Dulce et decorum est, pro patria mori (as the romans put it: it is right and proper to die for one's country)
Very romantic, but somewhat counterproductive if taken to the extreme of dying like lemmings, not in pursuit of a goal but to give the enemy a 50:50 chance...
if a general orders an air attack on a hill, rather than guaranteeing more fatalities in a troop assault, is he a coward?
if the division commander does, is he a wuss?
the NCO's of sections at the foot of the hill: if they have a way of achieving objectives while minimising their own casualties, what should they do?
If you're trying to find honour and cowardice in war, honour is in saving lives through one's actions. Cowardice is in the opposite.
Were we to concentrate on the Kosova, I would say that if there was cowardice, it was political. There was a quite understnadable reluctance for NATO to become involved in a costly ground war. And a nice technical one makes good TV.
How effective it actually was is best summarised in this editorial.
Armed forces are there to achieve the goals set by the political branch of a society. Sometimes how these goals are achieved can be legislated by the political branch, for example through UN mandates and so on, but Sinjun our original poster should understand that where it can be avoided, not getting oneself killed in the process is a service one owes to one's family, one's colleagues, and one's society.
Perhaps he/she should also be aware that there are no swelling orchestras on a battlefield to accompany death-or-glory attacks upon the enemy...
Slashdot Mirror
Dulce et decorum est, pro patria mori (as the romans put it: it is right and proper to die for one's country)
Very romantic, but somewhat counterproductive if taken to the extreme of dying like lemmings, not in pursuit of a goal but to give the enemy a 50:50 chance...
if a general orders an air attack on a hill, rather than guaranteeing more fatalities in a troop assault, is he a coward?
if the division commander does, is he a wuss?
the NCO's of sections at the foot of the hill: if they have a way of achieving objectives while minimising their own casualties, what should they do?
If you're trying to find honour and cowardice in war, honour is in saving lives through one's actions. Cowardice is in the opposite.
Were we to concentrate on the Kosova, I would say that if there was cowardice, it was political. There was a quite understnadable reluctance for NATO to become involved in a costly ground war. And a nice technical one makes good TV.
How effective it actually was is best summarised in this editorial.
Armed forces are there to achieve the goals set by the political branch of a society. Sometimes how these goals are achieved can be legislated by the political branch, for example through UN mandates and so on, but Sinjun our original poster should understand that where it can be avoided, not getting oneself killed in the process is a service one owes to one's family, one's colleagues, and one's society.
Perhaps he/she should also be aware that there are no swelling orchestras on a battlefield to accompany death-or-glory attacks upon the enemy...
BTW, you might also be interested in this artefact from WW1.