- Joined
- Oct 25, 2004
- Messages
- 3,178
I know the song you're talking about, Rusty. I actually really like that one. (And Phil Oches, in general, but his other songs I like for other reasons.) Allow me to explain this one.
What Phil's talking about, I believe, is that one is always ultimately responsible for one's actions. There are no two ways about this, and that includes military personnel. I can have the best intentions, or the most strongly worded orders, in the world, but what I do, I do. Me. Even if I don't have to answer for them, I still have to live with them.
He was griping about the draft, of course. "Without them, Caesar would've stood alone..." lah-de-dah, so on and so forth. His argument, as I understand it, was that if the soldiers on both sides would say, "Hey, enough of this, we don't want to be here doing this and neither do they, let's call it a day and go home," and no more war. Completely unrealistic, of course, but idealists - myself included - often are.
Such things are not completely unbelievable, though - witness the first Christmas spent in the trenches during WWI.
My job is teaching people how to shoot and handle their weapons, and therefore, how to kill other people. It weighs on me sometimes. I rationalize it. "I'm teaching them how to save their lives." "I'm teaching them how to protect their ship/post/base." "I'm just giving them training - how they use it is up to them, not me." "It's my job. It's my duty. If I didn't do it, they'd find someone else who would."
All of this is horsepucky. I'm teaching eighteen-year-olds how to kill other people. I'm using a paper target, strong words, and a loud voice to desensitize them. Not only that, I take great satisfaction in doing so. I want them to be the most efficient killers they can be after the short time they've spent with me. I - and my coworkers - often josh one another about how good our shooters will be when we're done with them. It's a point of pride with us.
I tell myself that they'll be using those skills for all the right reasons if they ever have to do so, but really, I have no assurance of this besides my own faith in my own cause.
Sometimes we get a shooter who's about to deploy "over there." We make sure to give him/her a bit of additional, off-the-books instruction - how to retain a weapon when grabbed, how to deliver a proper buttstroke/pistol whip, how to rig up field expedient night sights for an M16, the finer points of weapons maintenance in a hostile environment...the kinds of things not mentioned in most books and not applicable to most personnel, but definitely nice to know. We can't teach them everything they'll need to know, of course - we don't know everything they need to know - but they'll pick up the rest when they get over there and at least we gave them what head start we could. We tell ourselves that it's for their protection, but really, we're giving them more tools to kill.
What I'm really getting at, Rusty, is that for each of these shooters that kills someone, I'm partially responsible. I'm cool with that. But, I must always keep it in mind. When the day comes where I'm no longer cool with it, I'll need to find a different line of work. This particular song of Phil's never fails to put it in perspective for me. That's why I like it.
I like "Here's to the State of Mississippi" because a buddy of mine is from there and it annoys the heck out of him whenever he hears it.
I'm not exactly disagreeing with you, Rusty - I'm just showing a different angle. I think we're actually in agreement...except on the subject of that song.
What Phil's talking about, I believe, is that one is always ultimately responsible for one's actions. There are no two ways about this, and that includes military personnel. I can have the best intentions, or the most strongly worded orders, in the world, but what I do, I do. Me. Even if I don't have to answer for them, I still have to live with them.
He was griping about the draft, of course. "Without them, Caesar would've stood alone..." lah-de-dah, so on and so forth. His argument, as I understand it, was that if the soldiers on both sides would say, "Hey, enough of this, we don't want to be here doing this and neither do they, let's call it a day and go home," and no more war. Completely unrealistic, of course, but idealists - myself included - often are.
My job is teaching people how to shoot and handle their weapons, and therefore, how to kill other people. It weighs on me sometimes. I rationalize it. "I'm teaching them how to save their lives." "I'm teaching them how to protect their ship/post/base." "I'm just giving them training - how they use it is up to them, not me." "It's my job. It's my duty. If I didn't do it, they'd find someone else who would."
All of this is horsepucky. I'm teaching eighteen-year-olds how to kill other people. I'm using a paper target, strong words, and a loud voice to desensitize them. Not only that, I take great satisfaction in doing so. I want them to be the most efficient killers they can be after the short time they've spent with me. I - and my coworkers - often josh one another about how good our shooters will be when we're done with them. It's a point of pride with us.
I tell myself that they'll be using those skills for all the right reasons if they ever have to do so, but really, I have no assurance of this besides my own faith in my own cause.
Sometimes we get a shooter who's about to deploy "over there." We make sure to give him/her a bit of additional, off-the-books instruction - how to retain a weapon when grabbed, how to deliver a proper buttstroke/pistol whip, how to rig up field expedient night sights for an M16, the finer points of weapons maintenance in a hostile environment...the kinds of things not mentioned in most books and not applicable to most personnel, but definitely nice to know. We can't teach them everything they'll need to know, of course - we don't know everything they need to know - but they'll pick up the rest when they get over there and at least we gave them what head start we could. We tell ourselves that it's for their protection, but really, we're giving them more tools to kill.
What I'm really getting at, Rusty, is that for each of these shooters that kills someone, I'm partially responsible. I'm cool with that. But, I must always keep it in mind. When the day comes where I'm no longer cool with it, I'll need to find a different line of work. This particular song of Phil's never fails to put it in perspective for me. That's why I like it.
I like "Here's to the State of Mississippi" because a buddy of mine is from there and it annoys the heck out of him whenever he hears it.
I'm not exactly disagreeing with you, Rusty - I'm just showing a different angle. I think we're actually in agreement...except on the subject of that song.