Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
Why I became a "Trained Killer"
Why I became a “Trained Killer”
by John Pratt
Yesterday I was asked by F Kendall for the reasons I joined the armed forces.
I had an uncle who was a Royal Welch Fusilier. He was killed, aged 16, in Mesopotamia (now
So you could say I came from a military background. In 1951, when I was four years old, my parents immigrated to
She had four children including me; she struggled to support us on a pension.
When I failed 4th year high school, I thought the best thing I could do to help my mother was to leave school and find work. At the time I was living in Castlemaine in
I went to sea on HMAS Gascoyne aged 16; training as a radio operator and an Indonesian linguist. I served in Borneo and
I met my wife and had two children before I was 21. I was involved with military intelligence and as a result of my work I was able to prevent some atrocities in
After my twelve years was finished I left the navy to be closer to my family and help my wife raise our two sons. There was little demand for radio operators or Indonesian linguists in the work force. I went back to high school as a mature aged student in an effort to complete my matriculation so that I could go to university. I struggled to support my family as a student. I knew that if I completed another nine years I would get a pension for the rest of my life. So after a period as a student, and work in a factory and an abattoir, I joined the RAAF where I could use the skills learnt in the Navy. I completed 21 years service all up as a full time member of the armed forces. When I retired I was asked to join the Army Reserve so I could continue my intelligence work. I served a further three years with the 7th intelligence company in
I hope this answers the question why I became a “trained killer?”
I was a country boy with few options. I met hundreds of others, who for them, the military was the best option to achieve their goals. Very few killed anyone, and most were there to protect their country from people who may want to kill them or their families. I guess that is why boys become soldiers all over the world.
We do not live in a perfect world, if someone breaks into our house to attack our family we expect the police force to protect us. If a county attacks us we need a defence force to protect us. I do not agree that we should invade other countries especially countries that have not attacked us. I prefer the use of diplomacy and international legal systems to bring international criminals to justice.
I find the members of our population who think all soldiers are “Trained Killers” to be offensive and I feel they would be the first to send white feathers to the young men who did not want to fight if our country was ever under a real threat.
I come from a family of warriors and it is only in times of peace that some think we can live without a warrior class.
I now spend my time looking after returned soldiers who have fought for their country and have often paid a big price to defend our democracy. If you enjoy your freedom spend a thought for the soldiers who have been killed or maimed to make it possible.
 |
 |
 |
| © 2006, Webdiary Pty Ltd |
| Disclaimer: | This site is home to many debates, and the views expressed on this site are not necessarily those of the site editors. Contributors submit comments on their own responsibility: if you believe that a comment is incorrect or offensive in any way, please submit a comment to that effect and we will make corrections or deletions as necessary. |
I seem to have killed this thread
and, not for the first time.
But, I would quote to you, John Pratt, from Gerard Manley Hopkins' The Soldier:
As, I think, many of us do.
Gender identity
is perhaps more important than sex - after all, eunuchs weren't chosen to guard the harem because they were girly - and it is this aspect that I suspect is open to social conditioning.
Evidently in Victorian times, boys were taught that a man was strong, and this strength was in his ability to control himself, his instincts and impulses, and his behaviour.
Sometime since WW2, society – ok, maybe the media, particularly film – seems to have come up with the image that masculinity involves indulging instincts and impulses, and a concept of "toughness" has replaced that of "strength". At the same time, the male is also portrayed as a buffoon, such as Homer Simpson....Hugh Grant has replaced David Niven.
Stop me if you've heard it
The Financial Review last week posted this joke, originally made by the first emperor Augustus, and later recounted by Freud.
"A royal personage was making a tour through his provinces, and noticed a man in the crowd who bore a striking resemblance to his own exalted person. He beckoned to him and asked: "Was your mother at one time in service in the Palace?" "No, your Highness," was the reply, "but my father was."
Now, I think that that is funny....but why?
Testosterone and social behavior
Testosterone seems to play a role in violence – bar room brawls tend to be a male thing. Domestic violence usually has a female victim. Blood sports are dominated by men. More males are interested in guns and war than females.
Not sure why girls prefer dolls and boys prefer guns.
Why do males have thicker skulls than women? Could it be that males are the sex that was built stronger to fight for mates and territory?
I still maintain that it is in the genes. Some women may also have high levels of testosterone, which would explain female warriors.
Look where we came from
John, does the violent nature of men make us better killers?
How does one call a truce in this battle?
Should men start to campaign at the way they are painted as nasty villains in popular films?
I suspect that campaigning to change the image of men wouldn’t wash.
With a few notable exceptions that come to mind, and that mainly comprising of birds and a few insects, it is the biggest, most garish, ugliest, noisiest and most aggressive males that get girls.
The young women screaming at weirdly dressed, noisy creature gyrating on the stage are responding at a level that has nothing to do commonsense, brains, or rationality. Likewise the young women who hang around with the loud mouthed, aggressive ne’er-do-well, ignoring the quiet young fellow, well on his way through an apprenticeship who is already buying his own block of land.
Go back to the times of the hunter-gathers. The males who could defend their women from marauding males and wild animals provided the most reliable food supplies, and offered the greatest chance of survival for the group and the individual woman.
However, if the males were killed or driven off by the marauders, the women’s best chance of survival for both them and their offspring was to accept, or “be nice”, to triumphant males.
Nature focuses upon the survival of the young and the breeding females. Males in the broad scheme of things are of little consequence and very dispensable.
