Meeting the military

Writing on the Roman Triumph has opened some very unexpected doors. I’m hoping to be able to report from the Emmy awards in Los Angeles in September (courtesy of the Triumph). But meanwhile, on Friday, I’m off to talk at RUSI (the Royal United Service Institute for Defence and Security Studies, founded by none other than the Duke of Wellington).

As a bit of a wobbly pacifist, I’m slightly surprised at myself for having invested (so apparently sympathetically) into the dilemmas of Roman warfare. Indeed I must also confess to having a bit of a soft spot for intellectual soldiers (the sort that end up as Bursars of Cambridge colleges). They  always seem to have better moral credentials when it comes to warfare than I do (a bit like the atheist clerics who end up as chaplains of Oxbridge colleges – a worthy tradition stretching back at least to the eighteenth century).

This is a romantic sensibility I must have inherited. For I also have a cousin who was once married to frontline member of the SAS, who managed to charm my mother (a far more hard-line pacifist that I am). Even she would somehow manage to overlook what this guy had done in the Iranian embassy siege, because he could intellectualise the moral problems so nicely (and help with the washing up).

The trouble is that smart generals and clever SAS boys are one thing; most other aspects of the military seem not so appealing.

Notwithstanding my flirtations with uniforms, I have no doubt that the NUT has a point in thinking to make the recruiting sergeant a persona non grata from British schools  More than that, the idea that we should be exporting the CCF to state schools (at the same time as we are trying to counter ‘gun culture’) is simply bonkers.

I wonder if any of these New Labour enthusiasts for the CCF have any experience of it. I remember visiting the sixth-form ‘taster evening” at the son’s school (an excellent ex-direct grant school), to be greeted by a host of teenagers dressed in camouflage clothes and smudgy faces, with the odd bit of tree stuck in their hair. They looked very silly. But the encounter was predictable. They spoke eagerly about the parachuting opportunities, and looked blank when I asked what they thought about going and dropping bombs on Iraqi civilians.

As usual, when it came to it,  the alternatives to CCF were made as unglamorous as possible, There was granny-bashing, writing letters for Amnesty, helping out with reading in the junior school, litter-picking (hardly beats parachuting does it?). But the real downer was that you weren’t allowed to stay at any of these activities for longer than a term. Non-CCF activities had a compulsory rotation. No follow through – so no seeing what had actually happened to your prisoner/granny/8-year old.

When I wrote and said that I assumed that the military types would also rotate from army to air-force to navy, I  didn’t get a wholly satisfactory reply!

Shouldn’t we save state school kids from this awful institution.

Comments

[WENDY]

Oh dear, can't we just go back to using sticks and stones again?
Then after a million years, maybe we could scale down to name-calling only, or the odd playground dust up,
at most!

From yet another idealistic mother!
Thank you for your stimulating comments and for helping me realise that I am not alone, in much pondering on the subject.

[Steve the neighbour]

Hmm. Toughie this one.

As a 13 year old you are offered the opportunity to join clubs affording you the opportunity to pretty much explore the same mundane quasi-intellectual themes that have been forced to undertake all through the week.

The other option, boys, is that you get to go on aventure training, play with real guns (firing live ammunition)), fly a glider or aircraft and learn airmanship, travel overseas with other boys, dress like an adult (and a soldier to boot), learn and use fieldcraft and notch up your self-esteem by several points.

Now, we dont want you to do the latter because we all have an irrational fear that you will mutate into a mass-murderer and worse, we will have to admit to our more liberal colleagues that "Nigel is not perhaps such sensitive musically gifted soul" and he is actually, as normal as a kid can be.

So, who is this really about? The kid, or you?

[Xjy]

Re Michael:

"Those classes of society who choose not to invest in the violence waging system shouldn’t argue if they don’t like the results."

Not sure about this. Livy has a long rant covering several centuries of what happens when different classes of violence investors have different interests. Nothing about putting up and shutting up there.

And some classes are forced to implement the actions of the violence-waging system despite this not being in their interest at all - eg working class conscripts/"volunteers" in a war of imperialist rapine.

I'd put it differently. Those classes hurt by the violence-waging system should fight to abolish it. I.e. wage violence to end oppression (the way all classes have always done), plus wage violence against the state to end violence by the state (the new thing about workers' revolution on a world scale - on a national scale there is a clear need for a defensive state for a transitional period, till the threat of violence by any remaining hostile states is negligible).

