WAR

By Mickey Skidmore, AMHSW, ACSW, FAASW

The military in any country is developed and embraced as the protector of national sovereignty and the last line of defence against hostile regimes. In order to protect and ensure the security of the life we cherish, when the military becomes involved, they are called upon to address issues and concerns that many would not care to know the details about. 

Modern military ideology in most countries adhere to a basic process of striping enlistees of their individual identities and then are re-programmed to function as a group — where they follow orders — without question, within a structured chain of command. And at the end of the day, to over simplify, what soldiers are being trained to do is kill. Being or becoming a soldier offers many things, but it is not for everyone. (For this reason alone I could not be part of any military machine — even if the stated aims was to protect).

Despite the horrors of war, there have been international efforts to establish generally agreed upon guidelines of such horrific circumstances. However, this has provided little solace to the increasing number of militaristic conflicts around the world. In fact, these efforts have often given way to devolving into the disputed narrative from each side, each referring to their own set of facts along with the global “whataboutism” of competing power bases. How is it that there can be less outcry when a particular country employs the military in a particular fashion, yet when another country does something similar the outcry rises to the level of being a war crime?

We do not often think about war when it comes to our daily practice. However, it is increasingly underscoring a range of things that impact our lives. They directly or indirectly effect our funding priorities; domestic and international ethics; politics and how we resolved difference and conflict.

Regarding the Gaza conflict, I note that people often assume I take the Israeli position. Actually, while I strive to avoid the minutia of the details of either position, my strongest position is that I  am in favour of PEACE. In the absence of any better ideas, I support the general principles of a two-state solution where both sides can formulated a template for the opportunity for such peace. However, many of the direct players involved in such an opportunity (for the past several decades) do not seem to support such a plan.

I cannot support, condone or justify the unprovoked massacre unleashed on 7 October 2023. Moreover, imagine what it must be like to be geographically surrounded by regimes who are openly supportive of the death, destruction and end of Israel. Having said that, Israel should not get a free pass for the manner in which they are using the military to address the Gazan crisis. Yet, when nations opt to address complex, historically long-standing, political, and social conflicts with the military as the primary intervention, the price that is paid is not surprisingly too high.

So, how do we get to peace?

Some of the obstacles I see in the Gazan conflict is that neither Hamas nor the PLA seem to have the genuine best interest of the Palestinian people in its political representation. They infiltrate hospitals and use people as human shields to achieve their military objectives. Culturally, they seem to value death more than life which serves as a primary mechanism to feed an ongoing ideology of hate and destruction that has been perpetuated for far too long. The current Israeli government reflects a right wing perspective with several of its key representatives (including Netanyahu himself) mired in claims of legal and political corruption rising to the level by some to reflect war crimes.

Through the eyes of the western world, the unprovoked attack on Ukraine would seem to be rooted in historical power dynamics, with Putin on a mission of reclaiming past glory, power and influence of Russia — which they perceived to be threaded by a military defence alliance (NATO) aimed at protecting and defending Russia from further territorial advancements or threats of global dominance.

With authoritarian movements arising throughout the world, we can now see the USA shifting from its own well established constitution to employ the military on/against its own people — from the manipulated convolutions of the current president, who seems intent on consolidating his own power within the three co-equal branches of the US government. Underlying any conflict rising to the level of war, the fundamental underlying dynamic is about power. 

I do not think we get to peace by overpowering an opponent with military might. We get to peace by recognising alternative forms of power — kindness; humility; respect; ethics; forgiveness; and ideas that do not fuel hatred and destruction, but rather embrace diversity and the well-being of humanity.

Call me naive.

Call me a tree-hugging … progressive … hairy fairy … hippy if it makes you feel any better.

But honestly,  we’ve been doing things the other way for quite awhile, with dismal results.