Cats from the common tom upward will eat the kittens/cubs with the notable exception of lions where the alpha males (sic) will protect the pride's cubs. In a takeover the incoming males will kill not only the suckling cubs, but also any young male that hasn’t yet reached the age when he would normally be driven from the pride, that doesn’t manage to escape.
I don’t know what the situation is with the various wild dogs, but I know from personal observation that a dog will kill young pups, though this example could well be an anomaly.
Male black bears, given the opportunity, will kill and eat cubs, but that appears to be a case of them being unable to resist a tasty snack as opposed to having any particular animosity or any dark and nefarious scheme involved.
The silverback gorilla thumps his chest and shakes trees to see off any other gorilla presumptuous enough to fancy his chances with his females, and the chimpanzees leap about, scream, shake branches and jump up and down, when protecting their females and/or territory — pretty much a mirror image of creature gyrating on the stage really.
One of the smaller monkeys inserts a wax-like plug in the female's vagina after copulation — don’t ask me! — the intention being to prevent competing sperm from getting a chance. Males scream and batter the ovulating female until in the grip of terror she expels the plug. Must be fun being female in this outfit!
There is an interesting series presented by a young woman biologist with a quirky sense of humour. As she puts it, it is in the male's interest to keep his females locked up at home, while the female always wants to put it about.
The male has the greatest chance of his genes being passed on by restricting other males' access to his females. The female maximises her chance of successfully passing on her genes by having her offspring fathered by the widest range of males possible.
Research has established that, while a variety of birds pair up for life, they cheat.
Perhaps more than 30 years ago I first read of a study in Britain that established that approximately 30 percent of children were not fathered by the husband. Quite recently there was a similar study conducted in both Britain and the US. The result: approximately 30 percent of children were not fathered by the husband.
Obviously there is something going on here that I suspect most of us would rather not think about.
Most, I imagine, will have noticed the that if an exotic female comes to town the males perk up, while the females give dirty looks and say mean and nasty things. If an exotic male or two comes to town the women perk up and the males get sullen and nasty, and often, too often resort to violence.
Those who would challenge this, I suggest you substitute “other religion” in place of “exotic”.
It is the young women who will embrace the “exotic” males. What the older imagine, see and fear will, to the young, be invisible.
Imagine if you will, Geoff’s granddaughter turning up with a Palestinian lad!
Bill Avent: "And in more recent times, not too many of the world's woman prime ministers have shrunk from sending their troops to war." Golda Meir, Maggie Thatcher, Indira Ghandi…
Women in positions of power haven’t much of a record for compassion and reason. Madeleine Albright, confronted with the claim that “sanctions were responsible for the deaths of 567,000 Iraqi children”, replied that: "The price is worth it." *
Condoleezza Rice witnessed “water boarding” and was among the Bush officials who declared torture was acceptable.
There are many references to women who have built empires by exploiting women by providing sexual services.
(Okay; there are some women who have, without coercion, threats or being in a position where the choice was prostitution or starve, chosen to provide sexual services for cash, and some have done very well out of it. In fact, I have two friends in that category.
I am letting my prejudices show!)
My guess is that we are not likely to resolve the differences soon!
* http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/sanclook.htm
References?
Until I was almost twenty my life was around animals. Assisting lambing ewes, helping — unwillingly — with caesarians when a lamb couldn’t be born, occasionally with cattle and horses.
My first substantial books on wildlife were Bees, Wasps & Ants and Spiders and Scorpions. I do not remember the title of my first book on birds, but I was six or seven, and the aunt who sent them also sent me various specimens. My library in this area ranges from wildlife to anthropology, to studies of human types, to animal studies, to breeding, collected over a lifetime.
Include hundreds of hours watching wildlife documentaries — the main reason that I have a TV.
When I was twelve or thirteen an entomologist turned up at the farm in the mail car and asked if he could collect Preitatoides.
The “bugman” asked if he could sleep in the woolshed. By the time evening came and father had thawed, he was invited into the house, as was normal in those days, and I had the breathless excitement of being excused almost all normal chores and being permitted to accompany him for the three days he was there.
He left me with an address and the instruction that if I decided I wanted to go on to university, to contact him.
Preitatoides. Novaezelandi — a variety of velvet worm.
For ten years on the farm out of Bellingen I shared the house with a species of mini bats. Observing and recording.
Note that “I shared” is an accurate description. One in particular became quite agitated when I didn’t conform to the normal routine, and could become quite vocal — while I couldn’t actually hear it, I could see that it was shouting at me and if I ignored it, when it gave up it had all the attitude of a furious wife! Almost ten grams of utter fury!
The caveman mentality
Peter Hindrup, in the animal world the alpha male — I have no idea what your (sic) is in aid of — applies generally to canines rather than to felines. Wolf packs are ruled by both an alpha male and an alpha female. The packs' alpha female lords it over the non-alpha males and females alike. Testosterone seems to have nothing to do with it.
Predatory animals are not the only ones capable of aggression. And it is the cows, not the bulls or steers, who organise crèches on clear ground to protect the herd's young calves from attacks by dingoes, while their mothers are away foraging in the scrub. Testosterone seems to have nothing to do with it.
When it comes to social cats like lions, the lioness is just as effective in protecting the pride's cubs from attacking animals (notably buffalo) as is the male lion. Both are equally aggressive in their defence of their young. Testosterone seems to have nothing to do with it.
