I have been following the debate regarding the movie “American Sniper” and have noted the split in opinion regarding this movie generally falls along the line of “how or should we honour someone who fought in an unjust war?”
This question takes me back to the Vietnam war, the conclusion of which I still vividly remember. At that time as well, many Americans both on the Right and Left argued whether Vietnam veterans should be honoured. On the Left the feeling was they had participated in an unjust war, committed war crimes and had prolonged the fighting by agreeing to go. On the Right the feeling was veterans had dishonoured America by fragging officers, disobeying orders, showing a lack of discipline and ultimately losing.
Only two decades later was it eventually decided that the returning veteran deserved to be honoured as a person who was simply doing his duty as best he could in a very ugly war. The Right eventually embraced the Vietnam vet as an honoured colleague and forgot entirely the abuse they showered on his head when he first returned home. The Left conceded that while the war was wrong, the veteran was more often than not a poor person drafted to fight against his will. So, very belatedly, the service of the Vietnam vet was recognized and honoured.
I admit, the question of how to honour – or even if we should honour – the veteran of an unjust war has been of some interest to me ever since. I am a military history buff and have read hundreds of war diaries from both sides of many wars. A common theme in many of these diaries is the demand that the service of those in “enemy” armies be recognized as honourable .
This demand can extend even to those who were members of organizations synonymous with the evil their nations had become. A diary written post war by an SS Komando is a case in point. The exploits of this soldier and his unit were nothing less than exceptional. Many of their missions would be considered on par with the operation that got bin Laden and would rival almost anything the British accomplished. Yet the entire time while reading these accounts, you can’t help but remember the man was an officer in the SS. The image of holocaust, genocide and a world wrapped in barb wire looms large in the background.
The author went to great lengths to try and differentiate his unit with the SS units that ran the death camps; which he insisted were regarded as “scum” by the “real soldiers” of the SS. He devoted an entire chapter explaining that the SS fighting units had little to no involvement in the final solution and that was largely the job of the paramilitary units, police units and these “special” SS units who weren’t really soldiers.
Another diary from a Japanese fighter ace who scored numerous kills in the Pacific war made the same plea. Throughout his account of the war, he insists that his exploits and those of his squadron were worthy of being honoured even if the aims of his nation were not. He too made went to great lengths to differentiate the actions of the Navy (to which he belonged) from the Imperial Army which was responsible for most if not all of the atrocities committed by Japan during the war.
Then there are the diaries of soldiers of the Confederacy though these almost without exclusion insist the Southern cause was just and their service honourable. Some Confederate soldiers insisted that they reluctantly took up arms against the Union only when it became apparent the North was going to “force” abolition on them by electing Lincoln. To these men, they were fighting for their home and nothing was more honourable than that.
But if we take a step back and take a look at the wider picture we realize something very unpleasant and are forced to ask the question “what if they had won?”
What if Germany had won the war in part due to the exceptional efforts and fighting skill of that German Commando? Would it have mattered to the millions and millions who would have died in the death camps that he and his comrades were different from the SS that were killing them?
What if Japan had succeeded in the Pacific? Would the Chinese peasants being beheaded or the thousands of others languishing in slave labour camps have considered the service of this Ace to this cause worthy of a salute?
Ultimately, The South, Japan and Germany lost their wars not because they were out fought, but because of bad leadership and internal dissension. Had the South been able to make a unified effort at total war, with every State acting in the best interests of the nation, the tide of war might have gone their way – especially in the early days when the Union was being very badly served by incompetent Union generals. Has that occurred, slavery would have likely remained in the United States well into the 20th century.
Had Germany not been crippled by the lunatics of the Nazi party leadership who believed sorcery and “willpower” were sufficient counters to tank divisions and heavy bombers, it is entirely possible Germany would have achieved her war aims and Nazism could even now dominate Europe. Had the Japanese leadership listened to Admiral Yamamoto’s warning and advanced in the Pacific more cautiously, concentrating their forces for single point offensives, the war could have gone a completely different direction.
It cannot be forgotten that had this been the case, it would have been the “honourable” service of the soldiers of these armies that would have made these victories possible.
I do not think it is possible to separate the service of the soldier from the war aim of the nation; if the nation’s aim is evil than the service to that nation is wrong. This may sound like black and white thinking but consider; what if America had been successful in Iraq and had successfully colonized that nation – which was the unstated war aim. How much longer would it be before Iran was also “liberated”? How many more “Guantanamo’s” would there be, how many more renditions of “terrorists”? An observer need only look to Central and South America to see the results of American colonization. For decades these countries were ruled by “America’s bastards.” The mass graves attest to that period of history.
So we come back to the question of “American Sniper”. I haven’t seen the film, but from the comments, it appears this movie presents the same plea as heard from the Japanese Ace, the SS Commando and the Southern officer; the cause of the fight is not important when speaking of the bravery and skill of the individual warrior.
I respectfully disagree.
If in honouring the service of the individual we forget the wrong of the cause, we dishonor those who fought and died stopping that wrong. Further, we breathe new life into the evil that started it to begin with. In Japan this has become all too evident where, in their efforts to honour their dead from the Second World War, many Japanese now dispute that the cause they died for was even wrong at all. We have seen a similar transition take place with regards to the Vietnam War. Look at how short a time it took to go from “Apocalypse Now” to “Rambo First Blood II” The same “stab in the back” theory that took root in post-war Germany, has taken deep root in the U.S. Watching “Hamburger Hill” shows how deep that root now goes. The result that an America that questioned its right to wage war post-Vietnam, now baldly declares a doctrine of pre-emptive war.
So, while I may someday watch “American Sniper” I will not pay to see it. I will not contribute to the box office totals that will be interpreted as approval for the message. This small action will be insufficient to stop the rehabilitation of the Bush doctrine, of torture memos and a whitewash of the one of the worst periods in American History. I will watch as another Cheney appears and another pre-emptive war is launched for God & Country (and oil).
I continue to respect the men and women who put their lives on the firing line, in the belief they were doing something noble. But I will not honour service in a cause that was wrong.
Post Script: Before commenting that I can't say this if I never served a) I have served, I was in the Artillery. b) My father also served in the Air Force. c) I am talking about Iraq not Afghanistan which I still hold was a just war very very badly led and fought. Finally d) Remember I still RESPECT the service of veterans but will not honour it. If you don't know the difference, go away, find out, then come back and comment.
Peace.