While certainly there’s some truth to this- or circumstantial truth- this makes an assumption that one is either a warrior or a coward; or at the least that separating warriors from intellectuals would somehow lead to any non warrior being a coward. To some degree you sort of need some level of separation functionally though right? Like- what a shame that would be if some random Tuesday the leading mind in advanced artificial intelligence was killed in battle. On a human level the person that could have been there if our scientist wasn’t is equally valuable as a life- but there’s basically 0.001% chance that other person was going to make the next big advantage to give our side the edge in the global technology race, and it’s very unlikely that random dude would do anything particularly note worthy. Could happen- but if we play the odds there is a reason that the president- commander in chief of the armed forces, isn’t the first one off the plane with a rifle to the from when…
.. most militaries deploy. While we can say all life is equal, not all deaths have the same consequences or reach. Of course there are many types of bravery as well- and there are many types of cowardice. The bravery to confront one’s inner demons or to do what must be done even when it is difficult is not inherently the same bravery required in combat- though often those other brave dies are good to have- they aren’t strictly necessary to face one’s possible end. Someone who is a coward in the sense they like to avoid fights or don’t consider violence intuitively as an option is maybe a good leader. Many leaders have had the “bravery” to send their soldiers to die or put their citizens in harm or discomfort from the cushy halls of power away from most danger and hardship. And well- are we all such brave people?
Think of it this way- if you’ve never known someone like this, or seen it in a film or show or book- try to imagine- imagine having a friend or boss etc. who is much braver than you and inevitably you get dragged in. Would you enjoy that? Being constantly dragged against your will into situations that make you uncomfortable or frightened or angry by someone who just laughs and says “it’s fine. Don’t worry”?
Probably not. Some might- I doubt most would. In a democracy the leader is, or should be, a representative of the people. Not a perfect representation of each individual in every way, but someone who more or less embodies the general spirit and values of a people or at least understands them and cares about them and their happiness. If we can’t have that the next best thing is a leader who will at least do what is in the best interest of the people- but the answer to that question is a matter of perspective.
Now- is arbitrarily separating “warriors” from “thinkers” right? Probably not. I mean- as said earlier, some people are both, some are neither. Most people in modern society are many things, spouse, parent, teacher, friend, warrior, leader, follower, activist, brave, cowardly… we can be full of different and even contradictory aspects that make our identity. One might be a warrior for X months a year or X days a week and something else the rest. One may be a warrior in spirit but never fight a battle or raise a fist in anger. The stately about separating warriors and thinkers leading to a society ram by cowards also assumes that the thinkers run the show- military junta or dictatorship etc. are all things. Coups happen etc. who says the thinkers run the show let alone the thinkers are cowards in that scenario? As to the other part… to some degree… don’t we kinda want fighting- or the bulk of it- done by fools? Or isn’t it a natural effect that will tend to be the case in large part?
One thing that has changed little in combat over thousands of years is that while numbers aren’t everything- they are a HUGE part of things. Some form of general infantry has been and is a cornerstone of most strategic doctrine. We need LOTS of soldiers who are at relatively high risk of dying. That’s not a job you want to give to those who can handle larger strategic tasks if you can help it. Ideally you would want your entire military to be “elite” forces. So why do we have “special forces”? Why isn’t every military 100,000+ elite soldiers trained and drilled to the pinnacle of human ability in combat arts and execution…? Well…. Some people just ain’t got it. Most actually. That’s why elite forces are elite usually. If everyone could be special forces then none of your forces are special right?
A staggering low number of applicants will pass the aptitude and training requirements to fly military aircraft AT ALL, and even less by far will fly jets. Why would you put one of the few people on earth who can operate such a tactically critical piece of machinery in a position where they are unnecessary danger? Why would you use one of the few people on earth who can do a job well to do a job that most people on earth can do?
If you had a genie that could grant wishes- would you tell them to get a job at Walmart as a greeter to bring home a paycheck? There are like- a million things you could do with that genie that would produce better results and you don’t need a genie to do that job. Almost anyone can do it. If you have 10 genies and an enemy has 10 genies and all your genies are doing basic ass jobs and the enemies are being used to their potential- you’re probably screwed.
So that’s a touchy subject- but we like to have young people fight because not only are they fit, they tend to be relatively inexperienced or foolish. Easily caught up in things older people or their more cynical peers wouldn’t fall for. You get people have less investment in them if they die and if they live you can get more from any investment you put in before they are too old to be most effective at physical tasks.
And if we are going to have masses of people fight and probably die- aren’t the fools the ones we can probably be best off without? Like- that’s sort of a major point of the military model- it doesn’t take geniuses to win battles though it can help- one genius giving orders and a bunch of fools who are trained to listen and can carry out instructions are all that is required at a minimum. More fools are born everyday, so when we lose a fool, society at large tends to notice or suffer less than when we lose a great mind no?