While a male domestic dog may sometimes kill pups, it should be remembered that a bitch will do the same. If she has insufficient resources to sustain her full litter, she will, pragmatically and without apparent compunction, smother some of them in order to enhance the welfare of those remaining. Left to her own devices, she will bury the pups she has sacrificed. I think the same applies to domestic cats. And there is evidence aplenty, if you care to look for it, that humans will behave in exactly the same way in times of scarce resources. Many mothers have been suspected of smothering or otherwise disposing of babies they were unable to provide for, as close to home as here, and as recently as during the great depression.
While I write, news comes to me on radio about the intelligence of magpies. Very bright, they are, according to some recent study or other. In fact it is not news at all; plenty of other studies have led the same conclusion. I must admit that testosterone does seem to have something to do with their behaviour, though. As we know, during their breeding season the male gets very aggressive. I am told that it coincides with a swelling of his testes to several times their normal size. From personal observation, I can say that his protective instincts seem to have little to do with Darwinian promotion of his own personal genes. One whom I knew well came to grief, electrocuted I think, while his mate was sitting on her eggs. I was helping them out with a bit of something to eat at the time. When that male died, another, younger and unattached male who used to hang around on the periphery, took over his role. He devoted his days to carrying bits of food to the female bird and, when they hatched, to her chicks; and when they fledged he assumed the role of a father, bossing them around the way father magpies do.
As to prehistoric human hunter-gatherers, you seem to me to be subscribing to a cartoon view of how they interacted with each other. Is the image of a club-wielding neolithic dragging by her hair an unconscious female into his cave an accurate one? There is no evidence for it.
We are free to speculate; and there has over time been some interesting speculation. Some have speculated on the existence of matriarchal societies, in which women ruled. According to the speculation of one feminist writer I was required to read, but whose name I have forgotten, women invented community. They lived together with their children, only occasionally having contact with the testosterone-laden men who spent their days running around in the forest fighting each other. When boys reached puberty, they were exiled to go live wild lives with the men.
Personally, I think we need to base our speculation on our prehistoric past on the behaviour of those hunter-gatherer societies which have survived to modern times. All evidence suggests that among them there is much less, probably zero, inequality between the sexes; and less aggression between social groups than prevails in our own so-called more enlightened societies.
Of war and women
Peter Hindrup, women during the two world wars took over many of the jobs normally done by the men, while their men were away fighting. Nowadays more and more women are being trained to do the fighting. They are on submarines, in APCs and out on patrol - pretty much in the line of fire these days. Times have changed.
Women can be just as tough as any man. They can be just as cruel and ruthless too. Look at those women helping running the Nazi extermination camps. I don't think it has much to do with testosterone.
John, I do not agree that your story is bullshit and admire the way you did not respond to that abuse.
Nor would I term those trained to defend this country as trained killers. I find that quite offensive to the men and women who are being trained to put their own lives on the line for this country.
The nature of war has changed. These days the enemy can hide in another country and send out its cadres to kill innocent people all over the world. You have to take the fight to that enemy - hence the war in Afghanistan.
Cats and other things
On the weekend, a young person told me that mental illness is now so widespread that it has become normal. Paradoxically, in this society, it is mentally healthy to have a mental illness.
Richard Tonkin, I don't speak unkindly of cats, although I don't like their attitude to birds.
As for "a piece"...One of my greatest strengths is procrastination.
Ecco homo
Would anyone looking for academic analysis expect it on a site where a cat regularly posts?
Mental health indeed.
Richard: Dunno, F Kendall, I worry about people who don't have a cat around the place. Looking forward to a piece from you sometime soon (?)
Thought provoking
John Pratt, a thread on this could be very interesting.
But why do you assume that men have "violent natures"?
Richard: F Kendall, how about writing us a thread-starter?
Is it natural for men to be more violent than women?
F Kendall, I am not sure all men have violent natures, but testosterone seems to lean one towards violence. More men are found guilty of rape and violent crimes than women. I was upset because men are branded and popular culture seems to make the picture worse. When we see violence on our movie and TV screens all men get tainted. How many female villains do we see in our modern culture?
I am not sure why some men tend to violence, or why some men use their power or money to buy women, especially as sex slaves.
There is even an underlying feeling that some women are attracted to violent men. Have a look at Chopper Read.
I tried to argue that in nature the male will often kill their rivals and often their rival's offspring. We are all part of nature even though most of us have a thin coat of civilization. It is nature that gives the female the honey pot and it is nature that makes men like honey. It seems to me that feminism sometimes attacks men because we are different. We are easy targets. I am not sure what we can do to prove that not all men are the same.
The point I made to my wife was the violence used by the hero to save his daughter was the same violence that could be corrupted.
Alpha crossing gender
John Pratt, is there a real basis for the generally accepted idea that high testosterone levels predispose men to violent behaviour? Some studies suggest that the causal effect works in the opposite direction — violent behaviour leading to a rise in testosterone levels. Others suggest that success in competition, whether the competition is associated with violence or not, does the same. I remember reading somewhere that the winner of a game of chess could be expected to experience a rise in testosterone levels, whereas the loser would suffer a diminished level. I think it applies to both male and female competitors.
I have to take issue with your contention that male animals will "often" kill their rivals and their rivals' offspring. Among the mammals and birds, at least, the first is extremely rare; and the second limited to only a few species of animal. When a male animal fights for the right to mate with a female his objective is not to kill his competitor, but only to drive him away.