[PL]

Michael's analysis is just, as far as it goes. But why speak of "violence" when the ordinary term for what he is talking about is "force"? The terms should not be regarded as interchangeable. "Violence" is a useful concept only if it is restricted (as ordinary usage restricts it) to force used in violation of someone's right. Of course this brings in the concept of right, which has no place in Michael's mechanistic abstraction. So much the worse for it then? One mustn't beg the question.

[Michael]

Violence has great utility in solving problems. If I’m hungry, and you have an apple, I could ask you for your apple so that I could eat. You could refuse. I’d still be hungry. If I punch you in the head, and take your apple, I have a meal. I’ve solved—at least temporarily—my problem, by using force. If I have an apple, and you try to take it, I have to be better (more skilled, better equipped) at applying violence then you. Logically, as a useful tool, we should hope that our State has the capacity for using violence on our behalf, either as a means of ensuring that we have enough apples, or as a means to ensure that some other individual doesn’t take our apples away. Because the State has the means of doing violence on our behalf, it is in our best interests to invest in the violence waging system, through personal participation, to ensure that our interests are being met. Those classes of society who choose not to invest in the violence waging system shouldn’t argue if they don’t like the results.

[Mary]

Thanks to Peter Wood for the vote of confidence. I like the image of the blog as the intellectual equivalent of letting one's hair down. The immediacy does mean that one writes in a quite different register for better and/or worse...I have become convinced that the balance works out in its favour.

[PETER WOOD]

Sarah asks: How did Mary Beard get to be a classics don at Cambridge with such sloppy and muddled thinking habits - about CCFs? The answer is that after an intense session on the CCF firing range, you relax and your relaxation is probably proportional to the intensity of the effort. Mary's blog is the equivalent of letting your hair down. I agree with Sarah about the blog contribution but have several of Mary Beard's impressive books on my shelves. The tightness of the arguments and the depth of the scholarsip are exemplary. Excellence and originality are rare and she has both. That is why she is a professor of classics and - si on me permet - head and shoulders above many of her colleagues.

[Oliver Gompertz]

Jane, I'm afraid I have to wholly disagree with you. Unlike the Labour Ministers mentioned I am a current member of a CCF contingent, not only that it is also one of the few operating within a state school. Your point about encouraging gun crime sounds fair but I believe it to be far too simplistic and ultimatly untrue. Five years ago when I was thirteen, I completely of my own choice without any truly attractive opportunities (despite a wide array of sports on offer) joined the school cadet force. The first thing that happened was that I spent six months being taught about how to handle a rifle safely while constantly being reminded how lethal they are. When I finally got the chance to use it on a live firing range under the strictist of safety regulations the glamour and curiousity I had intailly held for the rifle was completely lost. It was no longer what might be described as cool.

My point is this. Far from encouraging gun-crime, the CCF does the complete opposite. It teaches you that a gun is a lethal weapon, that they often dont work and are ultimately not that much fun.

[anthony alcock]

Dear Oliver, I agree. As you say, Porphyry merely records that Plotinus joined the expedition to learn more about his Persian and Indian colleagues. In any case, since the whole thing ended in disaster, I wonder if much fighting was actually done. Andrew Lang compares the post-debâcle flight of Plotinus to that of Stendhal escaping from Moscow.

[Tony Francis]

Jane: I have read Hobbes, and I don't disagree with a lot of what he says. What struck me most about Hobbes, Locke and the rest was the corrupted (cynical?) view of human nature and natural moral law. Of course these writers were in the backwash of the "absolute monarchy" of James, and those who followed. There is a distinct dichotomy (compared with the theology of, say Aquinas) which develops in Hobbes, and those who followed him: that human nature is, by definition, evil and self serving, self preserving, even at the expense of others. It is in need of redemption- in other words, a Protestant viewpoint. I also thought it to be quite congruent with medieval nominalism. In fact Hobbes, Locke et al seemed to be the next logical extension of medieval nominalism, and its rejection of scholastic realism. Of course, this philosophy imbued the founding fathers of the US. An excellent book tracing this is "Common Law and Liberal Theory" by James Stoner.
http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/stocom.html
He has written another book in 2003:
http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/stoco2.html
I wasn't interested in everything he had written about, just parts of it. It is an even handed treatment. What bothers me about modern atheism is that it tries to be Christianity without being a religion. In other words, it wants to bring about the general social aims of Christianity, but by using secular means. That is problematic on several fronts.

