Somewhere in the mid to late 1990’s, my dad and I had a discussion about his pension. Dad, bless his memory, worked as an engineer in Syria for about 40 years and like many of his colleagues, regularly contributed money towards his retirement pension as administered by his syndicate. I remember him telling me that the managers of the funds had to cap the engineer’s benefits at a certain level since they were high enough as to risk exceeding those of a general in the Syrian Armed Forces; after all, he rhetorically asked, an engineer is not better than a general or is he!? I still remember me answering him with not the least amount of hesitation: “but of course an engineer is better than a general”!
My dad never served in the Syrian Army but I have. I graduated from Damascus University in 1983 and joined the army to “serve the flag” for 2 years like countless other young Syrians. This national duty (or tax if you prefer) was, and still is, universally imposed on Syrian men with few exceptions. Unlike professional military men, those subject to this “national duty” are paid more or less nothing. Sometimes the have to pay in cash or kind, to survive what practically amounts to 2 years (often more) of thinly disguised slavery.
For a professional school graduate like myself, life in the army was still not pretty but it was bearable. I got to meet interesting people from different religious, cultural, educational, and economic backgrounds. We all spoke the same language, of course, but accents varied wildly. The best way to classify those men, however, was simply on the basis of their military career, or the lack of it: were they professional soldiers or, like myself, serving their 2 years and counting the days and hours to put it all behind their back? And secondly, if they were professional soldiers, what was their rank?
Needless to say, rank was of utmost importance. At the very top, we had the colonel commanding the armored brigade. Everyone respected, or at least feared him. He was the ultimate bogey man. No other person in the entire brigade had such an aura surrounding his person. For his subordinates, he was authority incarnate and his word would send just about anyone to jail where torture was not uncommon. Under this colonel came his deputy (also a colonel but whose power was far more limited), another colonel in charge of logistics, and several majors, captains, and Lieutenants in charge of the different battalions and other departments. Quite few of the professional officers, the very same ones brown-nosing to the colonel were arrogant, condescending, and quite brutal dealing with their subordinates but what I found most interesting by far, was that even the lowliest soldier somehow considered himself worthier than civilians. How could that be?
The colonel in charge of logistics was a kindly man in his 50’s and about to retire. He once shared a dinner with few young college graduates serving in the army, myself included. He was in a good mood and dealt with us almost as equals using his nick name Abu Raymond. He told us about the many years he spent in the army and how he studied to upgrade his status from that of an NCO to an officer. He then proceeded, with no solicitation on our part whatsoever, to tell us that “absolutely no one” who could manage a trade or profession, would opt for a military career. Those who join the army, he emphatically stressed, do so as a last resort when all other doors are practically shut.
Abu Raymond’s courageous honesty was admirable, of course, but he did no more than saying loud and clear what everybody knew. The army in Syria facilitates social mobility for poor young men. Some of those young men are very intelligent and genuinely want a military career (I happen to know at least one or two so Abu Raymond’s assurance was not wholly accurate) but those are few and far between. The vast majority were average and below average and could therefore not realistically hope to apply for medical or engineering schools, traditionally the turf of the best and brightest. Add to that that they were economically disadvantaged, so they had no means with which to start a business.
The army offered a way out and forward for formerly disenfranchised young Syrians. Is there anything wrong with this? one might reasonably ask. Who would hesitate to grab an opportunity that offered money, prestige, secure job, and other benefits hitherto way out of reach? The answer is of course not many. Who knows I might have done the same thing if I were in their shoes. What I want to study here is not what made those men join the military. It is rather what makes them feel superior to us, other mortals. Where their mentality of entitlement came from. Do they REALLY believe that a general is better than an engineer? Do they REALYY believe that a military man is better than a civilian?
For, you see, their narrative is quite different than the one I outlined above. After all, how could one look at himself in the mirror knowing that he joined the military out of despair of other and likely brighter alternatives? No. The reason one chooses to soldier on has to do with totally altruistic, lofty, and noble motives. He is making THE ULTIMATE SACRIFICE. He is risking his very life for the sake of his country. It is thanks to him, and only to him, that the rest of us civilians can sleep sound at night. Without him, predators would devour the fatherland, kill its men, rape its women, and terrorize the helpless populace. He dies that we may live and prosper. We owe him our freedom and lives.
