Military Complex
I've a full day off, so I've decided to blog it away.
This is somewhat of a response to a certain friend... and her friend.
With the recent negative media portrayal of the US military in the Middle-East, many people have openly expressed their angst towards the war. Its no wonder that much of the blame has been associated with the military (especially so with the Abu Ghrahib photos).
On a local context, many youths here also express their unhappiness with the military enlistment act. More specifically, why we must serve 2 years of our time in an organisation against our will. Before I proceed, I forewarn you that my logic is slightly deviant from most of my peers. I don't claim this to be an universal truth. Its merely my interpretation and my reasoning to carry on in my own terms.
Firstly, let us analyse what precisly is the purpose of a country's armed forces. Some people say its to provide protection. Others say that its a reflection of a country's show of force and independence. Perhaps its simply because every other country has one? Some angry hippies would then start labelling the military with murder and blood (and all those emo stuff).
But before we get carried away, we should restrict and focus our discussion and leave morals and values out of the equation. All the above mentioned are the multiple facades of job scopes covered by the military. (but not the purpose)
OF course, the army (ditto for Air force and the navy) is a physical representation of a country's brute strength. It can be used for defence whether or not there is a war or not. And yes my hippie groupies, it can be used for murder or perhaps if I place it into a stoic view point, it can be used for conquest and expansion.
Murder and killing is not the function of the army. Yes, they are structured and raised to perform the act of outkilling the enemies but their purpose is not to kill. In many ways, swordmanship is very much like an army. Its purpose is not to slice up people, but it is to allow you to defend yourself to the extent of being capable of taking away your attackers' lives. Seriously, what good is an army that isn't capable of killing? In other words, killing is a means to an end, not an end in itself. I know this sounds decadent and abstract, but remember, lets leave morals out of the equation.
If you ask me. Protection, deterence, reputation, conquest and expansion. All these job scope ultimately leads to one general purpose:
"To protect the interests of its state."
Nothing more, nothing less. Simple enough? In essence, this is really how simple the job of the military is.
now... comes in the contreversial factors. How do we define "interests" and "state"?
Imagine this. An independent army running on its own judgements on what to do or what not, regardless of the government's viewpoint and politcal interests? Wouldn't that be ideal?
They could protect the country with focus, see little need for invasion of other countries and altogether eliminating the advent of wars.... well.. yeah,
These armies do exist and they're called guerillas.
The loyalty and allignment of where the army should be is always a debatable topic. If their alligment is to their country, they clearly have no obligation to follow the rules of the government. And if this follows, they have no obligation to adhere to the law structures of society. They are free to go as havoc as they can be.
It is to prevent such an chaotic event that all armies are bounded to the whatever politcal party that is in power.
This may answer many recruits curiousity as to why SAF personnel swear allegiance to the President and the Republic of Singapore rather than to Singapore itself.
The identity of Singapore is a debatable topic, but its Republic is a concrete organisation.
As for the country's interests? They are all determined by the Government in power, not by the generals or the sarges. Get the picture? Things like an invasion is not a topic brought up and consented by the military personnels. They merely plan on how to invade.
In the military, is bascially to serve the government and be professional about it.
Morals have to be placed aside when the button is pressed.
Why then, are there so many unnescessary killings and abuse of authorities?
As for civilians who have no experience with the military, such misconceptions are normal. But there are such things as doctrines and ROEs that must always be adhered to.
Doctrines and ROEs (rules of engagement) are solid rules that are implemented to ensure a civil conduct during operations.
When shit occurs, it happens because commanders fail to ensure order.
Do not hate the organisation.
It is simply performing its purpose in life.
Hate not the military, but if you must hate something,
Hate the certain individuals in it who are not doing their job professionally.
As for my fellow NS friends. Ponder a moment about this.
This certain someone (okay fine... many MANY people) once commented that SAF is useless. The SAF is Wayang and nothing but a show. The Stringent adherence to the safety rules almost seems to impede practical combat effeciency at time.
"seriously lah. Enemy dont need spies. See TV and internet can see everything liao! "
Furthermore, why does Singapore even need an army?? what? To protect the Newwater plant and the merlion? Its not like Singapore is going to be invaded anytime soon.
Furthermore, why must all male youths serve?
For simplicity sake, I will skip the cliche qns and answer about how we need to defend our homeland at all times etc... But I will link the SAF's function with my earlier statement.
The SAF 's purpose is to protect the interests of its state.
This is somewhat of a response to a certain friend... and her friend.
