Gurkha soldier in trouble for being efficient. It's amazing that anyone should expect political correctness to extend to the battlefield. The diplomats, politicians, and other critics want to send other people out to do the job they would never consider doing; they don't want to know how it is done and don't want reminders of how horrible it really is for those who endure it. They want an illusory game of fair play where we can have do-overs and time-out boxes so the politicians won't have to worry about losing votes and others can believe that war is just like you see it on television.
Sure we should have respect for the beliefs and cultures of others when it's appropriate to do so. But the battlefield is not a place for cultural/religious sensitivity; it is the place for fundamental effectiveness and efficiency. This soldier didn't cut off the enemy's head for any reason other than the fact that carrying the body back was not an efficient option and he had orders to follow. This was just the most efficient method of doing so.
It seems that Sam Harris makes a good point in The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason; the moderate segment of a religious group (doesn't matter which one) provides support and shelter for the more extreme members even when they don't intend to do so and this situation is a good example of that. The moderate Muslims are likely the people whose "hearts and minds" we are trying to win; however, they are probably not the ones blowing themselves (and us) up with suicide bombs or the ones shooting at us. We are trying to apply the modern standards of religious freedom to people who don't deserve it just because they've adopted a religious label. For those Christians out there who freeze up when trying to grasp this concept consider replacing an image of Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church for the terrorists and the generic American Christian for the moderate Muslims. Should we protect his behavior just because he carries the label of Christian?
So why are we worried about offending someone when our military members do something that is effective and efficient? I'm guessing that everyone would have been happy if this Gurkha soldier had hauled the mutilated carcass of this terrorist, probably with a cost of injury or death to his team, and plopped it on the desk of his commander. Instead, he did the efficient thing in the heat of battle to save lives and accomplish his mission; take the guy's head back to the commander instead. He was dead, he didn't need it and could do without it until his funeral. As my youngest daughter learned in kindergarten, "you get what you get and you don't throw a fit." I think that should apply to everyone who willingly assumes a risk.
Anyone who chooses to take on a hostile position naturally assumes that their religious beliefs and culture will not be considered in the heat of battle. If the Muslim terrorists and soldiers are so concerned about burying their dead intact, why do they blow themselves up by crashing airplanes into buildings, blowing up subway tunnels and buses, or strapping explosive devices to their bodies? If they are so concerned with having their religious and cultural beliefs respected then why do we see Muslim terrorists beheading or executing non-Muslims on video and dragging the bodies of soldiers through the streets.
The only reason we're concerned about this is that we're trying to make the religious people who conform to modern ethical standards happy and that's fine but it shouldn't extend to terrorists. Religious and cultural respect are important and should be demanded in civil discourse. In the heat of battle, however, they don't belong. Maybe, instead of putting pressure on us for violating their religious and cultural beliefs, they should put pressure on the terrorists to stop violating the rights of everyone else to their beliefs and to their lives in general; until then, "you get what you get and you don't throw a fit."
No comments:
Post a Comment