This refrain has been repeated so often and so long that it convinced many people and, quite likely, even those who invented this twisted logic. The army has after all dominated Syrian politics since 1949 more directly than indirectly. Armored vehicles roam Syrian cities driven by reckless drivers never held accountable for the accidents they provoke. The army sucks the economy dry and has lost few major battles with tragic consequences (magically peddled as victories) and no one batted an eye. Power resides with the army and its minions. The civilians in Syria would simply have to put up or shut up.
But what does the army really do that is so praiseworthy? I guess one might argue that its sheer existence somewhat dissuades potentially aggressive neighbors though this is highly questionable. Another role would be to keep law an order but shouldn’t that be the job of the police? The truth is perhaps less romantic. The army exists mainly to protect the regime, period. It is another version of Caesar’s Praetorian Guard, Napoleon’s Old Guard, or Saddam Hussein’s Republican Guard.
This applies to many armies, perhaps most armies, and not just to those of banana republics. There exist many variations of course depending on when and where but the general rule still applies. In most countries that have large standing armies, the army is to a lesser or greater extent a parasite. The larger the army, the more resources it sucks. Often for meager return. This not the worst part, to be sure. Large and powerful armies have throughout history led their countries to disaster. The major dilemma remains that armies, like many of us, have to show that they’re worth the huge investment in treasure and sweat that they represent. In plain language, they have to show that they work hard for their money, harder than anyone else since they are willing to immolate themselves in an ULTIMATE SACRIFICE. Since the only “work” that they know how to do is warring and killing, one needs not be a diviner to imagine the consequences. Mighty empires were brought to its knees following the reckless adventures of its generals. Modern warfare has, if anything, made the enterprise costlier than ever. Even when the military “wins” the averages man almost always loses. Make no mistake about it: large militaries would fight ferociously to defend their privileges. When they run out of real ennemies and dangers, they invent imaginary ones. When they lose to external foes, they often make-up for this setback by oppressing their own people. Rather than defending the freedom of their countrymen, they become its worst enemy.
The ULTMATE SACRIFICE is an illusion and a fraud. The real heroes are not the ones with military garb. The are the loving mothers, the school teachers, the factory workers, the entertainers, the law makers, the health care providers, the scientists, and many other “unknown soldiers”. The real glory lies not in bombing, invading, and killing. It lies with constructing, inventing, maintaining, and upbringing. Crafty Odysseus was a thug, mighty Achilles and his Myrmidons were cold blooded murderers.
The great Victor Hugo loved France but was no fan of Bonaparte. Here is the introduction of his La retraite de Russie:
Il neigeait. On était vaincu par sa conquête.
Pour la première fois l'aigle baissait la tête.
Sombres jours ! l'empereur revenait lentement,
Laissant derrière lui brûler Moscou fumant.
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Sunday, December 5, 2010
La Garde meurt, elle ne se rend pas!
Waterloo June 18, 1815.
The Cause was lost. The Imperial Guard was surrounded, out-manned, and out-gunned. The victorious British magnanimously offered to accept the surrender of the surviving remains of the elite French Troops when General Cambronne famously retorted, “Merde”, “The Guard dies, it does not surrender!” Only then did the British canons deliver the coup de grace.
What made the French sacrifice so many young lives so gratuitously? But a more pertinent question would be what makes many men and women persist in a course of action long after it foolishness has been demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt.
Countless other examples could be cited but, for the sake of brevity, I will restrict myself to two.
Winston Churchill made a sagacious observation in his WWI memoirs (The World’s Crisis). He marveled at the short-sightedness of the German leaders in the aftermath of their victory in The East. Russia was knocked out of the war and laid prostrate as Germany, early in 1918, forced its politicians to cede vast territories in Eastern Europe as to eclipse any potential gain at the Western Front. Wouldn’t the best course for Germany be to negotiate a peace settlement with the Western Allies, even at the cost of some territorial concessions to Belgium and France? Would the allies, bled white in four long and murderous years of ruthless warfare have rejected such an offer? We all now what happened next. Ludendorff and Company opted instead on a “quitte ou double” and launched their ultimate attack in the West in the Spring of 1918 that ended in disaster and Germany’s unconditional surrender.
