Who can you fight for?
Remember this classic sequence from 'A Few Good Men'
On the charge of conduct unbecoming a US Marine, - the members find the accused guilty as charged. You are sentenced to time already served, - and to be dishonourably discharged from the Marines. This court-martial is adjourned.
What did that mean? Hal? What did that mean? Colonel Jessep said he ordered the Code Red. What did we do wrong?
It's not that simple.
We did nothing wrong!
Yeah, we did. We're supposed to fight for people who can't fight for themselves. We were supposed to fight for Willy.
Followed by another Amitabh Bachchan moment from Tom Cruise
You don't need a patch on your arm to have honour.
It raises some interesting questions. In the last few days I've thought of 'fighting for people who can't fight for themselves' as some sort of goal that I can follow in life. In the Australian context, fighting for rights of the indigenous communities, refugees or any other disadvantaged group, entails some kind of implicit criticism of Australian society - and thus of Western values and the concept of a liberal democracy (see this post)
In doing so, you're considered un-Australian and you're boxed in as some kind of rogue, subversive element by the media and eventually by society. One thing I can never understand is how people question why the terrorists always seem to from 'educated, privileged' backgrounds. Isn't it obvious? Weren't they just fighting for people who couldn't fight for themselves, standing up for 'Willy.'
The last three generations of Palestinians grew up in refugee camps. Iraqis have lived under sanctions for how many years now? The powerful entered their country under some guise of 'justice' but surely the injustice of North Korea and Zimbabwe - from breadbasket to basket case of Southern Africa in 20 years - is just as bad. Why mix metaphors? Energy security is not the same as justice.
There has been a serious twisting of the moral compass - on both sides. Did not David Hicks go into Afghanistan because he thought he was 'fighting for people who couldn't fight for themselves?' For centuries there have been mercenaries the world over, finding causes they believe in and fighting for them. 50 years of posturing in Camp David and on White House lawns and where does Middle East peace stand today? The Arab states have never been an adequate voice for the Palestinians - from the very beginning.
So we end up with beliefs that aren't compatible. Yassir Arafat dropped his olive branch and picked up his freedom fighter's gun years ago. You can't pick it up again with helicopter gunships and energy security. These guys probably just think that a few casualties in a rich country is just collateral damage in some wider struggle. Is it really any different to the state sponsored conflict so prevalent today?
4 comments:
Definately something ive also thought about, but i think our lives are too small and the difficulty is picking the causes you can really give yourself to, as small or large as possible. Quite idealistic in principle, but difficult in practice as im finding out..also due to the possibility of those who you are helping being jaded or cynical (always a possibility). Who is this guy? Why does he come here 3 hours a week thinking he can make things better? etc etc..
However your point relating to freedom fighters (terrorists, liberationists, whatever anarchic guise they take) is interesting. Although wouldnt you think no matter the complexities of fighting for Willie, and yes Arafat gave up on diplomacy a while back, that even just simplifying the whole process down to the killing of one person at the hands of the other is in itself an incorrect solution. The similarities between the mercenary tactics through the centuries has been pointed out time and time again, but that just means they didnt set the right precedent doesnt it? or perhaps thats human nature..and its also human nature in many ways to want to help willie..complex problem, seemingly simple solutions, so very difficult to execute. Good piece my friend
Yeah it's a bit of a chicken and egg argument. Bloodshed can only last so long. As Northern Ireland has shown, lately, human nature is put in it's place by human intellect.
Diplomacy is born out of this human nature you speak of, Franco. The Israelis, the Syrians, the Revolutionary Guard in Iran... no one wants to budge... thus we have armed struggle, if you don't have guns then it's an 'intifada' (see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Intifada)
All we need is compromise, Scout and Jem style. That's two references to Harper Lee... maybe we need a 'To Kill a Mockingbird' tag?
Have you read Paul Keating's famous Redfern speech. Will post it soon. Some very powerful words:
"We cannot imagine that the descendants of people whose genius and resilience maintained a culture here through 50 000 years or more, through cataclysmic changes to the climate and environment, and who then survived two centuries of dispossession and abuse, will be denied their place in the modern Australian nation.
We cannot imagine that.
We cannot imagine that we will fail."
Likewise, not acting in Zimbabwe, North Korea - that is, if we don't fight for the ideals and freedoms we believe in, we should consider ourselves as failures.
Post a Comment