When a male animal kills the cubs of the female with whom he wishes to mate, he does so to bring her more quickly into season so as to breed with her himself, and propagate his own genes; or so the Darwinians tell us. In this they seem to me to contradict one of their basic tenets, insofar as a more diverse gene pool must surely best serve the survival of any species.
As to men being inherently more disposed towards violence than women, I suspect this may be more a cultural than a biological phenomenon. Boadicea, in her day, wasn't too averse to a bit of violence. Joan of Arc led an army. And in more recent times, not too many of the world's woman prime ministers have shrunk from sending their troops to war. Golda Meir, Maggie Thatcher, Indira Ghandi…
Alpha et Omega
Ah, another closely reasoned, source-attributed, linked, masterpiece of academic analysis from Bill Avent or is it Savant? Really, it must be the latter because we mere mortals can but wonder at the sheer breadth of knowledge of this fons et origio of all human wisdom (if not infallible wisdom altogether).
Echo homo: a man (if he is, indeed, but mortal) who, without any attempt whatever to back up what lesser beings might have thought controversial, even radical propositions, with the slightest reference other than his extensive, expansive, all-encompassing, memory including, if your humble correspondent understands it correctly, having once read something (whatever it might be and don't you plebs worry about that, you can take it from him) in fields so diverse as anthropology, ethnology, applied chemistry, brain chemistry, the nervous system generally, forensic pathology, endocrinology, zoology, evolution, Darwinism, criminology, cultural studies, biology, Romano-British history, feminist politics and the rise of Women in the political context across the globe (including the former British Empire), 19th and 20th Century British History, India, the Middle East conflict and Judaism. All without a single source or reference, simply flowing from the incredible organ that passes for the Avent brain as expressed through the keyboard.
Breathtaking. To take seriously anything this person says is to venture into my territory. Please wait in the waiting room while I arrange to have you scheduled or otherwise dealt with under the Criminal Procedure (Mental Health) Act.
Hey — you behind the grandstand!
Ah, another closely reasoned, source-attributed, linked, masterpiece of apoplexy from Malcolm B Duncan.
Careful, Malcolm, or that mental health act will catch up with you.
PS
And I forgot one of Bill Avent's more notable qualities. He is also a wit (in the sense that Swift or Pope might have used it).
Claude is a very academic cat, F Kendall, he listens to Runciman (someone who did know what he was talking about re the Crusades). So the answer to your question is a resounding yes.
Richard: Two PS's of equal calibre and similar vein, each unbeknownst to the other. That's why you two clash so much. I'd like to say "great minds think alike"....
P.S.
Loved you in Freezing on the ABC a few nights ago.
Trained killers and the battle of the sexes
Speaking of trained killers, I went to see the movie Taken yesterday with my wife.
After a peaceful morning in the garden and lunch my wife, we went to see the movie. On the way home, after such a pleasant day I was treated to an outburst from my wife yelling "All men are bastards!" All of a sudden I found I was vigorously defending the male side in the battle of the sexes.The hero in the story (a trained killer) had just gone through hell to rescue his daughter and return her safely to her mother. The aggressive part of the male nature that uses violence only to defend and fight for his family was forgotten.
The bad guys were involved in a racket that kidnapped young women for the sex trade. My wife, disgusted by the nature of men who are willing to pay for sex slaves, turned her disgust on to all men - in particular to the one nearest her - me.
I tried to say all men are not involved in the sex trade, all men don't treat women like that, to no avail to her: "all men were bastards!"
I thought about the movie and the effect it had on my wife. Why is it that most villains are men? Surely there must be some bad women too? Was my wife's reaction justified? Was the movie to blame for her reaction? Is this latent hate for men in all women? Obviously I still have a lot to learn in this battle of the sexes.
Does the violent nature of men make us better killers?
How does one call a truce in this battle?
Should men start to campaign at the way they are painted as nasty villains in popular films?
Begone damn Blot
http://www.counterpunch.org/mcgovern08162008.html
I don't quite know where to post this letter from McGovern to Powell - maybe it deserves its own post - what do you think editor?
It is a ripper.
Ian M (Ed): Marilyn, I will publish as is for now and consult the other members of the editorial team.
Public service witout having to sit the very stiff exam
John, a clear and fair description of what the situation was back then, as more than a few of my friends at that time could attest. Certainly most of those I know who signed up never expected to fire a shot in anger — and perhaps more importantly never expected a shot to be fired at them, and most never did — and saw a period in the army as no more than another public service job which they never had the qualifications to join.
You and I are more or less of an age. 1938.
There is another aspect. We were all brought up to believe that the Brits and the Commonwealth was made up of fine upstanding types who only ever did anything for the benefit of others. Reading the crap from this end of life it is obvious that it was just that, but it would have been far more difficult then to unearth a contrary opinion than it is today. That, and the fact that most of us didn’t at that time have the education to prompt us to look, and we were surrounded by those who had survived the war. It would have taken a brave person to stand up during the 50's.
New Zealanders, or at least those who knew their history, already had the kernel of truth that ought to have set them wondering about the motives of the British, and the whiter than white image that they so successfully sold. The Maoris were undefeated and ferociously defended their rights under the Treaty of Waitangi. That the Brits treated the Treaty with contempt, until they were taught better manners, is writ large inNew Zealand
Then too we were assailed with the Reds under the bed nonsense, the terror story of the time, promulgated for the same reason as is the “beware the terrorists” nonsense of today, the fear of the nuclear holocaust, with the Russians always of course cast in the role of the evil mob that wanted nothing so much as to take over the world, and later the “yellow peril”.
