 |
| Trench warfare, World War One |
246. According to Yaffa Singer, Israeli soldiers do not really fight for their nation or for Zionism (the ideal that there must be a Jewish nation in Israel). Those larger political questions were not of paramount importance to them. Ultimately, "They were fighting for their friends. Or for their families" (245).
Some might argue that the same thing could be said of soldiers all around the world. If that is true, do you consider this to be a cause for concern? Should soldiers care more about the ideological reasons that motivate their nation's military actions? Or is it as some level humanizing and even comforting to think that soldiers care less about an abstract ideal than they do about the human beings beside them, whom they know and care for?
To put it another way, which is more dangerous: a soldier who fights for an abstraction (e. g. "a way of life" or a national ideal) or a soldier who is largely indifferent to political justifications for military engagements?
To put it another way, which is more dangerous: a soldier who fights for an abstraction (e. g. "a way of life" or a national ideal) or a soldier who is largely indifferent to political justifications for military engagements?
I think that either could be potentially dangerous. I believe that a soldier fighting solely for an abstract idea will be more likely to sacrifice lives for the good of the cause. On the other side, soldiers fighting for their fellow soldiers, their families, and their friends, have more reasons to stay alive and keep others alive around them. However, soldiers indifferent to the cause may be more likely to give up or surrender. I believe that in a perfect world soldiers should and would fight for both. All three branches preach brother and sisterhood within the branches, although they do not always follow through. Furthermore, the secretive nature of the military makes it incredibly difficult to know exactly what one is fighting for.
ReplyDelete-Libby Revel
Hi Libby! I think you bring up a a good and interesting point that fighting for something that is more tangible than an idea might prevent as many casualties as the goal might be to preserve life rather than pursue an idea. I think you also bring up a good point that it is probably best to fight for a cause that involves both an abstract idea and a reality--for example: freedom for fellow family members, etc.
DeleteA soldier with no reason to fight is merely an empty body. There’s no will and no reason to be there. So those who are drafted are probably the most dangerous to have, but that’s besides the point.
ReplyDeletePeople who put themselves in that position will need to have some form of motivation. These people are heroes and they will have multiple reasons to put their life on the line for their country. Soldiers will have pride for their country, and in human nature relationships are everywhere in our lives. I believe each soldier wants to protect those they love and the soldier next to them. So in that ideology, the most dangerous reason for a person to fight is to fight for their nation’s ideals. Those ideals make for more of a chance to be corrupt than to put your life in danger for someone you love.
I agree that soldiers should be fighting for the ones they love. My uncle has been in the military for years, and I see what it does to him every time he comes back from overseas. I believe the reason he goes back without a complaint is so that he can fight for those that he loves.
DeleteThank you for your uncle's service. It is very heroic and selfless for people to willingly fight for others. I have family members who have/are/and are preparing to join the military and it's a very scary thought. Bless you and your uncle. I hope he's doing well and staying safe.
Delete