The second example is more mundane but not any less relevant. Modern medical technology has made it possible to fight terminal illnesses ever more tenaciously though at a tremendous financial, physical, and psychological cost. Time and again you see or hear about a hopelessly ill patient fighting the complications of metastatic cancer for months in a row shuttling back and forth between a regular hospital ward and the intensive care unit when everyone knows that he or she is going to die. The stated goal is, of course, Prolonging Life. Towards achieving that goal, the medical team tries to keep the Patient’s Oxygen level within range, his heart pumping, his lungs (or a mechanical ventilator) breathing, his kidneys (or a dialysis machine) filtering poisons out of his body, etc. The patient becomes a “heart”, “lung”, Kidney”, Magnesium”, “Potassium”… but the larger picture, The Patient himself is lost to sight. Doctors brief the family about “Winning Battles” against bacterial infections and internal bleedings when everyone knows, deep down, that The War is utterly and irremediably lost. Rather that Prolonging Life, the process becomes in reality Prolonging Death. Its almost as if some people actually believe in the possibility of deflecting Death forever (one is reminded of the anecdote about Joha borrowing a pot from his neighbor and returning it next day with a smaller one adding, to his neighbor’s delight that it “gave birth” but when the next time he told the same person that the pot “died” the neighbor was besides himself with rage as if, all of a sudden, it dawned on him that Joha was lying).
That brings me back to the theme of this essay. What makes individuals, peoples, states, and empires persist in a demonstrably bankrupt course time after time after time? How could Homo Sapiens be so conceited, blind, and down right stupid? Wouldn’t it make much more sense to invest the resources spent on weapons and conflicts in the welfare of our planet? And what about devoting a fraction of the sums spent on Prolonging Death to promote education and child welfare? I think the answer is best sought in the Principle of Inertia. Inertia in physics is defined, according to Dictionary.com, as:
“the property of matter by which it retains its state of rest or its velocity along a straight line so long as it is not acted upon by an external force”.
To return to the examples quoted above, The Imperial Guard (an extreme example to be sure but none the less a valid model for many fanatics) knows how to fight but not much else. It obeys orders even if those don’t make sense. It abdicated logic to “Mob Frenzy” and paid the ultimate price. The rest of the French Troops were perhaps less valiant but more human. Instead of La Garde meurt, elle ne se rend pas! They adopted "La Garde recule. Sauve qui peut!" Cowardly perhaps but made much more sense.
As for the WWI vignette, it certainly was possible, in theory at least, for Germany to return the Alsace, Lorraine, along with the other conquered territory to France in return for an honorable peace and a free hand in the East (an offer almost impossible for the Allies to resist, again at least in theory) especially since we know, with the wisdom of hindsight that, in the end, Germany gave up all this territory and much more after hundreds of thousands more of young men on both sides were wantonly and needlessly immolated to Ares.
But was it psychologically possible for the German Leadership to even privately consider returning lands to France and Belgium, let alone dare submit such a suggestion to their public, for years living on the meager diet of militaristic patriotism, especially in light of their recent brilliant victories in the East? Here the Principle of Inertia could be seen at full force: absent a Force Majeure, that is “an external force”, The Kaiser and his generals were fated to continue “along a straight line” towards their doom. The Allies provided this “external force” and what was unthinkable for Germany became inevitable. End of the story.
The last case study is, as I stated above, more down to earth but far more likely encountered by the average GI Joe. At what point do we simply give up? Where should the line be drawn? Isn’t Death just as Predictable as Birth? Does anyone really presume the ability to interrupt the Life Cycle? In general terms, the “external force” here is more than just a cancer, heart attack, respiratory failure, infection.. It simply is Omnipotent and Ubiquitous Death lurking behind a corner near the end of the human journey.
The take home message is as simple as ABC. When you're in a hole, stop digging.
The Cause was lost. The Imperial Guard was surrounded, out-manned, and out-gunned. The victorious British magnanimously offered to accept the surrender of the surviving remains of the elite French Troops when General Cambronne famously retorted, “Merde”, “The Guard dies, it does not surrender!” Only then did the British canons deliver the coup de grace.
What made the French sacrifice so many young lives so gratuitously? But a more pertinent question would be what makes many men and women persist in a course of action long after it foolishness has been demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt.
Countless other examples could be cited but, for the sake of brevity, I will restrict myself to two.
