my naivety. In the fist and second world wars masses, millions, of people, families endured the agonies people they knew (and often loved) going off to fight. The impact wasn't just in the war years but must have informed peoples' entire lives from 1918 to 1939 and 1945 to 1960(?) when the events were so vivid in those who fought or lived through it. From the safe distance of 2009 when our memories of conflict are generationally and geographically more remote I, for one, initially failed to appreciate the sense of sacrifice which must have clung and informed for so long.
Whatever, the rights and wrongs of recent conflicts I feel current members of the armed forces deserve treatment of due respect. Not simple statistics to promote failing newspaper circulations nor as cartoon "heroes". A difficult balance to achieve, I fully understand. But I think AC encapsulates the complexities and nuances perfectly.
Actually found the Word podcast one of the most interesting things i've heard in a long time [present company accepted] but it proves the 'Spaced' idea that people of a certain age find difficult situations [ie Life] easier to deal with using pop culture as a window, in much the same way that some people find looking at an horrific situation through a camera view finder findit easier to cope with due to the un-reality of it all
Backtoblack
As ever your words are eloquent & your point well made.
Researching further into this whole area, you may come across quotes from the likes of Bush Snr. & Henry J. Anslinger, on what they had to say about ground troops (e.g. nothing but "meat for the machine." They wrote this sort of thing quite openly).
Fight the power Andrew!
(You did a great fill for Adam & Joe).
Good luck in Edinburgh!
Damian
What a thoughtful and thought-provoking piece of writing. A welcome antidote to the extant tabloid simplifications.
Patrick Hennessey's book is also on my list, on the basis of a chance encounter on book of the week. "Chickenhawk" by Robert Mason - a US helicopter pilot during Vietnam - may be worth a look.
I agree our soldiers do deserve our respect. I for one would not put myself in their position unless a friend or family member were at risk. To fight and die in a dusty battlefield thousands of miles away from your home for a hard to quantify goal must take real guts or borderline stupidity.
The guys on the frontline all seem to be under 20. Baring in mind that it is not always the smartest cookies who get into the army doesn't this make for a volatile cocktail?
Don't get me wrong, I understand what you're saying but I have to take issue with a few things. This might come across as a diatribe but it's not meant that way. I just think there's some liberal guilt blowback going on here, or maybe a liberal guilt reflux.
Firstly you talked about Steele and his pep talk saying "But it probably did the trick on the day of uniting and inspiring his men". It certainly did. Too much. That's why he's in trouble. His own words indicate other commanders took a softer approach and as far as we know that approach didn't result in a civilian massacre. So in this case I can't understand why you would play down something that was part of a pattern that led to a war crime.
I think that's a poor example to use to make your wider point which is essentially 'we don't know what it's like'. Of course most of us have no idea what combat is like but then I don't have any idea what shoving my face in a bonfire is like. Presumably pretty horrible. Just because I don't know what it's like doesn't mean I necessarily have to respect perfectly sane people who choose to do it.
Bill Maher got into a lot of trouble when talking about the 9/11 terrorists saying "We have been the cowards lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it's not cowardly.". Bravery is not necessarily a virtue. It's like when politicians are referred to as 'conviction politicians'. It's meaningless, so was Hitler. So it's not about whether it's brave, it's about whether it's honourable. I don't think we need to respect people who are brave in the pursuit of a dishonourable or foolish cause.
I even think you're being hard on the media. Every UK death has been reported in Afghanistan but eight deaths in a day and fifteen in twelve days is a big story. Then Clegg broke the cross-party consensus, followed by Cameron and the story had legs. The increasing casualties have meant the story has been building for a while. Should there have been more coverage over the years? Absolutely. But this isn't filling a gap left by Jacko or a reaction to the death toll exceeding Iraq.
Of course I feel somewhat bad for the families of the dead soldiers but I've only got so much compassion to go around. I'm conscious that very few civilian deaths in Afghanistan are reported. The families of those people get no coverage and they didn't choose to live in a warzone it was inflicted upon them. If you lose your wife or mother in Afghanistan to a British soldier you get as little as £127 compensation. British soldiers choose to serve, they choose to be paid to kill people. There's a limit to how much compassion or respect I have to show them.
I take your point about understanding the soldier's mentality, just like it's useful to understand the mind of a drug addict or a serial killer. But compassion? Respect? Not so much, not in this context. At the end of the day soldiers have to take moral responsibility for the wars they choose to fight. Especially since these days it seems that following orders is less of a defense than giving them.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Hey Andrew,
I hope that you are well - unfortunately one of yours and rich's 'nerd army' members works at your rail station (i'm the one with the important, but not so, hat), i won't mention which of course.
i do try in my job not to second look members of the public who I recognise from music, tv, film and theatre as i can imagine it must be a pain to have strange people such as myself looking at you thinking 'i know that person, where from..hang on!'
that kinda happened today, i thought, 'i know him don't I', as we have many regulars, realised it was thee mr collings and looked away to not invade your privacy. i could have done with asking if you had a spare pencil actually.
