First thing's first.
Thanks to everyone who read my last post, but especially those who left their thoughts. I appreciate that you all grasp the seriousness of the subject and it's importance to me. I strove to express me feelings as well as I could, and I think that I succeeded fro the most part. However, I feel that in retrospect I didn't communicate my full feelings on the nature of a soldier. I'd like to go back and try to now.
To dedicate yourself to a cause that is greater than yourself, while simultaneously striving to maintain a personal level of honor, courage and personal achievement. Doing things that are sometimes glorious, sometimes terrible, and most of time neither, not for accolades or praise, but rather because they are what needs to be done. Enduring the horror of war so that others will not. A willingness to sacrifice everything that is necessary but nothing that is not in order to get the job done. Strong. Stoic. Honorable. Honest. These are the traits of the ideal soldier, as defined in my own mind.
However, we must truthful. The inescapable and stark purpose of a warrior is to defend what he perceives as his to protect. How? Through the careful and thoughtful application of violence to those who would seek to harm that which is held dear.
Are all soldier infantry or special forces specially and exclusively trained in personal combat? Of course not. Doctors, lawyers, scientists and administrators are all vital parts of any effective armed force. Even chaplains and priests attend to the faith of those who soil themselves in the blood of foes.
The question then becomes, does this change the essential nature of an army? Does it's bureaucratic nature mean that it's any less of a war machine. I don't think it does. It is foolhardy not to accept that the true nature of war is violence to an end.
It is not a professional dilemma I face, but rather a philosophical one. Would placing myself away from the violence of war be the right path, or would casting myself into the deadly yet honorable crucible of battle so that others may pursue peace be the right decision?
I feel that the respect I have for both ways of life has been better explained now. I apologize to any I may have offended through my careless definition of what a true warrior is.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Well done.
ReplyDeleteThat we live in a violent world is regrettable but a reality nonetheless. Those that chose to be a part of the armed forces to defend what they perceive to be our way of life; our freedom, are to be thanked and respected. And clearly you do respect and honor them in both your posts on this subject.
Your dilemma is a difficult one, no doubt. Trust your heart in this matter, you will know what to do.
IB said it very well.
ReplyDeleteIf any one was offended, they didn't read it carefully enough. You understand the position very well.
Violence is, regrettably, a necessary thing, sometimes. And for those who take it upon themsleves to apply it for the right reasons, for the greater good, do have a difficult and dangerous task in front of themselves.
I for one, am grateful that some do assume the burden and honor of protection. And just because they are on the 'sharp end of the spear', does not mean they shouldn't think.
Bravo, indeed.