With the recent negative media portrayal of the US military in the Middle-East, many people have openly expressed their angst towards the war. Its no wonder that much of the blame has been associated with the military (especially so with the Abu Ghrahib photos).
On a local context, many youths here also express their unhappiness with the military enlistment act. More specifically, why we must serve 2 years of our time in an organisation against our will. Before I proceed, I forewarn you that my logic is slightly deviant from most of my peers. I don't claim this to be an universal truth. Its merely my interpretation and my reasoning to carry on in my own terms.
Firstly, let us analyse what precisly is the purpose of a country's armed forces. Some people say its to provide protection. Others say that its a reflection of a country's show of force and independence. Perhaps its simply because every other country has one? Some angry hippies would then start labelling the military with murder and blood (and all those emo stuff).
But before we get carried away, we should restrict and focus our discussion and leave morals and values out of the equation. All the above mentioned are the multiple facades of job scopes covered by the military. (but not the purpose)
OF course, the army (ditto for Air force and the navy) is a physical representation of a country's brute strength. It can be used for defence whether or not there is a war or not. And yes my hippie groupies, it can be used for murder or perhaps if I place it into a stoic view point, it can be used for conquest and expansion.
Murder and killing is not the function of the army. Yes, they are structured and raised to perform the act of outkilling the enemies but their purpose is not to kill. In many ways, swordmanship is very much like an army. Its purpose is not to slice up people, but it is to allow you to defend yourself to the extent of being capable of taking away your attackers' lives. Seriously, what good is an army that isn't capable of killing? In other words, killing is a means to an end, not an end in itself. I know this sounds decadent and abstract, but remember, lets leave morals out of the equation.
If you ask me. Protection, deterence, reputation, conquest and expansion. All these job scope ultimately leads to one general purpose:
"To protect the interests of its state."
Nothing more, nothing less. Simple enough? In essence, this is really how simple the job of the military is.
now... comes in the contreversial factors. How do we define "interests" and "state"?
Imagine this. An independent army running on its own judgements on what to do or what not, regardless of the government's viewpoint and politcal interests? Wouldn't that be ideal?
They could protect the country with focus, see little need for invasion of other countries and altogether eliminating the advent of wars.... well.. yeah,
These armies do exist and they're called guerillas.
The loyalty and allignment of where the army should be is always a debatable topic. If their alligment is to their country, they clearly have no obligation to follow the rules of the government. And if this follows, they have no obligation to adhere to the law structures of society. They are free to go as havoc as they can be.
It is to prevent such an chaotic event that all armies are bounded to the whatever politcal party that is in power.
This may answer many recruits curiousity as to why SAF personnel swear allegiance to the President and the Republic of Singapore rather than to Singapore itself.
The identity of Singapore is a debatable topic, but its Republic is a concrete organisation.
As for the country's interests? They are all determined by the Government in power, not by the generals or the sarges. Get the picture? Things like an invasion is not a topic brought up and consented by the military personnels. They merely plan on how to invade.
In the military, is bascially to serve the government and be professional about it.
Morals have to be placed aside when the button is pressed.
Why then, are there so many unnescessary killings and abuse of authorities?
As for civilians who have no experience with the military, such misconceptions are normal. But there are such things as doctrines and ROEs that must always be adhered to.
Doctrines and ROEs (rules of engagement) are solid rules that are implemented to ensure a civil conduct during operations.
When shit occurs, it happens because commanders fail to ensure order.
Do not hate the organisation.
It is simply performing its purpose in life.
Hate not the military, but if you must hate something,
Hate the certain individuals in it who are not doing their job professionally.
As for my fellow NS friends. Ponder a moment about this.
This certain someone (okay fine... many MANY people) once commented that SAF is useless. The SAF is Wayang and nothing but a show. The Stringent adherence to the safety rules almost seems to impede practical combat effeciency at time.
"seriously lah. Enemy dont need spies. See TV and internet can see everything liao! "
Furthermore, why does Singapore even need an army?? what? To protect the Newwater plant and the merlion? Its not like Singapore is going to be invaded anytime soon.
Furthermore, why must all male youths serve?
For simplicity sake, I will skip the cliche qns and answer about how we need to defend our homeland at all times etc... But I will link the SAF's function with my earlier statement.
The SAF 's purpose is to protect the interests of its state.
How so? We don't have enemies or wars at the moment. We are not desperate for land to the extent of invasion. So, the primary job scope which the SAF adopt is deterence.
And We deter by parading our combat capabilities. More importantly... we deter by putting up a show.
And in that aspect (much to our pain and exasperation), we do a pretty damn good job.
posted by F I S at
12:48 pm
<< Home