[Tony Francis]

I fear the people in Europe will have a religion, although it won't be Christianity. The demographics indicate it to be so. It won't happen right away- but in three or four generations. England, too. Don't worry. It will rid itself of all pesky non-conformists. And all because the people of Europe had simply evolved into superior, peace loving beings beyond having anything worth living for, fighting for, or dying for. Submit or die. Ironic, isn't it? As I have written earlier: the vision of a peaceful Europe goes against 5000 years of history.

[RDH]

Mary, I think we may have grown up together, you see, like you I also inhabit the planet Zog where militaries are not required and constructive activities are frowned upon and poo-pooed.

Occasionally however I visit the Planet Earth where I am sometimes shocked at how ridiculous my condescending, trendy, lefty opinions are, when confronted by the reality of modern youth. I often get a kick out of asking children loaded badly thought-out questions: it makes me feel so clever, the silly little darlings never give me the intellectual dressing down I deserve. Finally, I also poke fun at people trying to teach youths practical skills and values like discipline, leadership and responsible handling of firearms, I prefer antiquated studies of little practical intellectual value... like classics. Greetings from another Zogite, scoffing at life from the sidelines.It is good to know that we did not all die out when our sixties educational theories were discredited as damaging nonsense.

[Andrew Wells]

My old school (Loughborough Grammar) had a far more sensible alternative to the CCF - Latin GCSE.

On Wednesday afternoons, I can remember watching my peers on parade outside in the rain, quite confident that I had chosen the "soft" option.

That said, I was sometimes rather envious of free parachuting, glider-flying, sailing and, by the 6th form, the "responsibility" of being allowed to punish irritating juniors arbitrarily.

And yet, somehow, delinquents and layabouts were turned into responsible adults with the acquisition of this responsibility.

To my mind, the perceived "glamour" of the CCF's military aspect is, as long as properly appreciated, no more than a bait to cajole children into joining the best value youth club in the country. At least, until army recruiting officers get involved...

[SW Foska]

This is a fruitful discussion, and better than anything written by Michael Burleigh or other allegedly 'distinguished' commentators on religion.
Jane, I empathise (or claim to do so) with your viewpoint, of viewing religion as a 'smokescreen'. But that means that some people own all the ritual apparatus to trick all the other people into doing what they want, without themselves being at all bewitched. And that all the other people always lose at this game, never getting what they want, always dying wastefully and meaninglessly. As if the President had a 'religion' button on his control panel which he pressed every now and again, and a few more people, against their broader interest, commit unspeakable evil to entertain the others.
Question is: do you think there should be some disabled-access doors erected between war and peace, or between the sacred and the profane? Which way would they open? Would Mary complain about them?
(I'll respond to 'Wikipedia in Latin' when I have time).

[Jane]

Tony
Thanks for your explanation. I've realised that I and my pessimistic friends are merely neo-Hobbesians.
(We think that nasty brutish impulses are superficially covered over by civilised values).
I actually think religion is just a smokescreen for basic urges to exercise power and control over others, brutally or otherwise.
But of course, unlike you, I have never served with any army.
My views are theoretical.
A thought occurred to me on Friday, after the High Court's decision that serving soldiers are covered by the Human Rights Act. The logical conclusion of this is that soldiers should not be allowed to fight in war zones, as being killed is an infringement of their human rights.
Michael Bulley: Cogito Ergo Doleo sometimes posts on A Don's Life. Recently she revealed herself as a published poet, who has dedicated one of her works to Tony, and is his long-lost banter partner. She quoted what I take to be the lines of a popular love-song, ("You are unforgettable etc) and he replied with panache. It was like a novel being written online. I loved it.

[Oliver Nicholson]

Dear Anthony Alcock,
I hesitate to suggest this to an Egypt expert, but it does seem to me unlikely that Plotinus of Lycopolis accompanied Gordian's III, expedition against the Persians in a truly military capacity - he would surely have been in his late thirties by this time. How one wishes we knew how the great man came to the calmness reflected in the Enneads. For instance, why did he know so much about Gnostics (Enn. II,9).
Yours, OPN
(only one year of CCf, but years of square bashing before breakfast between ages 7 and 13 - nothing like as vile as the compulsory boxing).

[Robert Boyd]

'And you consider yourself a writer and an intellectual?Think again sister.

[Richard]

No wonder the children looked blank when you assked them about dropping bombs on Iraqi civilians; it is an extremely loaded question, typical of an anti-military pacifist. British armed forces are required to obey the laws of armed conflict which prohibit the deliberate targetting of civilians. Perhaps you should have asked them instead what they thought of enemy combatants who sited their positions within civilian areas of population in order to shield themselves from attack, in direct contravention of those laws.

