LETHALITY
IN COMBAT, A Study of the True Nature of Battle
Tom Lewis
Big Sky
Publishing, 2012, 358pp.
During a Memorial Day
address in 1884, the American Civil War veteran Oliver Wendell Holmes commented
that he and his fellow war veterans had ‘shared the incommunicable experience
of war. In our youths, our hearts were touched with fire’.[i]
Tom Lewis’s book is
addressed largely to those whose hearts have not been ‘touched with fire’. He
aims to educate them, and particularly those in authority and the very many
commentators who attempt to influence them, about the realities of war. In this
he has a difficult task, as few in modern Australia have served in the armed
forces, even as reserves, and even fewer have been under fire.
Lewis focuses on the role of
the armed forces, to defeat their country’s enemies, in the shortest
practicable time, and with the minimum of friendly casualties. He notes that
minimising enemy casualties in the short term might be counter-productive, if a
war then becomes extended, and total friendly and enemy casualties are thus
increased. For Lewis, the idea of ‘proportionality’ must consider the
alternative possibility of greater casualties.
Lewis uses examples from
previous wars to demonstrate the essential nature of war, and to give readers
some understanding of the pressures on soldiers on a battlefield. He shows that
survival depends on behaviours that many unaware of battlefield realities might
find repugnant. This point was made by George Patton, quoted in the book, when
he said to his soldiers that ‘Your job is not to die for your country. Your job
is to make some poor bastard die for his’. This essential point seems lost on
some modern community ‘leaders’.
Shooting or bayoneting
wounded enemy before passing by them might seem wrong to observers who are
unaware that wounded enemy have frequently taken up their weapons again to
shoot soldiers who had moved past them. The prevalence of this practice among
wounded Japanese soldiers during the Pacific war might explain why so few were
captured. Ensuring that risk is minimised also seems be essential when fighting
an enemy that favours suicide tactics, or does not routinely wear uniforms or
display distinguishing marks, as required by international law. Lewis contends
that it is reasonable to kill an enemy who refuses to surrender, to minimise
the risk to friendly personnel.
Lewis shows that actions
sometimes described as desecrating enemy dead (perhaps by kicking them) can
have a compelling logic, as an alternative to the use of a bullet or bayonet to
ensure that the enemy soldier is no longer a threat. Some of the other actions
he describes, however, seem to go beyond battlefield necessity.
Lewis also demonstrates that
there is logic to treating an enemy well, if this treatment might ensure that
friendly soldiers are also treated well. He does not explore in detail the
likelihood that this practice will be effective in a war between ideologically
irreconcilable enemies, one of which is determined to conquer absolutely the
other.
Lewis concludes by proposing
that international law should reflect the realities of combat, rather than an
idealised view of human nature. He makes his case forcefully, showing that
warfare is an ongoing part of the human condition, in which seeking maximum
effectiveness is the task of the soldier (and sailor and airman; although the
book focuses on land combat, there are discussions of naval and air
operations). He does, however, have a tendency to hammer his point home
excessively, and the repetition of essentially similar stories can cause a
degree of mental overload.
Well worth reading, despite
the difficult style.
[i] Quoted in Bergerud, Eric, Touched with Fire, The Land War in the South
Pacific, Viking Penguin, New York, 1996
No comments:
Post a Comment