Skip to main content

Who are the enemy?

This morning on Radio 4's Today programme, I heard an American officer exhort his men in Afghanistan by saying "If you see someone who deserves to die, kill him". This was greeted by a noise I can only describe as baas of agreement from his marines, not that I am comparing them to sheep in any way of course. Sheep don't kill their enemies.

So who do we, the 'allies' in foreign theatres of operation, regard as 'the enemy'? 'The Taliban' I hear you cry. So who are the Taliban? 'Insurgents' you insist. This suggests that in some way we have come to justify these enemies as somehow different not only from us, but also from the ordinary people of Afghanistan. Troublemakers who have left their homelands to train as terrorists in order to kill infidels. We must kill them before they kill us! And if children or other innocents get in the way, it's the fault of insurgents 'using them as shields'. It's their fault for fighting back. If only they'd throw down their guns and do what we tell them to do. Can't they see we only want peace?.....

Well perhaps we're kidding ourselves, and causing untold misery in the process (on both sides).

How on earth can a soldier decide who is an enemy, and who is a chap wandering around in the distance? "Kill him anyway! Why take a risk with the lives of troops? Collateral damage is a fact of life. We try to limit the killing of innocents, but in war, people get hurt. That's the way it is. We're at war."

OK, let's turn this around. There are heavily armed foreign troops all over Surrey or New Hampshire. Our governments are penniless (can't happen....?!?) and can't afford to 'do the job themselves'. So to stay in power they're happy to let someone else's troops into our country to protect their government, fairly elected or otherwise.

Suppose these 'peace-keeping' soldiers (let's pretend they're Chinese seeking to stop 'terrorists' being trained in the UK and USA to kill Chinese citizens around the world), who don't speak English, together with their tanks, drones, strike aircraft and helicopters, 'accidentally' kill your mother, your wife or your children. "Oops. Sorry, but they could have been harbouring gunmen". Why do we assume the people in Afghanistan are so different from us? We'd very quickly become outraged. I've never hurt anyone in my life, but even I would find a gun to stop any more 'collateral damage' to protect my family. I'd want these foreigners out of my country, and I'd want to get rid of the bastards who let them in to protect their own corrupt skins. If we win, I'd be a hero of the resistance. If we lose and while we fight back (and there would have to be the eradication of every one of us for a result to be finally declared), I'm a terrorist. An insurgent.

Fuck. I'm the enemy.


Popular posts from this blog

Phillips screws - yes I'm angry about them too

Don't get me wrong. They're a brilliant invention to assist automation and prevent screwdrivers from slipping off screw heads - damaging furniture, paintwork and fingers in the process. Interestingly they weren't invented by Mr Phillips at all, but by a John P Thompson who sold Mr P the idea after failing to commercialise it. Mr P, on the otherhand, quickly succeeded where Mr T had failed. Incredible isn't it. You don't just need a good idea, you need a great salesman and, more importantly, perfect timing to make a success out of something new. Actually, it would seem, he did two clever things (apart from buying the rights). He gave the invention to GM to trial. No-brainer #1. After it was adopted by the great GM, instead of trying to become their sole supplier of Phillips screws, he sold licenses to every other screw manufacturer in the world. A little of a lot is worth a great deal more than a lot of a little + vulnerability (watch out Apple!). My gromble is abo

Addictions. Porn, Drugs, Alcohol and Sex. Don't prevent it, make it safer.

In 1926 New York, during Prohibition, 1,200 people were poisoned by whiskey containing small quantities of wood alcohol (methanol). Around 400 died, the rest were blinded. The methanol they drank was in the moonshine they had bought illegally. In fact it had been added by law to industrial ethanol in order to make it undrinkable. Prohibition existed to protect everyone from the 'evils of the demon drink'. However, people still wanted to enjoy alcohol. So bootleggers bought cheap industrial alcohol and attempted to distill it to remove the impurities the state had added, but the process wasn't regulated. The state was inadvertently responsible for the suffering - although it was easy for them to blame the bootleggers and to justify escalating the war. This didn't stop the bootleggers. In fact it forced them to become more violent to protect their operations, and even less cautious about their production standards. Volumes of illicit alcohol, and therefore proportionat

Would we pay more for their stuff?

I'm confused. Brexiters argue the Germans, Italians and French will still want to sell us their cars, so continued free trade with the UK is in their best interests. But we'll have to negotiate this (with an EU unwilling to make leaving easy) by threatening to make their cars more expensive for British people to buy. We'll do this because WE need to make imports more expensive to try to restore our balance of payments. Are Brits prepared to pay more for their Audis, Fiats and Renaults in order to make British cars more appealing, or do Brexiters want to pay more in order to punish them for taxing our insurance and banking products? Either way, imports will cost more. While in the EU, we buy their cars because we like the choice and don't want our own government to tax them. Indeed it would be better for British car manufacturing if we went back to the good old days of being encouraged to buy cheaper British cars (made by foreign owned factories). Is that what Brexite