That isn’t to say any of this is “right,” it is to say that is pragmatic- and wars and battles generally come down to pragmatism in deliberate and skillful tactical action.
“Leave no man behind” isn’t a policy born of morality even if many take it as a principle- it is a policy born of pragmatism. We leave men behind all the time. The idea is that if you have ingrained such a concept and when and where feasible make a show of following it, it builds loyalty, morale, cohesion, and trust. Effective militaries tend to run on what is ultimate cold calculation. Terms like “collateral damage” exist to help obscure this or cushion the impact mentally- but there is no army on earth known that won’t endanger civilians when things are most dire or hasn’t committed war crimes or humanitarian atrocities etc. when it was prudent. Some have higher bars before they resort to it, but if you look at history, when a military is pressed and sticks staunchly to right morality they have tended to lose.
This is not a lesson lost on military thinkers. Of course this is a natural thing- an element of nature and the human condition and not a strictly military trait. When pressed humans do or die. We eat each other, we join in on genocide or other acts because we fear for our own safety or well being if we do not. Traveling through the night in silence being hunted, a parent smothers their baby to stop its crying from getting them or their group killed or worse. So these situations happen, but war tends to bring out these extreme survival scenarios more regularly than every day happenstance and so these are things that warriors are often more likely have to deal with or witness. So I mean…. Again- not saying it is right- but saying pragmatically- most of all human civilization in recorded history and especially our current way of life requires certain people to be treated as “expendable.” War and conflict will generally always require lives be weighed against lives and objectives and such
In war someone is always going to end up being deemed non critical or… expendable. So really…. No one should be expendable- but If someone is going to be expendable…. who would be better than fools? Are fools something the world ever needs more of? Except perhaps those of us who make company of fools and have the fools we love- who is going to wake up upset that they went an entire day without encountering a fool were the fools to all be lost to conflict? Really the biggest hit there would be that suddenly we’d have no fools to do all the tasks that were once the domain largely of fools. Perhaps suddenly those people “one step up from fools” would find themselves the new fools in the eyes of society.
This is why even if we could rationalize fools being “expendable,” we cannot justify it. That’s how rights and freedom work. If anyone doesn’t have them, no one really has them because what society can do to someone else, tomorrow could be you. When the fools are gone or the winds change or whatever group society has decided we don’t need are no longer the target- it would be someone else. That someone could be you or me. So it’s a sticky thing- but we probably don’t want the people making headway into curing cancer or making the biggest diplomatic pacts of the century out fighting on a battlefield. In our society, warriors can vote and do most or all the things other citizens can in exercising their freedoms beyond whatever things they’ve agreed not to in the name of being a warrior. We don’t separate warriors from thinkers in that way but we do often make decisions about how to best protect and administer our society.
Probably not. Some might- I doubt most would. In a democracy the leader is, or should be, a representative of the people. Not a perfect representation of each individual in every way, but someone who more or less embodies the general spirit and values of a people or at least understands them and cares about them and their happiness. If we can’t have that the next best thing is a leader who will at least do what is in the best interest of the people- but the answer to that question is a matter of perspective.
If you had a genie that could grant wishes- would you tell them to get a job at Walmart as a greeter to bring home a paycheck? There are like- a million things you could do with that genie that would produce better results and you don’t need a genie to do that job. Almost anyone can do it. If you have 10 genies and an enemy has 10 genies and all your genies are doing basic ass jobs and the enemies are being used to their potential- you’re probably screwed.
And if we are going to have masses of people fight and probably die- aren’t the fools the ones we can probably be best off without? Like- that’s sort of a major point of the military model- it doesn’t take geniuses to win battles though it can help- one genius giving orders and a bunch of fools who are trained to listen and can carry out instructions are all that is required at a minimum. More fools are born everyday, so when we lose a fool, society at large tends to notice or suffer less than when we lose a great mind no?
“Leave no man behind” isn’t a policy born of morality even if many take it as a principle- it is a policy born of pragmatism. We leave men behind all the time. The idea is that if you have ingrained such a concept and when and where feasible make a show of following it, it builds loyalty, morale, cohesion, and trust. Effective militaries tend to run on what is ultimate cold calculation. Terms like “collateral damage” exist to help obscure this or cushion the impact mentally- but there is no army on earth known that won’t endanger civilians when things are most dire or hasn’t committed war crimes or humanitarian atrocities etc. when it was prudent. Some have higher bars before they resort to it, but if you look at history, when a military is pressed and sticks staunchly to right morality they have tended to lose.