This is an email that I received from a friend. I thought it was interesting.
I remember sitting in a hot Tuscaloosa High School, trying to be attentive to what my American History teacher was saying. He was talking about war, of which I had no interest whatsoever, even though my country was in a war in Viet Nam at the time. He rattled on, just a distant voice in my 16 year old ears, until he said something that caught my attention. He began talking about why countries send their youngsters to fight wars, rather than adults. The youngsters, he said, are right out of their parental homes, often just out of high school. They are still accustomed to taking orders from adults. They trust adults. They are still at the age where they believe bad things happen to other people, not them. He created, in our minds, a scene on a battlefield, with an 18 year old, and a 35 year old. The sergeant orders the eighteen year old onto the battlefield, to what is very likely a certain death. The eighteen year old is too afraid to disobey. He's too scared to do anything other than what he is told. He goes. The same sergeant then orders the 35 year old to the battlefield. The man stops and evaluates the situation. He thinks of home. His family. He is unsure that his death at this particular moment will make a significant contribution toward the goal the war is trying to achieve. He is not a coward. Not a coward at all.
The older man has something the teenager does not have. He is able to make judgments independently. He possesses a brain which tends to be naturally more analytical. He is cautious. His personal ethics are well developed. He is wise.
When I first saw footage of Jessica Lynch on television, I thought so this is it. This is what we have come to. We are sending teenage girls to fight our wars. Hmm. So what if we didn't? Should adults be the ones to fight (what seems to be endless) wars?? Suppose we sent, say, ages 27 - 45 or thereabouts. That age range would actually include some of the population which determines whether or not we engage in war. That's an interesting notion. I wonder if, some of them, realizing that they might be called upon to actually go fight, might then think twice. Might then sit back, and think, well...let's see.....maybe there is another way to accomplish this goal.
The American men I know, are not cowards. They're not sissies. They're not afraid. They would go fight and risk their lives if necessary to protect their families and their country. But only, only, if they were personally convinced there was no other way. And of course "no other way", is the only way we should ever engage in war.
The news about the problem with innocents being killed in Iraq has brought all this back into my mind. The military has said "these were trained soldiers" (who allegedly perpetrated these shootings). Trained, yes, in some ways. But you can't "train" emotional maturity. You can't "train" wisdom. You can't "train" coping with enormous stress for such long periods of time, when the greatest duration of stress you have experienced prior to war, is boot-camp, I imagine. I'm not excusing it. I think humans know while their age is still in "single digits"that it is wrong to take the life of an innocent person. I'm just saying they are in extraordinary circumstances they are not truly prepared to cope with on an emotional level, and whose fault is that? But I do wonder. Would a 40 year old man have broken into a private residence and shot a 10 year old boy that was hiding under his bed? (If that in fact happened.) Maybe. Maybe not.
Sending our children to fight wars is not unique to this administration, nor are we the only country who practices it. And the reasons are given above. If the grown-ups determine that military action is so desperately indicated that the sacrifice of our youngsters (our "young men and women" as they say, who, I think we all know are not really even old enough to vote or have a beer with their pizza), is justified, then let the grown- ups go do the fighting. It's interesting to me that when they are home we call them teenagers, but they join the military and graduate to "young men and women". It's just a disguise. We disguise the words because we can't bring ourselves to say "and let's support and pray for all our teenagers who are fighting this war". Or, "two teenagers were killed today in Baghdad". And why can't they have a beer? Because they are still physically growing. Their brains are still maturing. Because they are too young and not emotionally stable enough or mature enough to handle the effects of alcohol. And why can't they vote? Because they are not informed? They are not savvy at decision making; and might have a tendency to support frivolous principles? I know I'm not the first person to say these things. Lots of people think it and have said it. It's an old, old, plan to send our teens and youngsters to fight our wars and we need to change it. I knew it was wrong when I heard the words coming out of my American History teacher's mouth when I was in the 11th grade. He didn't say so, but he knew it was wrong too. So, we just somehow shrug our shoulder's, know they're kids, but send them nonetheless because that is the way it is, and the way it has always been. Yes, that is the way it has always been, and it is absolutely wrong. We call ourselves sending them to fight for freedom and that's ironic because for many of them, it's a freedom they haven't even truly experienced yet. Not really. I don't know about you, but I didn't experience true freedom until I was well out of high school, and to some degree, college, and out of the jurisdiction of the watchful eyes of my parents and teachers. My freedom at that age was determined by what my parents permitted, which wasn't always to my liking, but as it turns out, was a good thing. And I've had it for a long time now. And I love it. Freedom. You can't beat it. And yes, it is well worth fighting for.
Shouldn't adolescents be permitted the luxury to stay home and grow up and enjoy our wonderful country and all the delightful and amazing freedoms it has before they go defend it? When it comes to war, I'm uncooperative and a sissy. I admit it. But if push came to shove would I die for our country? Like most American's I probably would. But I would have to be certain in my own mind and within my own reason that it was the right thing and the only thing to do. Not because someone pointed their finger at me and said "go", and I blindly went because I didn't know what else to do, or I was afraid of "getting in trouble" if I didn't. And of course, any 18 year old will voice the typical teenage rant of "we are grown, we are smart, we know everything, blah, blah, blah, the same things they have been saying since time began. But we know better. Don't we? They go over there thinking they are going to be hero's, and then they will come home. We send them over there knowing perfectly well there is a good chance they won't return. And in the meantime, the innocents are killing the innocents.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