I'm a big fan of your podcasts, seen it in the flesh at the Cross kings and really look forward to the next installment.
Best Wishes, Matthew Phillips
Thanks for a thought provoking article. I have a brother in the army who has served in Afghanistan and a nephew who has just signed up, gold help him, and I wonder about what they do and the people they work with quite a lot too. I'm not sure I agree totally with what you say about people signing up being keen for combat - many of the people I happen to know seemed to have signed up for trades or some other reason rather than directly for a combat role - but you've made me think and you've made me start a few conversations at work and with friends - much more than you get from an average blog post. So thanks again.
On a secondary point, why don't we see articles like this in the papers? I mean sane reasoned articles that point out a few of the issues on something really important and ask us to think about them ourselves. Why is it that the people commissioned for opinion pieces in the papers - right across all the papers - only ever have fixed firm opinions with no room for doubt? In the media we only ever hear from people that push one view or another as being the only correct one, when we all know that it is rarely as simple as that. You work in the media Andrew - can you enlighten us?
I've just had a long comment from someone who declined to leave their name - and as you know, I choose not to publish anonymous comments. If the anonymous person would care to re-submit their comment with a name on it, I'll publish it. If they don't, it ended with this provocative line: "Anyone (other than friends or family) who mourns dead western soldiers more than dead muslims is a Racist, there is no way around that fact."
This seems to subtly imply that I am a racist, which is quite a charge.
For the record, then, I do not mourn "dead Western soldiers" more than anybody else. I though that was fairly clear. This was not a piece about the price of life per se. It's about the disconnect between liberal hang-wringing at home and the actual confusion of a war with no clear objective. I wrote it as someone who was, at one time, related to a soldier. I do not support the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan - again, I thought was was implicit. In fact, my aim was not to repeat the same old arguments again, but try to look a little deeper at the wholly unacceptable situation.
My example of the American flag from the World Trade Center was used to show that those fighting the war either don't know why they are fighting it, or choose not to know.
I interviewed Ian Brown yesterday, one of the few politically animated pop stars we have outside of Billy Bragg. He corrected pointed out that if another country invaded ours and we resisted them, we would be "the insurgency" - and what a convenient term it is to make "Them" sound like the baddies.
Mark from Northampton, I find doubt a very useful area. Someone once asked Michael Moore - a man of strong convictions - what he'd do if he found out that he was wrong. He said, "I'd change my opinion, then I'd be right." I found this profoundly honest. The reason I am not writing newspaper columns is that - apart from not really being "in" with the right people - I probably wouldn't be able to come down hard on one side or the other, and that's a difficult column to "sell." How would you headline this one? The war in Afghanistan: we don't know why we're fighting it but that doesn't stop me trying to get inside the mind of those who are, although I wish they'd all come home and although I can see why soldiers must be geed up before battle, I'm not entirely comfortable with just taking the kneejerk liberal line. Oh, and I don't think a dead western soldier is worth more than a dead member of the Taliban, not that I support the Taliban's extremism, of course, but you know, it's complicated.
Oh, and Duncan - yours was a very reasoned and thought-provoking response, and I thank you for it. However, if anything, I have too much compassion to go round. I tie myself in knots sometimes trying to see everybody's point of view. In some ways, I wish I was as hard as you. But I'm not. I wanted to test myself with what I wrote - to see if I could really give those soldiers any respect for what they do. I was politicised in the 80s - as was Ian Brown - and my first reaction is always the against-the-war-and-against-the-troops. This blog entry was my second reaction. I'm still formulating, and I know you respect that, as you are a very respectful contributor.
My best friend at University was a bloke who always intended to join the Army (boy did going round with HIM get me in trouble with the 'Socialists' in the Students' Union), and who went to Sandhurst and became an officer after we graduated.
Hearing about his experiences, and seeing how he changed as he got further and further away from civilian life (which he came to despise) was a real eye-opener. I'll always remember him describing his role in charge of a particularly 'lively' platoon of combat-hungry squaddies - "I'm just there to keep them warry when we need them to be." A simple take on psychology, perhaps, but it bears out your brother's observation that combat is what they join for. And they are fed that message 24 hours a day, by subtle or not-so-subtle means.