[Tony Francis]

Dear Jane: My comment about religion and war was, unfortunately, an inchoate idea poorly expressed. It is written that one of the children at Fatima asked the Blessed Virgin why there were wars. She replied, "There are wars because there is sin." No matter what you may think of Fatima, the idea that wars are caused by sin is difficult to refute. I was thinking of the many religious leaders who had a military outlook: St. Francis of the Franciscans and St. Ignatius of Loyola and the Jesuits. Himmler wanted the SS to be the "Jesuits of the Third Reich". I think the military and religion provide a format of discipline. In this, they are similar. Otherwise, they are not. I had a brush with the US Army in 1972, when I was 18. I got a draft notice. Unfortunately, they couldn't draft me, since I was a senior in college, but they didn't seem to understand this concept. While I was there, it seemed the US Army was on the verge of destruction. I was sent home, and told to wait for my formal instructions, which my federal government would mail to me. That was 1972, and I am still waiting to hear from them, all these years later. In Desert Storm, they were looking for civilian trauma surgeons. It sounded cool, and it was. I got to see a Special Forces Headquarters, then ended up with Big Red One and First Armored Division. We had some old retired master sergeants who were working at the hospital. They would look down their nose at me and say: "You know, in the brown shoe army, it was different. Do you think we would have done this in Vietnam?" To which I would reply: "Listen up Pops, that was then, this is now." The US Army of Desert Storm was very different from the one I recalled in 1972. It was full of people, who for the most part wanted to be there. Contrary to popular belief, the military doesn't want a draft. They can all the people they need with volunteers. Endless wars done for liberal causes generally will lead to failure.

We had a CCF at my independent school. Wednesday afternoons were free for societies, though you could just go home if you wished, and cadets was another society.

The campaign for nuclear disarmament was at its height when I was at school, and every boy was exposed to the "nuclear debate". Cadets were on the side of the deterrers, and they were proven right. The economic burden of matching America's arsenal caused the enemy to collapse.

Military life isn't perfect, of course, but then neither is accountancy, or academia. Without the army we wouldn't have colleges at Cambridge open to talent. Places would be reserved for the children of senior party members, the chapels would be converted to centres for political education, and dons would be assessed on adherence to Marxist doctrine.

[anthony alcock]

I agree about the "intellectual soldiers" (wouldn't Socrates and Plotinus have qualified for this description ?). There was a bloke at my college who used to go on jaunts with Blashford-Snell. He told me about one occasion when their party, including non-military intellectuals, came under fire somewhere on the Blue Nile from people standing on much higher ground. All the non-militaries began yelling about radioing for help from aircraft that could bomb the merrymakers (which is how my friend described them) up top.

[Anon1]

I joined the Army Cadets at school to try and understand what went on there, and whether it was a good or bad thing. (I'm a pacifist with curiosity...)

On the whole, the previously awful young lads (yes, it was almost all boys) thrived in the atmosphere of responsibility, mutual respect, and activity. I'm not sure, though, what value the guns had. I've seen the same transformation on serious outwardbound courses and the like...minus the weapons. Seems the better option to me, by far: get rid of the guns but keep the ethos.

[Michael Bulley]

Reference by Jane (April 11) to Cogito: is that the no longer existent philosophy journal or something else?

[Jane]

Tony
I agree that military enthusiasm is a basic part of human nature.
Some of us baby-boomers (brought up in long period of post-war peace) now pessimistically think that we were just born at a lucky time and that war is, in fact, the default state, and peace a blip, rather than the other way round.
The relation between religion and the military: sorry, you've lost me there. Do you mean discipline causes wars, or religion causes discipline, or something else entirely?
btw, your long-lost lovesong to Cogito was your best post ever. Short, sweet and lyrical. Epoch-making in fact.
Jane

[Hrothgar]

On the contrary, the single most common complaint of the disaffected male youth is that there is "nothing for us to do", which is often quite true - and granny-visiting doesn't cut it, sorry. The NUT's nutty view is the result of a typical lefty extrapolation: the present war is Bad - therefore all possible wars are Bad - therefore no children under our control must be exposed even to the possibility of a military career. That a classicist should breezily dismiss the real contribution a strong military makes to the defence of a free people is more than a little disappointing. The unruly state of many of our city centres at night reveals a potential abundance of military enthusiasm - why shouldn't we channel some of it into more disciplined and productive outlets?