Amongst those I know, and knew at the time, none of this was considered as anything more than propaganda, though we never used that term back then. (I learned young that no government was to be trusted.)
Those joining up today are in a very different boat. The evidence that there is, and has been, no government – in modern times, at least – that can be painted as honourable, just or benign is there for all to see.
For those who would challenge this, ponder the fact that no German was charged with bombing, or ordering the bombing, of civilian targets atNuremberg Hiroshima , Nagasaki and Dresden
Looking at theUS
That, I contend, is a very high price to be prepared to pay for an education, or the chance to improve your lot in life. It also says an awful lot about your attitude to life, and toward other people.
The other difficulty I have with the army is the brainwashing that begins on day one. Not only do they work on conjuring up an “enemy” to hate, they actively work to foster real, to bordering upon really hostile competition against other units (or used to).
The work they put into fostering support for the group before all else is intended to suppress any rational consideration of any situation, the rights and wrongs or any moral imperatives.
Interestingly once people get clear of the military, then, too late, reality kicks in for some and they speak out. Examples of this abound in theUS US US
John writes that “Stop Loss” is slavery. Well, it’s conscription by any other name, except that this is selective conscription. Without it theUS US
The concept of the poor doing their dirty work is deeply entrenched in theUS
Another point regarding many of those pressganged into active service is the fact that the National Guard is not dissimilar to the Australian SES — State Emergency Service — and although there has always been a notional military component to it, when the US Feds first decided to call on these units for Iraq they found that many of them had little if any of the equipment required to have trained, even if they had wanted too.
Jenny, there are just wars just as there are unjust wars. And Annabella, "... and only just wars would be fought, goodies vs. baddies, and of course the goodies would win." The only just war, if there is such a thing, is when your country or your people are under direct and imminent threat. Annabella, there are no goodies and baddies in these situations. There is your side, who you hope will win, but that is all.
Jenny, those who think wars should never be fought ought to look at the rape of Nanking and see what conquerors do to those who cannot defend themselves. I find that far uglier.
And Iraq? There is a difference?
John, did you run into Bob Morrison? Mandarin, Bahasa and spent a lot of time in Indonesia. Seems to me that the timing is about right.
Marilyn, a very interesting post.
What defence force though?
To get out of my small home town across the border in SA the girls went to business college or teachers college inAdelaide
Joining the navy to get out of a small country town is an absolute crock now and it was in 1963 so I have to say John Pratt is talking bollocks - how on earth did all those single mothers ever survive through and after two world wars?
I prefer the term trained killer because Australia's only "action" in defence of the country in the last 60 odd years has been to harass and turn away a few hundred poor bloody refugees while tormenting and abusing them as if they were animals and doing the same to a few hundred poor Indonesian fishermen trying to feed their families.
Sorry John, as an old country girl your story might sound like a romantic, Australian version of Jessica Lynch but it is bullshit.
Elegant extracts
Malcolm B Duncan: "I have done an historical search and extracted them from 1917. To hyperlink each entry would not only be tedious beyond belief but cause the justifiable ire of the moderators; so what I have done is paste them into a word document which I shall email separately and which can then be cached and linked to this post."
Now done and available here for anyone interested.
If Hitler rose from the dust...
John, sorry if I wasn’t clear. I didn’t by any means intend for my ‘9 to 5 job’ comment to be taken literally. I meant it as a generic term for all mundane and meaningless jobs that are forgotten about once the ‘office’ is abandoned for the day. I simply maintain that to fight in a war one must, or should, feel at least an element of attachment to the cause for which one is fighting. I disagree that as citizens we must trust in our governments and thus sacrifice our whole selves to their whims. Our governments are not flawless by any means (one only has to look at George W. Bush and Tony Blair to know that) and neither are their decisions (…do I really need to go there?).
Yes, politicians decide the course of the war but they most certainly do not decide its ethics. Ethics are fundamental and unchangeable, not fluctuating according to the whim of any politician, or many. Ethics can be applied to anything, by anybody, and absolutely nobody is denied the right to a moral conscience. Even … dare I say it … soldiers. Of course war is damaging. Hell, it damages me every day and I live a cushy life – none of my loved ones fight in the armed forces nor are they planning to, as far as I know. All I know of war is what I read, and that’s painful enough. But I’d like to think, if World War Two happened again, if Hitler rose from the dust, I would be there fighting (if I thought my skinny arms would be of any use to anyone). Why? Because I would sacrifice everything to have the allies win that war again; and not because of Winston Churchill (although he was a beauty), but because I like to think I know the difference between right and wrong, and what is worthy of my sacrifice and what is not.
I realise there is a fundamental contradiction in what I say. Yes, I believe in the fully trained armed forces and think they are necessary, and yet I think no one should fight for anything they don’t wholeheartedly believe in. I guess in the ideal world that goes on in my imagination, at the opportune moment hundreds of thousands of troops would all flock together (along with me, flailing my skinny arms), and only just wars would be fought, goodies vs. baddies, and of course the goodies would win. But the real world just isn’t like that. We fight unjust wars, and we create turmoil as we try to eradicate it. At the end of the day, our countries still need to be protected. And that’s why, despite my mixed feelings on the matter, I maintain a deep respect for the men who are willing to do that job.
Interpreting posts
Jenny Hume: "40 years on and one must remain silent".
