I mentioned in another post that the scholarly and one-time mentor of mine Col E.D. Doyle used to say that there is always an army in a country – and if it’s not the army of the country – it’s an occupying army.

This is allied to the disturbing fact that if a country is small and/or defenceless, it runs the risk of being bullied by a greater power if it gets in the greater power’s way.  (In Ireland we had direct experience of this over some centuries). So we maintain a standing army to defend ourselves – and, obviously, as I said in the previous post, we will be proud of those who defend us, and hold them in high esteem.

This is probably why we revere the military, (indeed our national anthem is entitled Amhrán na bhFiann – The Soldier’s Song) [1] even though the very existence of the military is manifestation of how the norm for humans, over thousands of years of evolution, has been to resolve conflict using violence – that which we profess to abhor!

I believe that having an army is qualitatively different to having a house alarm to protect us against the random miscreant who is robbing houses to feed his drug addiction.

Indeed, I am sure that, throughout history, organised military forces were developed to conquer, not to defend.  Or if they were organised to defend, it was almost certainly to defend against people who were angry because their lands had been taken forcibly, (like the iconic US Cavalry in the Wild West defending settler outposts), or they rose up because they had been disadvantaged in some way or another, e.g. sold into slavery,

But the overwhelming evidence (certainly in written history) would point to military forces being organised to conquer for economic gain – mostly involving exploitation and plunder. In this, ordinary people are manipulated by the powerful, fear dominates trust, the prevailing opinion in problem-solving leans towards violence, and people become desensitised to the real purposes of exploitation and subsequent war.

And entire populations are willing to live in fear [2] rather than give up the privileges that colonial adventure brings.

Ireland is, generally, not a war-mongering country – and our soldiers are highly regarded and respected in international peacekeeping missions because of that – but if we are honest we need to admit that we derive considerable economic benefit from the actions of countries of the Western World that have been, and some might argue, still are.

I think that those of us who want our children and grandchildren to be safe need to acknowledge that there is little or no evidence to show that prominent world leaders mean it when they say that they want peace.

The reason that I say this is that their actions do not match their words!

There are loads of examples not only from history, but also from today, of major (and some minor) political leaders deliberately stirring things up, fomenting trouble and goading each other – all to protect their interests. At best, they are blind to the consequences of their decision, and appear to be under the control of more sinister forces!

In many cases it is hard to argue with conspiracy theorists who maintain that low-level, proxy wars are test grounds for advanced weapon systems making a fortune for big corporations in developed countries and the best possible scenario is to keep the pot bubbling but not allow it to boil over – an expression I remember someone using at some stage.

And if men, women and children in far off lands (and some soldiers from belligerent countries) have to be sacrificed in this venture so what?  Their lives are always well down the order of importance in the greater scheme of things.


[1]. The final two lines of which are Le gunnai scréach, faoi lamhach na bpiléar, seo libh canaigh Amhrán na bhFiann which translated is mid cannon’s roar and rifles peal, we’ll chant a soldier’s song.

[2]. I deliberately use the present tense here because colonial adventure is still going on throughout the world.

View all Questions »
Newsletter

Would you like to keep up to date and get in touch?