[Xjy]

Trouble with all this cadet malarky is that it's squarely aimed at well-scrubbed (inside and out), well-funded kids from homes with a military ethos already. Hardly likely to frag their officers, if by some fluke they fail to become officers themselves.

An inspiring use of esprit de corps, flag-waving, etc, is given in Makarenko's Road to Life, squarely aimed at feral street kids in the post-revolutionary Russia of the mid-20s.

Read him and weep, all you fans of brutal, dehumanizing, imperialist spit-and-polish. Put Makarenko and Baden-Powell in a Rio favela and see which solution works (maybe, who even makes it out alive...).

[J,fernandez]

God. Mary, grow up and take a look at the real world.

You teach people about things they respect it....
ignorance breeds crime...

If a school kid has a brief stint in the CCF they will learn discipline, how to adhere to rules and most importantly the realms of REASONABLE behaviour.

Rifle range shooting in the CCF is not a glamourisation of guns, it is portrayed as a serious exercise of ones skill...things are not as frivolous as your life as a Don my dear!

Cadets learn respect, in many aspects, self control, self confidence...something that is much lacking in Britain's youth of today. Im only 19 years old and I can see this so god knows why you are a Don and fail to/choose to ignore the realities!

GROW UP, PLEASE!

Tony

What an enormous wealth of experience and learning comes through here and elsewhere. Everyone is richer and thanks. Polymathy is not dead.

I would like, however, to suggest a simpler explanation of the behaviour of the American troops, which is that quite a lot of them are drug-crazed, whatever else they have not quite left behind. I would cite the example of the seaborne bombing of Somalia under Clinton, after which the troops came ashore thinking they would be welcomed. There are gentle but effectively useful drugs around at very low cost (in dollars), but the casualties were rather high. Enough for now.

Paulo

[Tony Francis]

When I was a civilian employee of the US Army in Desert Storm, I was amazed by the enthusiam of the soldiers. Despite what the leftist press may indicate, if they have a war, lots of guys (and now girls, too) want to be in it. There is a military culture which is deep in the collective conscience. You can't extinguish it any more than you can extinguish religious belief, or spiritual needs, or interest in the opposite sex. It is in us, (some more than others). It appeared that but for Ohio and North Carolina, there would be no US Army. Many kids came from very bad backgrounds. Being in the Army was the first time they had succeeded at anything, and it showed. Many went on to college, leaving drugs and gangs behind. Then there is the military culture, which has its own ethos. Pacifists can't understand it. The bigger problem is liberals who want to use the military to do things it can't: welfare programs and nation building. There is a relation between religion and the military. It isn't that religions cause all wars (as is frequently and incorrectly opined on blogs), but the discipine. An interesting article on the subject from a major at Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas:
http://www.army.mil/prof_writing/volumes/volume1/December_2003/12_03_2.html
Speakiing of religion and war, I have been in another bloody battle with know-it-all Wiki editors over my two articles on Aquinas. I finally told them: "Posting these two article has been like a bad marriage; it seemed like a good idea at the time, but has been nothing but trouble since. Just delete them and put me out of my misery." Here is a tip: If you write on Wiki, write about something like Quia Emptores, which no one cares about. Your life will be simpler. One thing about Ox-Bridge degrees: I was informed that a PhD in Philosophy from Cambridge trumps an LLD (a PhD in the law) from an American University. So there you have it! I shan't bore you with the nasty, blow-by-blow details.

[Mary]

Dear Anon...It was true, I promise. Because indeed it brought out the Middle-Class-Mum in me, in objecting.
Maybe the granny option got continuity (come to think of it, it would have been a bit rum if not).
I suspect that the son might have been put off the granny option by my mum, who had ...err...strong views of granny visiting.

[Simon]

The cadet forces are about instilling a military ethos, not selling the armed forces.

Honour, duty, responsibility, respect for others, self-respect, self-confidence, leadership, teamwork. That is essentially what the cadet forces are about. The uniforms and guns are there primarily to entice kids in and to distract them from the lessons and life-skills that they are learning.

Go to a cadet event and watch kids (who would not dream of wearing leather shoes to school, let alone polished ones) carefully explaining to younger kids how to bull their boots to a mirror shine and taking real pride in both their own appearance and that of the rest of their squad.

Watch a shy kid take a parade and swell with pride when 25 pairs of heels slam together with precision.

Watch the eyes of a trouble-maker with zero attention span open as he is put in charge of a group of his peers and learns about the impact that a lack of respect has.

