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.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Thanks for taking an interest.

Popular posts from this blog

To kill or not to kill.

Had an interesting discussion with a Muslim friend today about the ethics of killing. Could it ever be morally justifiable? Abrahamic scriptures, especially the old testament, are awash with murders and killings, some sanctioned by the prophets and assorted mouthpieces for god. Some killing is even mandatory. For example all Jews are instructed in the old Testament to kill everyone belonging to the 7 Canaanite tribes for example - Deut 20:17 , or to slaughter Amaleks, especially their children - Deut 25:19 . So accepting for a moment that these draconian instructions were written in times when tribal leaders had fewer options available to them with respect to managing miscreants and maintaining some sort of law and order, I suspect that most people today would agree that killing people is a bad thing and should not be condoned except under extraordinary circumstances. My friend and I then proceeded to try to list those circumstances. We started with self-defence or perhaps protecti...
1 comment
Read more

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...
7 comments
Read more

Defending the BBC against Trump - an idea that might turn the tables and amuse the nation.

So President Trump wants to sue the BBC for damages related to 'harm' he believes he experienced as a result of some biased editing by the BBC around his speeches before and during the Jan 6th 2021 attack on the US Capitol. The law suit is being raised in Florida since the statute of limitation for libel in the UK is 12 months but up to 2 years in Florida. Apparently Trump wants to sue our Beeb for over $1bn. This is typical of the widely ambitious law suits he's filed many times before, but if he wins, which he rarely does, courts tend to settle for far less. It's all part of his tactics to scare the opposition into settling out of court rather than drag out very expensive 'lawfare', as it's known. Far from being able to afford $1bn if he's successful, the BBC probably can't even afford to defend itself using American lawyers, let alone the best of them. But the BBC is much loved by the British people, who own it. Attacking our precious institution,...
Post a Comment
Read more