It would have been nice if I could’ve acquired a fortune fighting for my country, the way the top brass on both sides have, but unfortunately all I have to show for it are the scars — the medal of blood.

“I hope you are not one of the mercenary pilots working then for the ruthless president JR, flying over Jaffna and bombing Jaffna base hospital, churches, temples and civilian targets.”

I trust you know the difference between a soldier and an airman. However, I KNOW you are not one of the terrorists who attacked the Central Bank, or the Temple of the Tooth, or the Bo Tree, all civilian targets. I wish you were, because I would have some respect for you as someone who DID something for what you believed in, however misguided, rather than someone who just applauds from the sidelines.

“Is it not the Tamil citizens in the North East ? I mean citizens of their own country.”

Is that what you think? I’m afraid you are extremely misguided. The enemy of all Sri Lankans (of whatever community) is the LTTE. The LTTE are also citizens of Sri Lanka, but they are still the enemy. The Army defends the country from ALL enemies, foreign and domestic.

“When soldiers are trained in SL, they are told that Tamils of North East are their “enemy”. ”

We are told no such thing. I have been through SL Army training. Have you?

“The reason for civilian murder, kidnap, torture, rape etc; by the Sinhala soldiers.”

And what is the reason for these crimes committed by the LTTE?

“When the soldiers of Sri Lanka start treating Tamils of North East as their enemies, and kill them, armed resistance becomes inevitably justifiable.”

Certainly, but the soldiers don’t see the Tamil populace as their enemy anymore than they saw the Sinhalese populace of the south as their enemy between ‘87 and ‘89. The situation in the East is proof of this, with Tamils fighting alongside the Sinhalese against the LTTE.

“Nearly five million Jews were exterminated by Adolf Hitler because the Jews failed to identify the enemy and resist them.”

It was six million Jews, not five, and to compare the Tamils to the Jews is an insult to that six million.

“When you were told “Blood is our medal” you were misled.”

You are in no position to decide that, since you view is not objective. Neither is mine, which is why I can speak only for myself, not for you. If I were to question you, I’d ask you if it is right to ethnically cleanse the NE of Muslims, or send little children out to die, or to send brainwashed young women out to murder civilians.

“As you rightly understand, the soldiers must be withdrawn from the North East and replaced with Boy Scouts to bring peace in Sri Lanka.”

Unfortunately the LTTE will conscript them, so we can’t do that.

I read the part ou wrote “I was not an officer-I worked for a living”.

I see that you write like a soldier and feel like a soldier. When you state the following;

a) ” just before my regiment flew out to Palaly in ‘91, our CO gave us a speech,
and he said in Sinhalese “Blood is our medal”. and

b) “There’s no point having a gun unless you are ready, willing and able to kill
with it. That is the whole point of an army. And soldiers are NOT trained to
protect others. Soldiers are trained to defend their country — and that
usually means killing. ”

I am forced to suspect from your own words that you are one of the soldiers with ill aquired fortunes. I hope you are not one of the mercenary pilots working then for the ruthless president JR, flying over Jaffna and bombing Jaffna base hospital, churches, temples and civilian targets.

If so, you are a war crimes offender. I hope I am not replying to a war criminal !

Coming to the subject matter, you write “The whole raison d’etre of a soldier is to destroy the enemy with (as we say in the Sinha Rifles) “Speed & Courage”.
My question is, who is the enemy in the conflict in Sri Lanka ? Is it not the Tamil citizens in the North East ? I mean citizens of their own country.

When soldiers are trained in SL, they are told that Tamils of North East are their “enemy”. The reason for civilian murder, kidnap, torture, rape etc; by the Sinhala soldiers.

When the soldiers of Sri Lanka start treating Tamils of North East as their enemies, and kill them, armed resistance becomes inevitably justifiable.

Nearly five million Jews were exterminated by Adolf Hitler because the Jews failed to identify the enemy and resist them.

When you were told “Blood is our medal” you were misled. Blood can never be a medal for any soldier in the North East. As you rightly understand, the soldiers must be withdrawn from the North East and replaced with Boy Scouts to bring peace in Sri Lanka.

If you’re trying to convince me that war is bad, don’t bother. I know it, I’ve been there. However,

“Killing by any soldier is cruel and wicked, even if based on any human miltary philosophy.”

