Eshin Direct

There seems to be all this fuss going about the slaying of four US civilians in Iraq last week. Evidence would suggest that these individuals were mercenaries and strangely, some people feel that the killings of mercenaries equates to the murder of civilians. I, personally, feel no sympathy for mercs who get themselves killed. I am angered at the desecration of the human bodies by the Iraqis responsible for the slayings. The matter is a point of honour.

Mercenaries are not civilians. They are capable of defending themselves above and beyond the means of regular civilians. They are former soldiers and have the skills and training that ultimately leads to one goal – the ability to kill. Whether this is exercised in the defence of others or in the pursuit of conquest, it is done through the threat or ability to kill someone else. A soldier in the service of his or her country exercises this in the believe that he or she is defending the interests of their nation. While they are remunerated through pay and incentives, pay should never be the reason why a soldier remains in service to their nation.

But for mercenaries they are no longer in the service of their nations. They have put the need for pay ahead of the nobler cause to serve their countries and their people. The skills of combat and defence have been put to use for the buck. They voluntarily put themselves into situations where they can use these skills to earn. Kill to earn.

In times of war, citizens often rise up to the defence of their nation’s interests. Sometimes they are sometimes required to kill as a consequence of that. The nation in question owes them a debt of gratitude for that. Many do return to a productive roll within society, or they continue their time in military service bonded by a nobler ethos. However, mercenaries are in the business of killing not because of a nobler ideal but because they hope their client’s pay cheque will clear. However, which way they decide to rationalise it in their heads.

Some reconcile it in that they will not take up arms against their homelands. Others rationalise it that they will do humanitarian style of causes. But as mercenaries, they are taking up arms for the pay. A recent special report on Star TV reminded me of the Flying Tigers in China. These were civilians that took up arms for a nobler cause. The defence of China was their overriding cause. Not the pay cheque.

So when mercs get themselves killed, one shouldn’t be all upset about it beyond the fact that a human being has died. A man who stands in the middle of a busy highway and gets hit by a truck and as a result becomes a cripple or dies is sad. But it was his choice. His own fault. Likewise, too, a mercenary puts himself in harm’s way of his or her own volition. For the pay cheque. Sure some people are downsized out of military service and have no other profession but to soldier. But the governments and nations have seen a rationale need for them to no longer need so many who are trained in combat skills. Society needs them in areas. To live to fight shouldn’t be someone’s only calling in life.

The alleged mercenaries that were killed in Iraq were apparently defending a food convoy. Why not have nurses or constructions workers defend that food convoy? Because those who employed the mercenaries to defend it, employed those people because of the combat skills that they possessed. There was a potential threat of violence which needed that food convoy to be defended with those who had the skills to defend against that violence. The fact that they were defending a food convoy shouldn’t be a call for sympathy. In wartime, one targets food convoys of the enemy. Military strategists knows the value of supplies is as important as weapons or any military logistics. It is a part of military logistics.

One military strategist in Vietnam once observed that the way to win the war was the rice bowl. The people of Vietnam generally did not care about the grandiose ideals of democracy or communism but they did need to eat. Americans were bombing the rice fields. The communists were burning the rice fields. The need to get rice to the people was part of the “hearts and minds” war. Defending a food convoy from attack and dying in the process is as noble as any other combat action.

I will not shed a tear for mercenaries dying in the course of what they wanted. I am not lauding the actions of the Iraqis though. Dragging dead bodies in the streets is a barbaric act and sacrifices a nobler humanity that the world is constantly trying to achieve. But nobility and honour is a luxury during wartime. These are concepts that are theorised by those who enjoy peace. It is often the cry of observers that in warfare, one should not forget their basic humanity. But how would you feel if you were fighting for your survival or your ideals? When the threat posed to you, your comrades, and your loved ones is death?

The use of psychology is an ugly part of warfare under wartime conditions. Be disgusted by that or not but it has always been a part of warfare. European powers lobbed the dead and decaying corpses of enemy soldiers into castles to spread disease and terror amongst the beseiged. The RAF firebombed Hamburg during World War 2 in a misguided attempt to galvanize the German populace into overthrowing the Nazi regime. Human rights and civil liberties are great and wonderous ideals but in wartime, when you are fighting for your goals and ideals then they are the first to go.

While I have a dislike for the US policies and Bush in particular, I have to concede that they understand this fact all too clearly. The homeland security measures they adopt are infringements on the civil liberties of their people and their foreign policies infringe on the rights of those abroad. But I have always respected that the fact they follow the fundamentals of political theory without flaw. The US is at war. They are fighting a conflict where an enemy is intent on causing them harm. While they are fighting for their way of life, right now, they are neck deep in a conflict that does not afford them the luxuries of civil liberties. History and contemporary observers might judge them harshly but it is textbook execution of political theory.

So too does Israel. One might fault them for being heavy handed and stepping on the civil liberties of the Palestinians. But they are faced by a people that hate them and that would threaten to run them into the sea if they could. Israel is under a state of war.

And so too are the Iraqis. They are in a state of occupation and there are those that would resist the US forces within Iraq. For them, they are at war. The niceties of civilised society are something that they cannot afford. Dragging enemy soldiers through the streets is barbaric and I find it appalling but it is part of the psychological war that they are waging. One needs to understand that even if one cannot stomach it. Observers, like myself, can call it inhuman. But most observers are not in their position.

The situation is complex. The noble ideals that came out of the Second World War were borne out of a tiredness of war, the killing, the fighting and the retributions. Most observers, and I include myself, are not tired of war and haven’t experienced the true desperation of war. It is hard to judge either the Americans or the Iraqis in this for I do not know that I would have not done the same if enemies threatened my homeland. But I know that will not shed a tear for mercenaries. Soldiers, probably yes. But mercs who go out of their way to put themselves in the line of fire, no.

Tags: Political Rants