About, for heavens sake, what? That the "Gulf of Tonkin" incident that brought us into the war, was a staged lie by the US? That's well known now.
That young girls such as yourself kept on voting in favor of it? Although their brothers and friends were thereby cashiered to die in an immoral war? Hey, that's well known, too.
That humans who find themselves killing other humans might end up having an issue with that?
Good God, the nonsense keeps coming.
Stand at ease F Kendall
F Kendall, what's biting you tonight?
Remaining silent has never been an attribute I can lay claim to.
I was referring to John's statement that he was bound by the Official Secrets Act, which he thought was probably for around 40 years, and could not therefore reveal certain stuff. If 40 years is the rule, then I think it is quite ridiculous.
You misinterpreted what I wrote.
As you were. Stand at ease.
Freee educashun 4 orl kiddeze pleeeze
When I was 17 I applied for a position in the airforce; they got me to do all the colourful tests, you know pictures and numbers and things. They even checked me out medically and got me to cough; that was when I started to have second thoughts.
Anyway after all the examinations and coughing they concluded I would be bloody useless for the administration position I applied for.
One must consider that at this point in time there was a war raging in South East Asia, and no way was this young albatross going to get involved at the pointy end.
They did however invite me to apply for a position as an air cadet; they said I was a natural and they could teach me to fly.
At that point yours truly lost it and yelled: "I'm a bloody albatross, sheesh".
Anyway I lost interest in the air-force after that for if the silly buggers thought they could teach an albatross to fly then what else are their stupid minds up to.
Wouldn't it be good if we didn't need armies? We would all be safer, right?
Maybe the ordinary people don't really need armies at all; maybe it's just our stupid leaders and their bag men who need them more than we.
O well, such as life; my idea of having a cosy public service position in the military was short lived. Three years later I flew to Africa (as we birds do on a regular basis) and the world became my playground.
Sad that kids have to gamble with their lives just to get an education.
An education is not a product to be sold to our young; it should be our gift, our legacy.
The driving factors behind our exploitation of kids and education is not dissimilar to factors that drive war.
Annabella
Ah, rationality. Thank...(insert whatever or whomever you believe to be appropriate).
To many, being a soldier is just a job
Annabella Marquis, welcome to Webdiary. It certainly was not patriotism that drew me into the navy. It was a chance to leave home, travel, and better myself. Perhaps in some way I was following in my father's and grandfather's footsteps.
I knew nothing about foreign affairs. I don't think I had even heard of the war in Vietnam. I joined because I thought it would be a time of peace and little danger. It was a job, and there were very limited job opportunities in Castlemaine in 1963. No one in my family had more than a year 10 education. I had no male role model, with a sick father and a grandfather who was killed before I was born.
I joined before conscription was introduced, so maybe if I had not volunteered I would have been conscripted like so many of my generation. I don't think my decision to join was at all courageous. When I was in Vietnam I was on a very large and comfortable warship, complete with air-conditioning and plenty of steel armour. Quite a different experience to those unfortunate enough to have been conscripted into the Army, who found themselves digging holes in the middle of the jungle metres from the Viet Cong. No one bothered to ask those conscripted young men, if they thought the war was ethical or not. I suppose those with real courage and ethical objections became conscientious objectors.
If we live in a democracy we have to live with the democratic decisions our governments make. Soldiers, sailors and airmen sign a contract to serve the government and protect the nation. It is certainly not a 9 to 5 job. Often you are asked to work 14 or 15 hour days for weeks on end. Most soldiers do not fight for democracy or any higher cause. They fight because they have to, and because they refuse to let their mates down.
Politicians put soldiers on a battlefield and it is politicians who decide the ethics of the war. Ultimately it is the people of a democracy that make the decisions to kill, we are all responsible; that is why it is so important for all of us to be active in politics.
I think that conscription and the new term stop loss is slavery.
Annabella
Fine post.
What an interesting post, John Pratt
I have listened to WW2 veterans, who have spoken about the unbelievably exciting opportunities that that war offered their young selves. The possibilities of travel, action and adventure, instead of their previous prospects of a life spent hoeing turnips up-country from Tumbarumba. They couldn't enlist fast enough.
The Royal Welch Fusilliers. Siegfried Sassoon was an officer with them, (in France), during WW1. By 1917, he risked court martial and death by publicising his objections to a war that he felt was being prolonged in the interests of the merchant class. Good connections saved him, and he was treated as a "mental case". Private soldiers from impoverished backgrounds, suffering from the then unrecognised condition of "shell shock" were just shot as cowards. His poems reflect his horror and the great pity he felt for "his" men, whom he came to feel were just victims enriching plutocrats. I wonder how your uncle would have felt about him.
When you found yourself to be an anti Vietnam protester, were you allowed to voice those views?
Obviously the term "trained killers" is offensive, and I regret that I mentioned it. I hope that I made it clear that it was at odds with my experience. At the same time, for combat soldiers, well...one would want them to be trained to kill, presumably?
The US is a foreign country. The film Jarhead, about marines in desert storm, shows, according to David Stratton, how "nice young men are turned into monsters." Not necessarily the Australian experience, of course.
People involved in the ground fire of war speak of the incredible adrenalin rush. And this is whether they are reporters such as Kate Adie and Geraldine Brooks, or the contractors in Afghanistan, with such an addiction to this that they can never reintegrate into average life, but have to keep seeking this experience wherever they can find it.