If you’re trying to blame it on the soldiers, it’s an old and unconvincing argument, and Donovan made it far more eloquently:

“But without him,
How would Hitler have condemned him at Dachau?
Without him Caesar would have stood alone,
He’s the one who gives his body
As a weapon of the war,
And without him all this killing can’t go on.”

I disagree with your comment “It would be more accurate to say that very few wars have been resolved ONLY through military solutions. Some have been, however — Korea, the Liberation of Kuwait, the Israeli War of Independence, the Yom Kipur War, the two JVP insurrections, the Malayan Uprising, the Borneo Emergency, the Falklands War, etc.”

Korean war ultimately divided the country and made North Koreans to suffer, Kuwait became a puppet of the West, losing its independence, and Israel is still at logger heads with Palestinians after so many years. Falkland war was a temporary show of strength by Britain, gaining nothing except a rock. In all these countries, negotiated solution would have ultimately worked out with patient and intelligent diplomacy.

Therefore, war as a course of action is always detrimental to the countries in the long run. Enormous number of lives are lost, destruction is caused and vast amounts of money spent could have been used to do something better for mankind. War always creates enemity. Therefore, war as a solution is never justifiable.

JVP insurrection and Malaysian uprising, as the name rightly implies, were caused by “young blood desire for guns”. They were not serious freedom movements or armed resistance against oppression.

Even with JVP and Malaysian uprising negotiation and diplomacy could have solved the matter.However, it worked with JVP.

Man is not created to kill a fellow human being. He is created to live with the other ! Killing by any soldier is cruel and wicked, even if based on any human miltary philosophy.

I would disagree with your statement that NO war has been resolved through military solutions. It would be more accurate to say that very few wars have been resolved ONLY through military solutions. Some have been, however — Korea, the Liberation of Kuwait, the Israeli War of Independence, the Yom Kipur War, the two JVP insurrections, the Malayan Uprising, the Borneo Emergency, the Falklands War, etc.

There are many areas of modern warfare that, while not obviously military in nature, are the purview of the armed forces, and therefor ultimately fall under military strategy. Some are propaganda (information & disinformation), psychological operations, hearts & minds, administration, etc, and many of these have contributed to a solution. So while some wars may not seem to have been won largely by military action, they nevertheless have been.

The US military has many constraints placed upon it, some self-inflicted, and these are mostly a post-Vietnam phenomenon. The lengthy Iraq War is also a result of bad strategy by the US government at the onset of the war. Initial mistakes are hard to correct later, though not impossible. US casualties in Iraq have gradually dropped over the last year, and will continue to do so until it reaches a negligible amount. At that point the effect on the US civil psyche will be little to none. Even currently, it’s actual impact is mostly through media magnification than actual casualty effect.

Death is part of war. There’s no getting around it. The shock to the US population (and the military) caused by the Vietnam War has made it very intolerant of casualties, to the point where daring and courage cannot be exploited as it should be. Therefore, the US military requires a far bigger footprint than say the British or the Israelis.

There’s no point having a gun unless you are ready, willing and able to kill with it. That is the whole point of an army. And soldiers are NOT trained to protect others. Soldiers are trained to defend their country — and that usually means killing. There’s no getting around that. We aren’t boy scouts, or policemen, and that’s why we shouldn’t be used as peacekeepers. The whole raison d’etre of a soldier is to destroy the enemy with (as we say in the Sinha Rifles) “Speed & Courage”.

I’m both surprised and not surprised by David Blacker’s response here, because he is an ex-army officer. He knows that since the 1940’s no war has been resolved through military solutions. After the Americans lost the Vietnam War it took several decades and many high-cost films to fabricate the narrative of what happened there. What about Iraq? How does David Blacker judge the methods or the outcome of these past five years? The countries of the “coalition” receive the bodies of their dead soldiers every day. Blood may be their ultimate medal but the metal is little comfort to the mothers. Serious military men say that to have a gun and shoot it is easy; to have a gun and not shoot it is the point. A soldier’s honour is based not on the fact that he is trained to kill others, but on the way he has been trained to protect others. Has this been forgotten by the military hierarchies and the militarised politicians of our time?