Don't you lecture me

One of my favourite left of centre bloggers has recently posted a piece on troop withdrawals, as a reaction to Brendan Nelson (what sort of name is that for a serious human being?) spewing drivel on the subject of the dedication of Australian troops to the cause of helping the Americans to subdue and subjugate Iraq - in the best interests of Iraq and all its citizens, of course.

He's got a loyal readership and his thought provoking (or antagonistic - it very much depends on one's perspective on the specific issue as well as the whole right/left/green thing) posts usually trigger an intense debate.

One person in responding as asked, of Australia's soldiers: "If they continue to serve in the armed forces under Howard, doesn't this count as an endorsement of his government? Well Gee Whiz! Anyone would think that sappers sign up according to who currently holds the parliamentary reins.

I think Howard and his never-ending army of munchkins are a bunch of complete shits and shitettes. A bunch of talentless trash, in fact. Howard (the Prime Minister of the Federation), as I've commented before has despicably narrowed the focus of his job to the point where it doesn't extend beyond white Christian married couples living in a brick veneer house with their 2.4 children, dog and cat in a suburb of greater Sydney; Bugger the Non-Whites, Sod the Non-Christians and Fuck the Victorians - oh, and put the sheilas back in the kitchen where they belong.

I regard the army as something completely separate from and above the political fray; not a pawn - and god help me in this I am as one with the RSL. Justifiable primarily as a bulwark against foreign agression, secondarily as a vehicle for participation in external ventures enjoying broad-based support at home and sanctioned by the United Nations.

It is all too easy to stigamise those who sign up as stooges of or in thrall to the right. This same army has sent men and women into conflict situations that not one Australian, of any position on the political spectrum could argue against. The threat from Japan during the Second World War, however debatable the preamble, was all too real during the bombing campaign on Darwin (capital city of the Northern Territory). They got submarines as far south as Sydney harbour at one point. After Singapore fell there was an upsurge in enlistment by men and women of varying calibre and drawn from all stations and walks of life. Among them were four of my father's five paternal uncles and one of his two paternal aunts.

They served to the best of their ability for the duration of the war and then, with one exception, returned to civilian life. The one exception was my father's aunt who had died. She was indisputably killed by the Japanese. Her body was never recovered. They killed her by blowing the ship she was sailing on (as a nurse, under the protection of the Red Cross) from under her.

My father's four uncles picked up their careers and got on with their lives. So did my father's father. He didn't fight the Japanese. He was captured when Singapore was surrendered to the Japanese and endured the remainder of the war as POW. He was a proud cattle man who valued his horse above everything except, perhaps, the meal after the meal after next, forced to eat horse meat to survive and haunted by that for the rest of his life. Haunted too by the death of his wife from cancer between the fall of Japan and his delayed return from protracted debriefing.

He was a good man. They all were. They did what they believed to be right, in the service of their country beyond her shores. Sometimes that does happen. The army of today is the army they joined and served in. That it is being misused for grossly political purposed should not be permitted to deflect one's attention from that important truth. Our country needs an army and it should be an army of people who sign up irrespective of who's currently living in the PM's grace and favour residences.

[This is an unfinished and unpolished piece, subject to possible future major overhaul.]