John Pratt, I admire the attitudes you reveal in your posts, and I have pleasure that our society has citizens such as you. I would disagree, though, when you suggest that the young men whom I quoted would be likely to send white feathers to anyone. To my mind they are the army of such as Simon Townsend. They are not cowards: they are very brave. If you were 30 years old, with the opportunities now available to them, I think you would find that you enjoyed their company and that their viewpoints were compatible and discussable with your own.
Trained for what exactly…?
I prefer the term ‘trained defender’ rather than ‘trained killer’, but I suppose they are one in the same. The armed forces are necessary, and ‘trained killing’ is a necessary evil – far better than en-masse untrained and unrestrained killing, which would be the inevitable result of a world without the armed forces.
The one thing I find depressing is that so many people are drawn into the forces for all the wrong reasons. Gone are the days of the Spartan warrior, who liked nothing more than a good fight. Now us youngsters (though not I) are drawn to the armed forces for financial and educational purposes rather than patriotism or devotion to a cause.
The offering of education to the desperate, in return for what amounts to a sacrificial offering of one’s body on the battlefield, seems to me to be bribery at its absolute worst.
John, by courageously putting yourself on the line for what you perceived to be the ultimate benefit of yourself and your family, you were at the same time (in Vietnam) fighting for something that you were ethically opposed to. This would indicate to me that to you, and so many others, serving in the forces is just a job. Just a way to put food on the table..? My point is, killing to ‘defend democracy’ is one thing, killing as a ‘9 to 5’ job is quite another.
If I said any more I would have to shoot you
Malcolm, there were education officers at Junior Recruit Training school, HMAS Cerberus. We taught physics, maths, and English to about Victorian leaving certificate. I also learnt navigation and seamanship. If I had worked a bit harder I could have qualified for officer training. Although, now I look back on my career, I probably had a more interesting time as a radio operator. Some of my colleagues became navy pilots.
Richard, I didn't know your friend Peter Dolan. I can't really say too much about my role in the Timor conflict. I was a radio operator and an Indonesian linguist based in Darwin in 1974 and 1975. I was also a radio operator in the RAAF in 1976 through to 1985. I can't say much more than that as I am still covered by the Official Secrets Act. I can say that, as a result of work I was involved with, diplomatic pressure was applied to stop Australian supplied weapons being used in that conflict. Maybe one day I will write a book. I believe the Official Secrets Act lasts for about 40 years.
Never covered
I am constantly bemused and annoyed when Australians confuse their liberties and their Constitution either with those of the rebellious colonists or the UN Charter but I am equally bemused when people like John Pratt talk about the Official Secrets Act and their obligations under it.
Unless he has had access to confidential British information and signed their Official Secrets Act (which would only be binding in the UK anyway) he is not bound by any Official Secrets Act.
Australia has never had an Official Secrets Act and there is certainly no 40 year rule. There are various sections of various pieces of legislation which purport to restrict the dissemination of material which is defined and is regarded as classified as Defence or Official material and which the Commonwealth has an interest in keeping confidential.
I have done an historical search and extracted them from 1917. To hyperlink each entry would not only be tedious beyond belief but cause the justifiable ire of the moderators; so what I have done is paste them into a word document which I shall email separately and which can then be cached and linked to this post.
If anyone is interested in looking at it, he might wonder, as do I, why we need all this gobbledegook in the first place and why we need three different pieces of legislation that a prosecutor might choose to proceed under when one would suffice.
Jenny Hume, the rule in crime is that, unless the legislative provision (or cognate legislation) contains a specific limitation period within which a prosecution can be commenced, it can be commenced up until the death of the accused. That's why the Jews are still hunting the last of the Nazis (and good on 'em.)
Many stories may never be told.
Malcolm, you're right about the official secrets act. I had a Top Secret security classification and we were under the threat of death if we ever spoke of what we worked on. If ever I get into trouble I might call on your services. The reason I said forty years' limitation was because I was talking to someone in the business recently and they said they believed it to be forty years.
Would the Commonwealth be able to prosecute under the Crimes Act?
Not sure where I stand now. This is from the DSD website.
Never a spy would make
Malcolm B Duncan, I doubt I even read let alone understood what I signed back in the mid sixties in order to get the various security clearances. I do recall though getting into one hell of a lot of trouble one day. Every safe had to be locked with combinations at the end of the day. Before the cleaners came in the security people did a sweep to make sure no documents had been left out. We were in a war after all, and it was the Intelligence Bureau. Not only that, it was not so far down the track from the Petrov affair and it was the height of the cold war. Paranoia reigned supreme.
One was supposed to remember the combinations of about five safes in our particular office and not write them down anywhere. Not only did I write them down, at the end of one day I left the slip of paper I had written them on in full view on top of one of the safes. I was made to change all the combinations as I recall, so I had to start trying to remember a new lot. All a storm in a tea cup but those days even the tea lady might have been a spy I suppose. Who knows?
I don't think I would have made a very good spy or bank robber and I am not much good at keeping secrets at the best of times. But there are some things that even I think are best taken to the grave.
If the police come for me, I will call you.
BTW: I have always had problems over the notion of limitation but it seems to me that even where there is limitation, it can be got around in certain circumstances.
40 years - too long John, too long.
John: 40 years you say. Then I am probably safe - well close enough anyway. 1969 I was working for the old Joint Intelligence Bureau in Canberra and it was during the height of the Vietnam war. I recall having to read the transcripts of interrogations of Vietcong prisoners and I have never forgotten one report which ended with: The prisoner was transported to hospital. That really bothered me.
