Who pays the piper?

It takes time (or, at least, it take me time) to think through any post worth thinking about at all – and Jim Putnam's posts are always that. So it was that I was still thinking about his post of yesterday (Who pays the piper?), and had just sat myself down this morning to attempt a response, when I discovered that he had extended it. Having sat down to write, though, I will write ... with a mixture of considered thoughts and new off the cuff reactions.

It's necessary to say, immediately, that this is one of the areas where Jim and I are going to disagree – but, I am sure, in mutual respect nevertheless. I didn't mean to cause him pain, and regret doing so; I do believe (but cannot know) that I do understand what he meant and means ... but cannot avoid the fact that my own feelings and thoughts are in large measure otherwise. Jim says that the title of his post “ bears no relation to the words following it”. To me, however, it returned over and over as being extremely apposite. Leave that for the moment; I'll come back to it shortly. I do, on the other hand, very much agree with him at these points:

“...all things are somehow related ... there are always multiple threads and levels working their way through any and all situations ... support and approval for troops squirm their way through individual to ever larger circles of responsibility...”

“And if the returning soldier requires the "quieter and more reflective time" ... is that the time for me to support him or her?”

My answer to the question in the second case being: yes, assuredly.

If those ever larger circles of responsibility place on us the responsibility for support and approval, do they not also place on us responsibility for what we support and approve? The end result of this argument, it seems to me, is that there was an obligation upon German civilians in the period 1939-1945 to support the Totenkopf SS; and how many of us would go that far?

Back, now, to the title: Who pays the piper?

There is a strand of opinion in Britain over the past couple of years which expresses itself in the waving of banners carrying the message “Not in our name!” While Jim and I may not be carrying the banners, I suspect that both of us would echo the sentiment. The people carrying those banners are certainly not calling the tune – and are therefore not, presumably, willingly paying the piper. Who is paying the piper? The administration behind each national army is paying the piper and the administration is not the people – or that, at least, is my own opinion which others, I know, may not share.

The label “mercenary”, in a military context, is often flung around as the dirtiest of epithets. But what is a mercenary? The usual definition offered is that a mercenary is one who fights and kills for money – because s/he is the piper, and who pays the piper calls the tune. But on that definition, every member of the US or UK armed forces is a mercenary: a professional soldier is a soldier for a living and will, when told, fight and kill at the behest of her/his paymaster. This is not a thought that most of us find comfortable; and I certainly do not suggest that every professional soldier is morally congruent with every other. Nevertheless, it is hard to escape the logic. It brings me back to the question I asked before: what makes troops “ours” – or, more precisely, what makes them “mine”? Troops can be used against the population in certain circumstances. In both UK and US, troops take an oath of allegiance to some aspect of the state, not to the population. The aims and objectives of the armed forces in any state are oriented toward the interests of that state – these may often align to a greater extent with the aims and objectives of the people, but they are not the same. Just because I live in this state, and may often have cause to be grateful for the actions and protection of that state's military, does not make it “my” military. The existence of a military at all is a necessary evil (yes, I acknowledge the necessity), not a good. The exact formulation of that military varies from place to place and we should not make the mistake of thinking that our local arrangements are the inevitable arrangements always and everywhere.

To me the idea of unconditional support for troops, which seems to be Jim's position, can't be justified. As long as a professional soldier will fight an without moral choice s/he cannot expect support from those who believe that the fight is not just. A soldier who agrees to fight for whatever s/he is told to fight for by the administration, no questions asked, as long as s/he is paid, has a right to expect (though rarely receives) unconditional support from that administration. S/he does not have any such right to support from those who would not, given the choice, pay her/him for the war to be waged. We all have the right to say “not in our name” – not only to administrations, but to armies.

I mentioned in my post last night (A life more cinematic) having been to see the film Madagascar. One theme in that film is a struggle by Alex the Lion, abruptly removed from zoo to wild, to resolve the contradiction between his obligate carnivore nature and his freindships with his fellow castaways. In particular, he has to resolve the contradiction between Marty the Zebra as his best friend and Marty the Zebra as natural prey. His eventual decision is to put himself into dismal isolation rather than harm his friend. By that decision, and more importantly the fact that he consciously makes it for himself, he earns and receives Marty's support at a later point when commonsense would suggest withholding it. I'm sure there's a relevant lesson there,though I can't manage to tease it out coherently at the moment.

Jim says:

“I believe that I can support the individual, and through extension the units. I believe that I must continue disapproval of those who made the deicsions that put them there.”

To which I have to reply: the decions which put them there include the decisions of the individual.