Do that, and then tell me that the idea is bonkers.

[Sarah]

Honestly I don't understand why we can't have organisations to teach children the positive things they supposedly get from military training - self-discipline, physical exercise, ironing trousers correctly(!), and some fun activities like the parachuting - but without the weapons and violence?

Surely it shouldn't be the case that some young people can only get a decent start in life at the price of having to learn to kill, or at the risk of being killed themselves.

[D J Mason]

How did Mary Beard get to be a classics don at Cambridge with such sloppy and muddled thinking habits? Firstly CCF training does not teach its members to drop bombs on Iraqui civilians. Modern pilots try not to bomb civilians. Whether or not they should be in Iraq anyway is moot, but that is where our government sent them. CCF membership instills discipline, self-discipline, and self-respect. It does not encourage our appalling street gun culture; rather is teaches young people to respect the deadly nature of weapons. Finally (I could go on) we need armed forces to protect our independence and freedom, and always will, as events from the Roman invasion through the Spanish Armada and the Second World War to the Cold War have repeatedly shown.

[Anon]

What you have written here is wrong! My son was in the same year as yours at the same school. He did the community service option as he is a pacifist. He did not rotate activities every term nor was he ever asked to. He visited and helped the same elderly couple for the entire 3 years, building up a good relationship with them - they are still in contact.

[Jackie]

I have to declare an interest in this subject. My youngest son spent 8 years as a member of the Royal Corps of Signals. He went in a child, and came out an adult with a sense of responsibility I, and the education system, had been unable to instil in him. When he first joined he was at a considerable disadvantage because, not having been a Cadet at school, he was learning the necessary disciplines from scratch. For the first fortnight I got nightly phonecalls telling me they were trying to kill him (with exercise!) and could he come home. I had been warned and hardened my heart. Now he has a responsible job doing something he loves, having been trained by the Army. Oh - and for mothers out there, there are advantages. The first time he came home on leave he flatly refused to let me do any of his ironing! 'You don't put the creases in the right places Mum!' Result!
My point is, the Cadet Force instils discipline and a sense of responsibility that is no longer, it seems, a requisite of the education system. Why should this only be benefitting pupils at private schools, or those that eventually go on to join the armed forces?

XJY. What an orchestra. You join it and then learn how to play an instrument. You seem to be really fond of England.

[Daniel Bregman]

I have to respectfully disagree with your comments about the CCF. I'm a member of my school's, and I must admit that I have been known to dress up in camouflage clothing and smudge up my face. However, linking what pupils do as part of the CCF to what soldiers do as a job is missing the point (as I see it) of the institution. Yes, it is a recruiting tool, but it is also a place where young people learn skills (and I don't mean how to dissasemble a rifle) that are invaluble in the rest of their lives (at least, I hope so). The association of the CCF with the armed forces lends valuble money, staff and pride to the organisation, but doesn't make them one and the same.

You mention that we are trying to counter gun culture. I'd argue that instilling respect for authority and the ability to work together with people effectively will go far further towards countering gun culture than having a go with a rifle on a range after numerous safety lessons will take one towards it.

I have no intention of joining the armed forces, but I'm happy to be using their money to do fun things and I don't feel that in doing so I am giving my support to any of their actions. I think that to assume state school kids would be instantly indoctrinated into unswerving jingoism simply by putting on a shirt with a union flag is patronising and entirely misses the point.

[ARMY]

The good news is that all those officers who are now coming back from service, with war injuries, and are being criticised for not quitting the army are being paid for and supported by those losers who hurl missiles at them, for taking shit and doing their job.

[anon]

Not if the initial act is protective, they're not. Over and out.

[Xjy]

I dunno. When I was at school in New Zealand (grade 7, age 13) the boys had cadet training once a week. Heavy rifles and parade ground drill. Platoons, companies, the lot. I soon got out of it by joining the school orchestra and taking up the violin. Too bad we had to move back to damp, raw, dingy, crowded, smelly, bullying, inhospitable and gender segregated England after just one term.

However, now I'm all in favour of compulsory military training for all, boys and girls alike. I mean, how will you be able to turn your gun on your officers if you can't use one in the first place? If the rich and greedy and callous use weapons and military skills to oppress us, the least we can do is prepare to give them a taste of their own medicine.

(And no, I was not considered suitable material for either Sandhurst or the Diplomatic Service ;-) )

Pacifists are really just oppressors with a guilty conscience :D