Then I would go home to Goulburn every weekend where usually we had American servicemen on R and R leave from Vietnam staying with us. They were all so young, polite, religious and just wanted a bit of family life for a week. We tried to give them that.
Some were really disturbed. I recall one Green Beret telling me things about how prisoners were handled, stuff that I would not like to repeat here. He was already a very troubled young man and I was pretty young myself but did my best to let him get it all off his chest. Ten years later he rang me out of the blue from the US. He just wanted to talk, and he kept ringing on and off for another couple of years and was clearly suffering from PTS. Heaven knows now what became of him. I am still in touch with two US Viet vets, and they have never recovered from the experience of Vietnam. One was on Hamburger Hill with the 101st Airborne and it was all but wiped out. He had to identify dozens of his mates. I really feel for those veterans - they went home to no support at all.
Tonight on ABC they covered the story of some vets forming a choir to help each other deal with the memories of war. It made me think of all those young fellows who stayed with us so long ago and I pictured them too as ageing men now, and no doubt suffering in the same way. 40 years - a long time to suffer.
40 years and one must remain silent. Too long, far too long in my opinion.
A coup in Jakarta and French drops atom bombs in the Pacific
Jenny, I was in Canberra for a while in the 60's. I was at HMAS Harman; we were keeping an ear on the French, who were dropping atom bombs in the Pacific and then there was that coup on the 30th of September 1965 that put Suharto in power in Jakarta. Interesting times, I returned to Canberra in 1968 the year I turned 21. My wife and I had a navy married quarter in Belconnen, which was then a navy transmitting station. I did my Bahasa Indonesia training at Harman before being posted to HMAS Coonawarra in Darwin. I was in Darwin in the lead up to the Indonesian invasion of Timor. I returned back to Darwin in 1974 just in time to be blown away by Cyclone Tracy. The cyclone blew away the navy receiving station at Coonawarra at a very critical stage and before the new station at Shoal Bay had been commissioned. We ended up at Shoal Bay using coat hangers for aerials.
Cheers John
Professor Johns perhaps?
John, co-incidence. We were walking similar paths in those far off days. As you took up studying Bahasa I had, in 1968 just graduated in it. I studied under Professor Johns - did you? Another teacher was Pak Achdiat, one of Indonesia's leading and most controversial writers - author of Atheis) and another lecturer who taught me Javanese for two years and whose name now escapes me completely. We also studied a little of Minangkabau. I've lost most of it now as I never used any of it. I guess with a little effort I could recover it.
I did honours in 1968 and my thesis subject was: The Reaction in Indonesian Literature Towards the Sukarno Regime with Particular Reference to the Literary Journal Horison. Many of its writers had been gaoled under Sukarno and saw hope when Suharto came to power. It published, under the direction of Mochtar Lubis who opposed Sukarno bitterly, much of the student protest verse of 1965 - the Angkatan (generation) '66 as they became known as. It was sloganistic as one would expect:
Sound familiar?
What followed for them of course was decades of rule under Suharto. Such was the outcome of their fight for freedom from tyranny.
Point Cook ADF school of languages
Jenny, military language training happened mainly at Point Cook in Melbourne.
My training was as a radio operator; language was a bit of a sideline. We learnt from people who had completed the twelve month course at Point Cook. I was given a three month full time course focusing mainly on military jargon and abbreviations.
It was a long time ago and I have forgotten a lot but I did enjoy learning Bahasa. I have travelled to Indonesia a few times and really enjoyed talking to the locals. On the course I was given the Indonesian name Sudin.
Selamat Malam.
Thank you John
Thank you John. I found this story of your life so interesting, and inspiring. I think Ernest G was an old salt too as I recall. I have great respect for old warriors, and would never describe them as trained killers. How could one when so many of them gave their lives, or suffered life long injuries fighting for our freedom.
Those who think wars should never be fought ought to look at the rape of Nanking and see what conquerors do to those who cannot defend themselves. I find that far more ugly.
There are just wars just as there are unjust wars.
Commonality
I didn't know we had anything in common, John Pratt. I transferred into the Psychology Corps because, having seen the fuckwit officer candidates Sydney University Regiment was training, I wanted to play my part in making sure they never got to be officers with the potential to kill their own troops.
At one stage, Intelligence tried to poach me, but I'm too smart for that.
One thing that does surprise me though, I don't know what it was like in the Navy or the RAAF but the Army had its own Education Corps dedicated to bringing soldiers' educational level up to Intermediate Certificate level. Did a good job too. Likewise the Army Apprentices School which benefitted large numbers of poor but talented people who often went on to become successful tradesmen later on civvie street.
Indeed, the opportunities for educational improvement in the Army were surprisingly liberal. I did Psychology III non-degree while I was in and got quite reasonable study leave to do it. The plan was to do law while I was in but I just got sick of being pushed around by idiots who were manifestly less intelligent than I was. So, here I am. But I'm seriously thinking about going back in - applied for an interesting job last week. There are still a few opportunities open and I wouldn't mind a second gong. I think I only have to do another four years.
Ah, to drive one of her Majesty's desks again.
Intel contacts
John, thanks for this insightful piece. By any chance, in your Intel days, did you ever encounter a bloke named Peter Dolan? A mate of our family who, as we learned in his eulogy, was fairly senior in Borneo Thought it worth asking just in case.
What was your involvement in Timor?