Oct 18
Better saved than safe? Wrong job, General.
Somewhat bizarrely, at least to my mind, the Army’s Chief of the General Staff, General Sir Richard Dannatt, has spoken out about the importance of telling soldiers about life after death.
I am sure that in his position, he has a responsibility to see that the welfare of all soldiers is looked after in the round, and that includes making provision for their spiritual needs.
Equally, I am sure that if I was a squaddie, I would want the big boss of the army to be putting his efforts into making sure I got the equipment, resources, back-up and strategy needed to minimise the inevitable and accepted risks of my getting killed. I would start to get quite worried about someone who talked about preparing me for getting killed. His job is to make sure his troops are as safe as they can be in an unsafe area, and to worry about keeping them alive to the best of his ability while gaining the strategic objectives.
Perhaps General Dannatt has strayed into the wrong religion: I thought it was the fundamentalists of another religion who promised their soldiers paradise if they died killing the enemy.
October 18th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
Doug, don’t you believe that Christians go to some kind of paradise when they die? Do you perhaps believe that those who die in battle are disqualified? That seems a very extreme pacifist position.
I agree that it is not for General Dannatt to preach about this. But I don’t think he did. Rather he seems to have called for churches and army chaplains to do their job better.
October 18th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Peter, I have no idea how what I said prompted you to ask the questions in the first paragraph. The first sentence of your second paragraph gets the point.
October 18th, 2007 at 6:01 pm
Doug, what prompted my questions was your last sentence:
My point is that Christians also promise the same, but of course whether or not they kill the enemy. So you can hardly claim that General Dannatt is teaching Islam rather than Christianity by talking to his soldiers about the afterlife.
Ruth Gledhill has now picked up the same story. I must say I just don’t understand why you are so negative about it, unless that comes from extreme pacifism.
October 18th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
I read this, rightly or wrongly, as a general less interested in whether his soldiers lived or died, than in whether they threw themselves at the enemy knowing they’d live forever. The army’s recent record of (not) getting the right equipment to its soldiers has been pretty poor, and seems to have resulted in unnecessary deaths. Addressing those practical priorities should be the general’s primary concern. I may have misunderstood him. (And, for the record, I’m not a pacifist) I’m negative about this, because I think that “life after death” in military terms, tempts the general staff into being more cavalier with their soldiers’ lives in this life.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:02 pm
the other issue is separation of church and state. no matter what the general feels, it is not his pervue to prosyletize a particular religious belief, especially to subordinates, especially through a chain of command format that implies the prosyletizing is sanctioned from the top. or is this not true for the british army as it is for the us army?
October 18th, 2007 at 10:03 pm
Scott, there is in many respects a growing pragmatic separation of many elements of church and state, but constitutionally they are united in the UK, particularly in the person of the monarch, who is by custom crowned during an Anglican celebration of the Eucharist (an exception was made for the Catholic James II). Until relatively recently (sorry - don’t know the exact year) it was more-or-less compulsory for members of the armed forces to attend Christian (mainly Anglican) worship.Every day in Parliament begins with Christian prayers, as do the vast majority of local council meetings.
October 18th, 2007 at 10:17 pm
doug–
boy, the things you learn blogging with others. i guess the general’s preparation of his subordinates for the hereafter is in his job description…
October 19th, 2007 at 12:18 am
Doug, I assume that the General was speaking at this Christian conference at a time when he was not supposed to be on duty. I’m sure he is working hard, through his extensive chain of command, at ensuring that his soldiers are as well equipped as possible. Of course there may be occasional failings, but it is hardly fair to imply as you seem to that they are caused by the General’s personal negligence.
Is he not allowed a bit of time for himself, or when he can speak for himself rather than for the army? Perhaps I should complain that you are neglecting the people of Droitwich by blogging, but I hope those people, or at least your churchwardens and PCC, recognise that you need time for your own interests and will be more effective in your job if allowed such time rather than made to work every waking hour. I expect that the same is true for the General and those he works with.
October 19th, 2007 at 2:26 am
doug, peter–
suzanne and i have been having a discussion about authority that talks of the reciprocity of those in authority and their subordinates. those in authority have responsibilities, and perks; subordinates also have responsibilites, and perks. in my experience in the military, (or any hierarchical system,) as much as throwing a switch between off-duty and on-duty would be fair or ‘just,’ hierarchy representatives have the responsibility of being ambassadors 24-7. that’s just the way it is. it’s true of soldiers, true of police, true of clergy, true of politicians. there is no ‘off-duty;’ there is never a time when you are not an ambassador for your hierarchy system. and the higher you are up the chain you are, the more accountable for your ‘off-time you are.
just today, the highest ambassador in the political hierarchy system that is the u.s. government, g.w.bush, made a poorly worded hyperbole about wwIII. no one high up in a hierarchical system is ever off-duty.
peace–
scott