Learning from the past

I am sitting listening to a radio phone in about the war in Afghanistan, as normal a range of arm chair generals and political leaders are having a portion of their 15 minutes. I have my views and as you would expect they do not coincide with all those on air.

One of the biggest points of divergence is history it should be something that people take as a point of reference not particularly a point of difference.
History is not a neutral subject, after all history is written by the victors so the saying goes.

Although in these days of twitter and other instant messaging systems who wins and more importantly how they win a war, a battle, or even a popular uprising is contested. Also national mythologies that add to the way that people see themselves using cultural queue's to skew historical fact is common, like the Balkan peoples who revisit ancient battles over and over to underpin their sense of victim hood, they do so not in the political sphere but in art, song, and poetry in other words their cultural backdrop.
The Scots are often accused of a certain amount of "chippiness" in relation to their southern neighbours. This chip was highlighted and deepened by Mel Gibson in his almost entirely fictional film "Braveheart", it might have done much to increase Scottish identity at home and abroad, and it probably increased the notion that the Scots were a viable people with a united cause even though no such thing as a homogeneous nation exists.

However Like the Balkans nations repeating the sins and the sinners against each of them, Mel and his "Braveheart" allowed the Scots to over look the inconvenience of historical fact being trampled underfoot. Much in the same way it seems to me that those who argue that we should withdraw from Afghanistan would have us do.

Their argument seems to be two fold:
1 No one has ever subdued the different tribes so why bother trying to now. Let's pull out and leave them to run their own country as they want, the price we are paying is too high.
2 Our troops are dying because they have the wrong equipment and or not enough of the right equipment. We should leave if we cannot give the troops the things they need, and it is the fault of the government that as a money saving principle will not fund the equipment.

My interest in these sentiments is not in the truth of these claims, or even refuting them. My interest is purely in the way that history is used to justify these stand points. History as I said is not neutral and neither is it meant to be reduced to mere facts and figures, a set of cold statistics, dates, blood lines, or litanies of who did what to whom. History is meant to be used to inform discussion not be the start and end point of a discussion.

An example would be the second of the 2 points of view: Historically the troops landing on the beaches of Normandy in 1944 had superior fire power, manpower, intelligence, and numbers of machines, than the defending forces ranged against them. However even with all these advantages plus the additional leg up offered by the inability of the Germans to committee resources and men as a result of being pressed hard by Russian forces on the eastern front, it took the allies over two months to break out at the cost of many thousands of lives, many more than had been bargained for.

In part this cost in lives was a failure to equip properly as the German tanks and artillery were much better even though fewer in number than those in use in the allied armies. their tanks for example could sustain direct hits from most of the armour in use by the allies, whilst the allied tanks were out gunned and less well armoured. It was also a failure in organisation in that the allies organised themselves differently and so therefore good practice was slow to be recognised and adopted, therefore lives were wasted by employing outdated methods and tactics. Above all though the Germans just like the Afghans had the natural lay of the land working for them not just in the way they were able to use them to their advantage, but also because they were able to adapt themselves more easily to suit the surrounding landscape. Hedgerows were littered with mines, booby traps, anti personnel, and vehicle devices. Many thousands of people not just armed service personnel died as a result, and many more suffered horrendous life changing injuries.

The phrase boots on the ground is not just a euphemism for more troops, it is an actual military imperative. You cannot clear out caves, or hedge rows from a tank. No helicopter will help you locate hidden munitions, or booby trapped vehicles, houses, or bridges. Human service personnel because they are human have always been the most vulnerable to damage, until they are no longer on the battlefield they will remain so.

As I said history should not be fixed or seen as something that has no lessons for now or for times to come. Perhaps history tells us to plan better, listen, more, fight much less. What it absolutely tells us though is that war, any war results in death. Those that want to use history to tell us that death can and should be eliminated by having the right equipment or more money being spent on equipment fail to acknowledge that history shows us only that equipment is only as good as the use it is put to, and the conditions that it has to deal with.

History has nothing to say though on why and where we fight. If it did it might point to the unification of Germany, or Italy. Both achieved by force of arms, both resulted in nations that although we may think of as being former enemies, will at least be recognised as working democratic, and stable countries offering a unique in put to the countries and people of the rest of the world. History might even lead us in a discussion on why we put up with the massive losses suffered on the first day of the Somme in 1916, a battle in a war that had people asking from even before war was declared.
"why we were fighting for a country that had nothing to do with them."
The invasion of Belgium was the official cause of our entrance in to the great war, because the British government had said it wold defend its allies if attacked.

If people would use history as a tool and not a justification for action or inaction, we might be able to stop armchair generals and prime ministers from wasting their breath. It might also allow us to talk openly about the value we place on life and if the death of one servicemen is one too many in the pursuit of ideals, then we need to be clear on what ideals we as a nation wish to pursue.