Poppies and the "Heroes Industry" ?

[Mr Pee]

Thought-provoking stuff here, and a perspective that few here seem willing or able to comprehend:-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/10487226/Marine-A-criminal-or-casualty.html

[Serial_Apologist]

Thought-provoking stuff here, and a perspective that few here seem willing or able to comprehend:-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...-casualty.html

The whole article seems just another justification. Yoko had the answer to that in 1970. "War is over, if you want it".

[amateur51]

Thought-provoking stuff here, and a perspective that few here seem willing or able to comprehend:-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...-casualty.html

i'm sure that the people passing sentence will know this already and will bear it mind when passing sentence if they believe that this is appropriate.

[Flosshilde]

The whole article seems just another justification.

Indeed. Hardly unbiased -

Chris Terrill is an anthropologist, film-maker and the only civilian to have won the Royal Marines green beret. He has embedded many times with the Marines in Afghanistan

"No Royal Marine I know, and I know many, joined up to kill folk – they simply wanted to become one of the best-trained soldiers in the world and to serve Queen and country in the greatest way possible."

It always surprises me how people who join the Army never expect to have to kill people.

the Marines were ever eager to track down, confront and neutralise this unforgiving enemy

[ahinton]

Thought-provoking stuff here, and a perspective that few here seem willing or able to comprehend:-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...-casualty.html

"Provoking", perhaps; not so sure of much of the "thought" behind it, though.

The suggestion in its opening salvo that people do not join the marines (or, for that matter, any other sector of the armed services) in order to kill borders on the risible; furthermore, these are not people press-ganged into the armed services but people who apply for a job of work just like teachers, nurses, lawyers and the rest and the idea that any of them ever submit such employment applications in the absence of such basic and fundamental knowledge of the contractual responsibilities that they will assume if successful is patently absurd. That the writer is content to reveal himself clearly as an unashamed and bigoted apologist for military action and its glorification is self-evident.

"They simply wanted to become one of the best-trained soldiers in the world and to serve Queen and country in the greatest way possible", he claims for these non-conscripts; by doing what, pray? What is the Queen or Britain "expecting" of them? Neither the monarch nor the general British public even directly engages these people!

Yes, of course, we know that armed service personnel do other things besides killing people and sometimes their work can indeed be of very considerable value to society - that is only to be welcomed and warmly - but, ultimately, they are members of the armed services and that means that they're paid killers employed under government contracts to be so.

"No amount of smoke bombs and blank rounds could ever approximate the horror and ferocity of a real, kill-or-be-killed, blood-spattered confrontation with a ruthless and determined foe", he bleats; I do not doubt it for one moment, but then this is Afghanistan he's writing about without a thought for the likely illegality of the military action there or the fact that no actual war has formally been declared by either side.

"Of course, war can bring out the very best in people and frequently does: through actions rooted in selflessness, resolve and jaw-dropping heroism"? The only "jaw-dropping thing here is the sheer fatuity of the author's statement; were it true, we'd presumably all need to be in a permanent state of war in order that the finest qualities of humanity could continually rise to the surface.

"But it can also, by eroding the senses, turn a man’s mind as he is forced to suspend many normal sensibilities in the face of constant threat and danger...in fact, the word "normal" is difficult to apply to a war situation which for the most part is typified by abnormality, irregularity and anomaly"; correct at last - so why not just stop doing it? This idea seems not to occur to him, perhaps because it's too simple. He also fails to notice that the notion of war "bringing the best" out of people and at the same time "eroding the senses" and "turning [the] mind" of an active participant are by definition mutually incompatible by vurtue of being opposites and indeed cannot be otherwise.

"In simple terms, an enemy killed is a duty fulfilled, and culpability is not usually a consideration unless rules of engagement have been broken, or the Geneva Convention transgressed"; quite - but then even Marine A himself openly admits to having done these things.

The rest speaks eloquently, if sickeningly, for itself. One wonders if the author has ever played the green clarinet while wearing that green beret; his writing is certainly overblown. Words (apart fromt the above) fail me. If only they'd failed him.

I'm surprised at the Daily Telegraph printing such stuff, frankly.

[ahinton]

the Marines were ever eager to track down, confront and neutralise this unforgiving enemy

Ah, yes, "neutralise" - that term as used here seems to me to be broadly analogous to that of "rationalise" as a euphemism for "slash and burn" in the world of commerce and employment - but why would any rational person expect an "enemy" to be other than "unforgiving"?...

The article as a whole brings the phrase "tell that to the Marines" unbidden to mind; you won't find it in this revolting piece of journalism, however...

[Richard Barrett]

It always surprises me how people who join the Army never expect to have to kill people.

You'd think the clue would be in the word "army", but seemingly not.

[ahinton]

You'd think the clue would be in the word "army", but seemingly not.

Indeed, yet somehow I doubt that this has anything to do with a misperception about the Salvation one...

