HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Dec. 7, 2005 We are lucky in the U.S. and Europe that the human instinct to fight (including to "kill or be killed") has been mostly channeled into defensive, self-protective actions. I claim that this really is an instinct in most men (and a few women). It is like the weak instinct to be afraid of going up on tall, wobbly ladder, and it varies from person to person in its intensity. In most of us, the instinctive urge to fight can be overcome by training ("Now you stop hitting those other kids, Little Johnny!"). On the other hand, it can be intensified if the person believes there is an important motivation to fight, like defending the family, or defending the whole country, or even the religion. My evidence that it really is an instinct is the fact that most men (and some women) enjoy fishing and hunting (actually, killing defenseless animals!), even when we are not hungry, and when the animals are not at all threatening. Look at all the people who are willing to stand still for a long time in very cold (or very hot) weather, just for the pleasure of killing something. I am not saying this is bad, because for a million years it was necessary for human survival. Those people (and whole tribes) who didn't have the killer instinct (for hunting and also for winning wars) died out. Even now it is useful in many ways, such as providing us with fish to eat, and for keeping populations of animals such as deer down to reasonable levels. From a moral perspective, it is quite important right now to face the fact that most of the Americans getting killed or wounded in Iraq are volunteers. That is not meant to say, in the least little bit, that it is OK for them to become casualties, and I am very sorry every time I hear of another one. It is still a tragedy for the mothers and wives, and for all the other relatives and friends, when a soldier gets killed or maimed. But the news media are not being honest when they fail to remind us that there are no American draftees in Iraq. The leftist-liberal-liars in the news media sometimes imply that National Guardsmen are all poverty-stricken men who desperately need the military pay, because of bad economic conditions here in the U.S. There probably are a few of those, but the vast majority of Guardsmen have decent jobs at home, and their military pay is very low, usually less than their civilian pay. Also, our unemployment level is one of the world's lowest (half that of most European countries). Before being activated, the guardsmen can make a few extra bucks by going to some night-time training sessions, in addition to the pay from their regular jobs, but most of them also enjoy the training to some extent. Men tend to love power, and it's fun to shoot a powerful weapon, drive a tank, and generally feel strong and important with all your unique training. This is an important motivation for the "insurgents," to feel powerful and important, even if they are going to die soon, so it's not surprising that our own guys have enough of this feeling to volunteer for non-suicidal fighting. I'm pretty much a nerdy scientist type, but I still got a thrill out of destroying some big targets in practice sessions, when I was a draftee in the Korean War. I felt proud to be defending democracy against Communism, and I certainly felt a lot stronger and more powerful from my training, than when I had been a mere civilian. The Guardsmen and Reservists knew when they signed up that they might possibly be in danger. The positive factors (including some degree of patriotism) outweighed the dangers. It's not like they were a bunch of 100% ignorant or pacifist draftees. Maybe they never expected to be sent to Iraq, and they probably never expected to get hurt, but they certainly knew that it's not all just a video game. Our soldiers went into it with their eyes wide open. The U.S. Marines in Iraq are all volunteers, and many are career fighters. They are more likely to get promoted if they see combat, and many want to be heroes of some kind, or they wouldn't have joined the Marines. Once again, this is not a reason to justify their casualties. I still think, after all our combat deaths in Iraq, that we had to go in there and stop Saddam. He had about 1/4 of the world's known oil reserves, and eventually the UN inspectors would have run out of money and left him alone. Then he was going to sell more oil (which he already was starting to do under the table), and buy long range missiles from North Korea or China or Iran. Then we really would have been in trouble, because that guy is insanely aggressive. (Please see my article, "Why We're In Iraq, Really," Oct. 9, 2003. For access, you can go to the www.useless-knowledge.com home page, then click on "Columnist List" at the top, then on "Dan Shanefield," and then on that article, near the bottom of that page.) Also, I'm not trying to minimize our casualties. (But please see my article, "Iraq Deaths Perspective," Dec. 6, 2004. This is a big country, and we have 40,000 deaths per year in peacetime, from guns (GUNS! PEACETIME!). Our armed forces have 1,000 accidental deaths per year, in peacetime. I'm disappointed that Government spokespeople like Ms. Rice and the President have not emphasized some of these points. But please tell your friends about these ideas. ------------ About the author: Dan Shanefield is a retired engineering prof, who worked at Bell Labs and then at Rutgers University. He wrote the book "Industrial Electronics for Engineers, Chemists, and Technicians". Visit his website or email: shanefield@ieee.org Tell a friend about this site! ------------ |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
