I have been reading/listening/watching with interest the debates going on over the yea's and nay's of Australia becoming involved in any overseas conflict.
While not wanting to debate the merits or otherwise of any such action one thing has me puzzled when hearing many discuss sending in our armed forces.
That is that they (the personnel) could be hurt or killed in any violent conflict and that we should be protecting them by not sending them into these sorts of situations. "How can they risk the lives of our young soldiers" is what I heard one person say on radio and it stuck with me for some reason.
Excuse me if this sounds callous but that is what they sign on for. At its very core level the Army, Navy or Air-Force is a war machine meant for either attacking or defending by employing its personal for either of those purposes. Not just defence but also when deemed necessary by Government, offence. To those who join up they are (or should be) fully aware that there is always a chance that they may be required at some point to not only kill but in return risk being killed. "How can they risk the lives of our young soldiers" the person asked? Because in effect by the simple act of becoming soldiers they have put themselves in a situation where someday they may be asked to put into a situation where there lives are at risk.
It is not a pleasant thought but it is the reality of the situation. You join up to serve at your Countries needs. Not for a pay-packet and guaranteed employment.
I would love for there to be a peaceful resolution before any conflict could arise in any situation throughout the world. However the choice of sending those whose very purpose and training is for war is something that while regrettable must be acceptable if we are going to have those forces.
Fine protest against the choice of actually participating in something that perhaps we need not join. However do not claim that we can have soldiers, sailors or airmen solely for the purpose of military exercises and shoring up defences. At some point there is always for those that join the risk they may die in aggressive conflict. Its sad that they are necessary but it is the choice made by them when they sign up and for that choice we should all be grateful that they are willing to take such a chance.
Am I wrong in thinking this way as I feel sad that I can't see any other purpose to having an armed defence without it being able to function as a full fledged fighting unit if indeed it is called upon to do so.
While not wanting to debate the merits or otherwise of any such action one thing has me puzzled when hearing many discuss sending in our armed forces.
That is that they (the personnel) could be hurt or killed in any violent conflict and that we should be protecting them by not sending them into these sorts of situations. "How can they risk the lives of our young soldiers" is what I heard one person say on radio and it stuck with me for some reason.
Excuse me if this sounds callous but that is what they sign on for. At its very core level the Army, Navy or Air-Force is a war machine meant for either attacking or defending by employing its personal for either of those purposes. Not just defence but also when deemed necessary by Government, offence. To those who join up they are (or should be) fully aware that there is always a chance that they may be required at some point to not only kill but in return risk being killed. "How can they risk the lives of our young soldiers" the person asked? Because in effect by the simple act of becoming soldiers they have put themselves in a situation where someday they may be asked to put into a situation where there lives are at risk.
It is not a pleasant thought but it is the reality of the situation. You join up to serve at your Countries needs. Not for a pay-packet and guaranteed employment.
I would love for there to be a peaceful resolution before any conflict could arise in any situation throughout the world. However the choice of sending those whose very purpose and training is for war is something that while regrettable must be acceptable if we are going to have those forces.
Fine protest against the choice of actually participating in something that perhaps we need not join. However do not claim that we can have soldiers, sailors or airmen solely for the purpose of military exercises and shoring up defences. At some point there is always for those that join the risk they may die in aggressive conflict. Its sad that they are necessary but it is the choice made by them when they sign up and for that choice we should all be grateful that they are willing to take such a chance.
Am I wrong in thinking this way as I feel sad that I can't see any other purpose to having an armed defence without it being able to function as a full fledged fighting unit if indeed it is called upon to do so.
