Fighting For Us — But Against Whom?
Writing about web page http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20813673
On 21 December Britain's prime minister, deputy prime minister, and leader of the opposition broadcast their Christmas messages to our troopsin Afghanistan and elsewhere. On Boxing Day Prince Charles, whose son Prince Harry is serving in Afghanistan, added his pennyworth.
These messages were notably similar. One after another, they worked the themes of courage, risk, danger, sacrifice, distance from home, and separation from family at Christmas.
Remarkable, also, was what they left out. According to our political leaders the threat confronting our troops is nameless and faceless. If we believe them, it is like an Atlantic storm or an airborne virus, a natural hazard that arises suddenly from nowhere and needs no explanation. Nick Clegg, the deputy prime minister mentioned an "invisible threat." Only Prince Charles referred to anonymous "insurgents." Cameron and Miliband did not mention an enemy at all.
In this postmodern age we struggle, it seems, to acknowledge that enemies face us who hate us and would like to kill us. They hate, specifically, our democracy, our traditions of political and religious toleration, our freedom of speech and association. They hate science, education, and public health. They hate women, particularly when educated and independent of men. These enemies do not hide their identity: they call themselves Al Qaeda and the Taliban.
Naming the enemy is only a start. Many questions then arise that do not have obvious answers. If enemies exist, should we go out into the world to find them, or wait until they come to us? Should we aim for victory or for a negotiated peace? Must we always be enemies or can we find common ground? These are questions on which reasonable people will differ. But we cannot put these questions clearly if we do not acknowledge that there is an enemy.
If our leaders cannot bring themselves to mention the enemy when they address the soldiers who risk their lives for us and for the families who must live with those risks, it is hardly surprising that most civilians at home are confused and doubtful of our armed forces' mission overseas. If there is no enemy, why have we put our soldiers in harm's way?
Mark Harrison
03 Jan 2013 12:31
| 
Tags: Afghanistan
| 
Comments (3)
| 
Report a problem
Loading…
Thomas Tophof
‘They hate, specifically, our democracy, our traditions of political and religious toleration, our freedom of speech and association. They hate science, education, and public health. They hate women, particularly when educated and independent of men.’
Are these the main reasons Al Qaeda and the Taliban hate us and fight foreign troops? Could it not be connected to Western intervention and continued economic and political imperialism?
08 Jan 2013, 12:25
Thomas Tophof
Or at least the perception of US and European actions as such?
08 Jan 2013, 12:32
Mark Harrison
The subject you touch on is important and widely debated. Since Thucydides, social scientists have struggled to draw a line between the “pretexts” and the “underlying causes” of conflict. Is the Western presence a cause or a pretext? It is important to acknowledge the extent to which Al Qaeda and the Taliban have victimized their own fellow countrymen and women and their co-religionists. It is hard to understand the logic of executing young women who go to school or administer vaccinations in terms of national liberation.
09 Jan 2013, 15:57
Add a comment
You are not allowed to comment on this entry as it has restricted commenting permissions.