The history of human conflict is rich with examples of men (mainly, but not exclusively, men) whose atavistic aggressive/protective instincts are ignited for 'greater' ends. Many of the Tommys in World War One joined up because Kitchener''s glowering face had a greater emotional impact on them than any need to understand the political intricacies of what they were fighting for. To coin a phrase, they gave their lives too save a slogan. This has been going on for millenia.
In a 'macro' sense I have no stronger feelings about it than that - perhaps I just have low expectations of human beings - but of course in a 'micro' sense I feel real sorrow at any premature or violent death, regardless of the race/nationality of the one who has died.
An interesting post, Andrew. I'm not sure I've enriched the debate much, but I'll stick it in the pot anyway. I'm glad your brother came through uninjured.
An interesting article, Andrew - one that is quite timely for me at the moment. I've just left university, having shared a house with 2 friends who are just about to enter the army at officer level, being in the process of officer training.
I think you are right to see the separation of the political and human side. From living with them and hearing what is required of them, I have total respect for them, as they are willing to put their life on the line to do a job they feel passionate about. However, I have a complete disrespect for the war as a whole. I think it's important to separate the two.
We were having a discussion the other day about whether those in the army really are 'heroes' or not. The general feeling from them was that whilst it might be slightly hyperbolic, it was good to see some respect from a country that apparently has very little for their armed forces (they are told not to wear their army clothes whilst travelling to Officer Training because they may be attacked).
My definition of a 'hero' is someone who risks their life to save others. Whilst not everyone in the army is not automatically a hero, most of them do have to do this at some point in their career. Therefore, whilst hating to agree with The Sun, by very definition I suppose for me most of them are heroes - although I somehow don't feel right saying it. It would be interesting to hear your view on the matter.
Sorry for the long post - I'm sure you'd agree that seeing the human side of the army rather than just the politics brings really conflicting viewpoints.
I'm uncomfortable with the epithet "hero", especially when it's applied by the Sun, and others, indiscriminately to anyone in a uniform, or, to any serviceman or woman who dies. Not all soldiers who die do so heroically, unless you bestow automatic heroism upon them just for joining up. I don't. It devalues the word "hero" if everybody is one just by clocking on.
Anyone who volunteers for any war is braver than me - and, perhaps, more heroic. But I think people who deal with disabilities on a daily basis are heroic. I think people who volunteer for charity work are heroic. I think people who speak out about contentious issues and demonstrate about what they believe in are heroic. It's not just about putting yourself in physical danger.
That's a much better way of describing it. It's a tricky one to define really.
I suppose that I disagree with the Sun's blanket use of the word. However, that is not to say that there aren't many people in the army who are. From the stories I've heard, there are some truly heroic moments soldiers have to go through. I'd count putting your life on the line to save someone else's as one (but not the only) definition.
And by the way - I'm not the Adam who called you a troll ;)
sorry andrew that you took offence to my comment but I dont know why you did. it was not subtly implying anything, I take offence that anyone would think me devious slippery slimy cowardly enough to subtly imply anything I never have and I never will. How dare you attribute to me the evil manipulative deceitful tactics as used by scum like mandleson and Blair. I SAY WHAT I MEAN. I MEAN WHAT I SAY.
war polarises people, you are on the correct side or the wrong side, with us or against us if your against us you are not innocent. liberal hand wringing guilt is useless.
Im no pacifist nor against war, I'd kill a nazi or a rapist without guilt. but I am against illegal wars. I am against immoral wars. Anyone who is not is WRONG!
I'm glad you weren't implying that I was a racist, Karl. I wasn't accusing you of anything - and as I said, the only reason I didn't publish your comment was that it was posted anonymously. I admire your conviction. But you must at least respect my honesty.
I do respect your honesty Andrew. I am a fan of your blog and podcast I agree with what you say nearly all the time, which is rare for me. you shouldnt take comments on forums quite so personally. As for heroes or cowards there is nothing more cowardly than anonymous people sending abuse on internet forums. And for me and many listners/ readers of yours you are somewhat of a hero, maybe not quite che guevara but still
Thanks Andrew. Like everybody else my opinions go through phases and even cycles so it's important to keep debating. That's why I like blogs, I'm always learning something and, since I made the decision to use my full name when contributing, my comments have become a lot more responsible. :)
I used to see Ian Brown every now and again when I lived near Holland Park. God bless him, I'm really disappointed at the lack of political commentary from musicians since the 'War on Terror'. I guess that shows the grip of the corporate music and broadcasting businesses. I'd be interested to know if you saw anyone making political statements at Glasto when you were there.
You might be interested in this article by Gershom Gorenberg about the recent Israeli attack on Gaza. He does a blog that I follow too. You might be even more interested in this large pdf document which includes personal testimonies of some IDF soldiers who fought in it.
Looking forward to listening to the new pod, all the best...
Post a Comment
<< Home