Winston Churchill made a sagacious observation in his WWI memoirs (The World’s Crisis). He marveled at the short-sightedness of the German leaders in the aftermath of their victory in The East. Russia was knocked out of the war and laid prostrate as Germany, early in 1918, forced its politicians to cede vast territories in Eastern Europe as to eclipse any potential gain at the Western Front. Wouldn’t the best course for Germany be to negotiate a peace settlement with the Western Allies, even at the cost of some territorial concessions to Belgium and France? Would the allies, bled white in four long and murderous years of ruthless warfare have rejected such an offer? We all now what happened next. Ludendorff and Company opted instead on a “quitte ou double” and launched their ultimate attack in the West in the Spring of 1918 that ended in disaster and Germany’s unconditional surrender.
The second example is more mundane but not any less relevant. Modern medical technology has made it possible to fight terminal illnesses ever more tenaciously though at a tremendous financial, physical, and psychological cost. Time and again you see or hear about a hopelessly ill patient fighting the complications of metastatic cancer for months in a row shuttling back and forth between a regular hospital ward and the intensive care unit when everyone knows that he or she is going to die. The stated goal is, of course, Prolonging Life. Towards achieving that goal, the medical team tries to keep the Patient’s Oxygen level within range, his heart pumping, his lungs (or a mechanical ventilator) breathing, his kidneys (or a dialysis machine) filtering poisons out of his body, etc. The patient becomes a “heart”, “lung”, Kidney”, Magnesium”, “Potassium”… but the larger picture, The Patient himself is lost to sight. Doctors brief the family about “Winning Battles” against bacterial infections and internal bleedings when everyone knows, deep down, that The War is utterly and irremediably lost. Rather that Prolonging Life, the process becomes in reality Prolonging Death. Its almost as if some people actually believe in the possibility of deflecting Death forever (one is reminded of the anecdote about Joha borrowing a pot from his neighbor and returning it next day with a smaller one adding, to his neighbor’s delight that it “gave birth” but when the next time he told the same person that the pot “died” the neighbor was besides himself with rage as if, all of a sudden, it dawned on him that Joha was lying).
That brings me back to the theme of this essay. What makes individuals, peoples, states, and empires persist in a demonstrably bankrupt course time after time after time? How could Homo Sapiens be so conceited, blind, and down right stupid? Wouldn’t it make much more sense to invest the resources spent on weapons and conflicts in the welfare of our planet? And what about devoting a fraction of the sums spent on Prolonging Death to promote education and child welfare? I think the answer is best sought in the Principle of Inertia. Inertia in physics is defined, according to Dictionary.com, as:
“the property of matter by which it retains its state of rest or its velocity along a straight line so long as it is not acted upon by an external force”.
To return to the examples quoted above, The Imperial Guard (an extreme example to be sure but none the less a valid model for many fanatics) knows how to fight but not much else. It obeys orders even if those don’t make sense. It abdicated logic to “Mob Frenzy” and paid the ultimate price. The rest of the French Troops were perhaps less valiant but more human. Instead of La Garde meurt, elle ne se rend pas! They adopted "La Garde recule. Sauve qui peut!" Cowardly perhaps but made much more sense.
As for the WWI vignette, it certainly was possible, in theory at least, for Germany to return the Alsace, Lorraine, along with the other conquered territory to France in return for an honorable peace and a free hand in the East (an offer almost impossible for the Allies to resist, again at least in theory) especially since we know, with the wisdom of hindsight that, in the end, Germany gave up all this territory and much more after hundreds of thousands more of young men on both sides were wantonly and needlessly immolated to Ares.
But was it psychologically possible for the German Leadership to even privately consider returning lands to France and Belgium, let alone dare submit such a suggestion to their public, for years living on the meager diet of militaristic patriotism, especially in light of their recent brilliant victories in the East? Here the Principle of Inertia could be seen at full force: absent a Force Majeure, that is “an external force”, The Kaiser and his generals were fated to continue “along a straight line” towards their doom. The Allies provided this “external force” and what was unthinkable for Germany became inevitable. End of the story.
The last case study is, as I stated above, more down to earth but far more likely encountered by the average GI Joe. At what point do we simply give up? Where should the line be drawn? Isn’t Death just as Predictable as Birth? Does anyone really presume the ability to interrupt the Life Cycle? In general terms, the “external force” here is more than just a cancer, heart attack, respiratory failure, infection.. It simply is Omnipotent and Ubiquitous Death lurking behind a corner near the end of the human journey.
The take home message is as simple as ABC. When you're in a hole, stop digging.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)