[Mr Pee]

The suggestion in its opening salvo that people do not join the marines (or, for that matter, any other sector of the armed services) in order to kill borders on the risible; furthermore, these are not people press-ganged into the armed services but people who apply for a job of work just like teachers, nurses, lawyers and the rest and the idea that any of them ever submit such employment applications in the absence of such basic and fundamental knowledge of the contractual responsibilities that they will assume if successful is patently absurd. That the writer is content to reveal himself clearly as an unashamed and bigoted apologist for military action and its glorification is self-evident.

Certainly when I joined the RAF Music Service back in 1987 the idea that we would ever be sent to war seemed highly unlikely, and that we would then actually have to kill even less so. In the event, we were deployed in Gulf War 1, although on the medical side. Although how you can claim that the writer is an apologist or glorifier of military action when you read the graphic description he paints of its horrors, I have no idea.

"They simply wanted to become one of the best-trained soldiers in the world and to serve Queen and country in the greatest way possible", he claims for these non-conscripts; by doing what, pray? What is the Queen or Britain "expecting" of them? Neither the monarch nor the general British public even directly engages these people!

There is no doubt that the Royal Marines are amongst the best-trained soldiers in the world, along with the Parachute Regiment, and not far behind the Special Forces. And FYI, every individual whether commissioned or otherwise, swears an attestation oath before starting training, an oath of loyalty and service to the reigning monarch. So the Queen does directly engage "these people." I should have thought that the word "Royal" before the word "Marines" might have given you a clue.......<erm>

"No amount of smoke bombs and blank rounds could ever approximate the horror and ferocity of a real, kill-or-be-killed, blood-spattered confrontation with a ruthless and determined foe", he bleats; I do not doubt it for one moment, but then this is Afghanistan he's writing about without a thought for the likely illegality of the military action there or the fact that no actual war has formally been declared by either side.

He is not writing about the legality or otherwise of military action in Afghanistan; he is simply describing the reality of it on the ground, something that you armchair commentators can have no conception of. And anyway, for the millionth time, British Forces are there as part of a multinational peace-keeping force, with a United Nations Mandate.

"Of course, war can bring out the very best in people and frequently does: through actions rooted in selflessness, resolve and jaw-dropping heroism"? The only "jaw-dropping thing here is the sheer fatuity of the author's statement; were it true, we'd presumably all need to be in a permanent state of war in order that the finest qualities of humanity could continually rise to the surface.

Which of course in nonsense. All he is saying is that in the most extreme moments of danger and fear, as so often encountered in war, there are often examples of remarkable bravery and heroism. He is not saying that a state of war is a prerequisite for such human attributes, as you very well know.

so why not just stop doing it? This idea seems not to occur to him, perhaps because it's too simple.

You're right, of course it's too simple, and that is of course not a question for the Royal Marines, but a question for the Taleban, Al-Quaeda, and the Western political leaders and members of the UN Security Council who took the decision to send the multi-national force there.

One wonders if the author has ever played the green clarinet while wearing that green beret; his writing is certainly overblown. Words (apart fromt the above) fail me. If only they'd failed him.

I'm surprised at the Daily Telegraph printing such stuff, frankly.

I have no idea what this Green Clarinet thing is that you bang on about; and I don't know why you should be surprised at any newspaper printing such an insightful and realistic depiction of the Afghan conflict; it's a darn sight more worthy of publication than most of the spurious speculation and political point-scoring that passes for news at The Guardian these days.

[amateur51]

I have no idea what this Green Clarinet thing is that you bang on about; and I don't know why you should be surprised at any newspaper printing such an insightful and realistic depiction of the Afghan conflict; it's a darn sight more worthy of publication than most of the spurious speculation and political point-scoring that passes for news at The Guardian these days.

Sez you, in your armchair in Downtown Chichester - that's all.

It's overwritten and unverified Boy's Own stuff viewed from this armchair in Willesden Green.

[Richard Barrett]

From the article:

War is war. Nothing else comes close to its challenges, its chilling excitement or the hideous experience of it. I have seen the rugged determination that drives soldiers in combat. I have seen the haunted, exhausted look in their eyes after enemy contact. I have witnessed their night terrors following the elimination of their foes, and the grief and anger that grips them when comrades are lost or wounded.

Make no mistake, going to war changes a man’s view of himself; it radically recalibrates his mindset. But at least he is with like-minded men. To be part of this band of brothers is not only life-affirming but spiritually reinforcing.

(my emphasis)
If that isn't a glorification of war I don't know what is.

[Mr Pee]

From the article:
(my emphasis)
If that isn't a glorification of war I don't know what is.

That is not a glorification of war; it is a comment on the way that the intense shared experience of being in combat together can forge a mutual trust and level of friendship between those involved that would be hard to achieve anywhere else. If you saw the HBO series that Chris Terill references,Band of Brothers, and watched the interviews with veterans that preceded each episode, you would not doubt it.

[ahinton]

Certainly when I joined the RAF Music Service back in 1987 the idea that we would ever be sent to war seemed highly unlikely, and that we would then actually have to kill even less so. In the event, we were deployed in Gulf War 1, although on the medical side.

