Been thinking about life, passion, and purpose, and in particular, this seemingly ambiguous idea of one’s “calling.” Came across an address to members of the military, and despite unfortunate and unacceptable recent events in the news that may have colored many of our perceptions, these words spoke in a way that unexpectedly awakened and humbled me today:
“Your peculiar calling is to kill, and if need be, to die for the rest of us, or to support with your untiring effort those who do so. Your work is hallowed in so far as the cause for which you fight is just, and in so far as you use no more force than is necessary to subdue our enemies. You serve well if you fight not to destroy what you hate, but to defend what you love.
“Let us here acknowledge that those who espouse pacifism do so with the reasonable expectation of living a full life only because you protect them with your willingness to make war. May the rest of us take care not to squander the peace that you now buy with your courage and hard work.”
And yet who ordains this calling? The speaker of these words is prescribing rather than describing it, implicitly standing staunchily to one edge of the pacific spectrum and implying that it is the natural outcome, the natural reaction to worldly circumstance.
Could you explain what resonates with you in these words? I’m afraid I might misread this.
I don’t think the speaker necessarily seeks to prescribe nor ordain the calling so much as it attempts to highlight what is honorable about the controversial vocation, a career that perhaps ought not be ventured by those who lack the calling. I didn’t see it so much as a stance on pacifism or war, but rather as a solemn reminder that that the two ends of the spectrum remain intertwined.
What resonates? I simply realize that the relative peace I undeservedly enjoy in my quiet (no longer Murder Capital of the US) EPA and Stanford bubble was bought at a price I do not know how to appreciate any more than I can know what a truly godless existence can look like. Hundreds and thousands in the world find themselves fighting for their daily bread, and die at a moment’s notice, and somehow it is quite possible to continue to live under the illusion that it really doesn’t involve me. Sadly, I’ve often taken things like peace, joy, abundance, love, and the life I live for granted.
But I’d like to hear what other people think.
i asked someone i know who’s in the marines reserve, who’s been shipped out to iraq and whatnot recently, about how politics play into what they feel as soldiers. the answer i got was that the military’s a profession that they’ve signed themselves into, and they do their duty. they’re trained to kill, and they kill when told to. i was surprised at how impersonal he made it sound.
your quote reminds me of jack nicholson’s big speech at the end of a few good men. (“you want the truth? you can’t handle the truth!!!”… yea, that speech about people sleeping at night because of the protection afforded by those trained to protect.)
personally, i think pacifists belong on the same far-off cloud as tree-huggers. the one where realism and pragmatism doesn’t exist, or at least is obscured by sunbeams and rainbows and pink-frosted cupcakes.
While I agree with the premise of the quote, I disagree with the conclusion. Many people who study or participate in war choose peace.
I also dislike the assumption that war/peace is a binary choice – why must one, in general, choose always one or the other?
Another related, and very common, assumption is that war is/should be either complete or absent – there are different levels of force that can be applied ( assuming one has studied them ).
The life of Ueshiba Morehi is a good example of several of these principles: In his youth he studied jujitsu, sumo, Daito Ryu, and several other rather violent martial arts. He participated in the Japanese occupation of Manchuria, attempting to start a agricultural colony.
In his middle age, having experienced war and martial training, he founded a martial art based on the concept that one’s enemy is one’s brother, and that just because someone attacks you is no reason to destroy him. One’s opponent is one’s brother, instead of using martial arts to destroy him, one should teach him a lesson of tolerance by avoiding his blow and gently helping him cease his aggression. “Budo is love” is the driving principle of Aikido. Similar ideas can be found in the esoteric principles expounded by Okazaki Seishiro, founder of DanZan Ryu Jujitsu
i agree that the sacrifice of the soldier is great, and that fighting for the protection of what one loves is noble. to an extent, those who choose not to participate in violence do so because others make it their profession.
at the same time, i don’t think it’s at all a holy thing. for example, jesus never said “if someone attacks you, defend yourself” or “seek vengeance” or even “seek justice”. the defense of what you love, while noble, is in the end only going to perpetuate the cycle. what is a just cause to make war for, anyway? revenge killing of 600+ iraqis in fajullah for the death and mutilation of 4 american mercenaries in the name of “justice”, for example?
not practical for the real world? probably. but imagine if it was.
This posting has evoked such a wide range of responses! A Few Good Men, Danzan Ryu Jujitsu, Jesus?!? Wow.
And I still don’t see how this was supposed to be a pro-war statement! Am I missing something? Where does it imply that war and peace are binary choices? I thought the whole point was to say that the two are intertwined. Anyway, maybe I’m just missing something…
The pacifism described here is misnamed; this is “passivism”. The true pacifist is just as willing to suffer and die for his or her principles as the soldier. The greatest pacifist? Jesus.