Sympathy for soldiers

I am second to none in acknowledging the service provided by our armed forces, at risk to their lives, no less. Though it has become essential to have a military force, my reaction to loss of life in war or war like situations – perhaps because I have not been personally affected by any such loss – is some reflection on the futility of war and a drop or two of tears, but not much sympathy. Yes, you may call me unpatriotic and cold hearted. I would plead guilty. But, I will make my case.

The existence of volunteer armies (the US, India) vis-à-vis compulsory duty in the military (Israel, with religion based exemptions) and the failure of such armies to foreclose war are, in my opinion, proof enough of the stupidity of the doctrine of Mutually Assured Doctrine (MAD) as applied to nuclear arms. But, that is another issue.

A few months ago, I read an article [1] about Americans’ reaction to the announcement that the war in Afghanistan, as far as they are concerned, is coming to an end. The article as such did not grab my attention but I received a sentence or two in it gleefully.

I have to quote a substantial portion of the one page article to set the scene. “The small city of South Portland is one of many obscure places to be heavily touched by war since September 11^th 2011 attacks. No state has lost more soldiers in Afghanistan, per person, than Maine.” No wonder the state has been a fertile recruiting ground since the American Civil War.

It is in this state, Brigadier-General James Campbell, the commander of Maine’s National Guard, fears the moment when “a grieving parent or spouse asks why their loved one died,” because he does not “have an answer.”

To tell the truth, he has an answer but it would sound too raw. He says, as per the article, “Volunteer soldiers need no sympathy.” I endorse this sentiment, as crude as it may seem, fully. What sympathy is the soldier talking about? Strangers trying to buy him sandwiches when he is walking through American airports. He does not say it, but this act of charity-cum-sympathy too must feel crude. The recruits are serving their country but are not “really signing up to some great moral cause.”

Now, come to India. When some soldiers died in an incursion from across the border not too long ago, the loved ones of the deceased wanted the heads of the perpetrators. This is, even if not acceptable within the context of volunteer soldiers, is understandable as an immediate response of the grief stricken. But, what about all the other breast beating and media blaring nonsense along the same lines? That is fake sympathy. If this were to happen in a draft military, it may be a little more justifiable. Still, a case must be made then too.

While the recruitment process itself may be mild, there is no telling what kind of brainwash the recruits are subjected to and whether they even remember that they joined the military under no compulsion. They bought into the risk regime, voluntarily.

Yes, a life was lost. Yes, there was a cause behind the soldier risking his life. Yet, I see no reason for sympathy, particularly from strangers and that too fake. What is good in an American airport is good in all other public spaces, including media in India.

Raghuram Ekambaram

References

1.    Lexington/The view from Maine streets, The Economist, March 2, 2013