OK, but you knew at that time that you were not being employed by the Winterfell Philharmonic Orchestra or the Chichester Wind Band, so you must surely have been aware of the risk that you and/or your prefessional colleagues might get involved in warfare, legal or otherwise and, if you really didn't, I despair of your naïveté...

Although how you can claim that the writer is an apologist or glorifier of military action when you read the graphic description he paints of its horrors, I have no idea.

Clearly - and sadly - so let me explain, since such seems necessary for you. In the same piece he writes about people "serving Queen and country" while involving themselves in those very horrors of which he writes and to which you draw attention; in so doing, he appears (to me, at least) to equate the service of "Queen and country" to the very real risk of involvement in those horrors by and through so doing. Go it now?

There is no doubt that the Royal Marines are amongst the best-trained soldiers in the world, along with the Parachute Regiment, and not far behind the Special Forces.

But "trained" to do what? "Trained" to do a number of things including killing others even when no war is officially declared (sorry to be repetitious about this), that's what.

And FYI, every individual whether commissioned or otherwise, swears an attestation oath before starting training, an oath of loyalty and service to the reigning monarch. So the Queen does directly engage "these people."

Your logic fails you. Who enforces that swearing of attestation of oath at the outset? The Queen? No, of course not! This is simply done in her name as part of the manner in which the military conducts itself.

I should have thought that the word "Royal" before the word "Marines" might have given you a clue.......<erm>

The fact that it doesn't for the reasons given above (apart from any others) is a parallel to the pompous renaming of "Royal Wootton Bassett"; did the Queen ask for that renaming and, if not, who did and for what reasons and whose intended benefit?

He is not writing about the legality or otherwise of military action in Afghanistan

That fact is all too sadly obvious

he is simply describing the reality of it on the ground, something that you armchair commentators can have no conception of.

Of course we can. I, for one, do not criticise his accounts of those horrors as inaccurate or fantasist - in these I have no reason to doubt his veracity - but that's part of my point.

And anyway, for the millionth time, British Forces are there as part of a multinational peace-keeping force, with a United Nations Mandate.

And that makes it right, does it? It certainly doesn't justify breaches of contract or of the Geneva Convention.

All he is saying is that in the most extreme moments of danger and fear, as so often encountered in war, there are often examples of remarkable bravery and heroism. He is not saying that a state of war is a prerequisite for such human attributes, as you very well know.

I would most certainly hope not but it does read that way. The problem here - of which he makes a tacit point of taking no account - is that if you didn't have the "war", you wouldn't have the rest of it. In what is the "herosim" here? Nothing! Only things of which to be ashamed, as in the case of the ex-armed service person whose view I quoted earlier.

You're right, of course it's too simple, and that is of course not a question for the Royal Marines, but a question for the Taleban, Al-Quaeda, and the Western political leaders and members of the UN Security Council who took the decision to send the multi-national force there.

Now in this I do agree; I am in no sense defending any of those involved whom you name. That said, however, if no one is willing to fight (and, let's face it, when one looks at the past 30+ years of Afghan history in which no one has really "won" anything as a consequence of "war", legal or otherwise, the sheer hopelessnes of atempts to continue with military action of any kind outhg to be plainly obvious to those organisations that you rightly name), the situations of the kind that this journo has published a piece about would simply go flat and die.

I have no idea what this Green Clarinet thing is that you bang on about; and I don't know why you should be surprised at any newspaper printing such an insightful and realistic depiction of the Afghan conflict; it's a darn sight more worthy of publication than most of the spurious speculation and political point-scoring that passes for news at The Guardian these days.

You know about the green clarinet but I make no particular point about it. Anyone who regards this piece of journalistic puff as "insightful" doesn't even deserve to have a newspaper to read; I would be the first to agree that the piece is not without its truths, but the point is that those truths should point to the dire need to put a stop to all of it. "Point-scoring" in The Guardian? This is ditto of the worst and tackiest kind in The Daily Telegraph and accordingly does itself and the paper in which it is published no favours whatsoever.

[ahinton]

That is not a glorification of war; it is a comment on the way that the intense shared experience of being in combat together can forge a mutual trust and level of friendship between those involved that would be hard to achieve anywhere else.

Despite your earlier defence against such a notion, you're now promoting it as part of your spurious and specious argument, as if to say that such relationships of "mutual trust" and "levels of friendship" (between those involved - presumably only on the same side as one another) "would be hard to achieve anywhere" other than in the kind of situation that the journo describes.

If you saw the HBO series that Chris Terill references,Band of Brothers, and watched the interviews with veterans that preceded each episode, you would not doubt it.

I have not done so and should therefore not deduce how I'd respond if I had done so, but my suspicion is that I would doubt it all the more had I done so, not least for the reasons that I have outlined above.

[Richard Barrett]

That is not a glorification of war; it is a comment on the way that the intense shared experience of being in combat together can forge a mutual trust and level of friendship between those involved that would be hard to achieve anywhere else.

I'm sorry, I just don't think it's necessary to be involved in mass killing to build some particular level of trust and friendship, to think so would seem to me to indicate a dim view of human capabilities, not to mention a tendency to glorify war, which as far as I'm concerned is by far the worst thing the human species has ever invented.