Amidst the various articles that my subscriptions dump into my inbox, this one caught my eye this morning: "Partners in War, and Ending It
". It actually made me pause for a moment to realise that in looking down at the details, I'd stopped thinking about the big picture. Part way through reading, I paused to think on this
"war continues to seduce people. In war, normal life is suspended. Routines abruptly stop; ad hoc behavior becomes the norm. Few can avert their eyes from a military demonstration of shock and awe, whether with broadsword and catapult or stealth bomber and battle tank."
It's true. War fascinates, throughout history. After all, the Bayeux Tapestry is the 1070 version any documentary or official record produced today, and produced because the events still interest and fascinate us. It's the bit inside all of us that might not be capable of hands on physical violence, but still can't tear our eyes away of the spectacle of it occurring in front of us.
However, it was the concluding paragraph that really prompted me to write this.
"And just as different types of men experience war differently – some as drawn to it, some reluctantly doing their duty, some repulsed by what occurs – it will be the same for women. Men and women will be a more effective team in modern warfare. How much better it would be, however, if men and women teamed up to hasten the end of war altogether."
In terms of arguing from the tactical weeds, its a common point. Some women will succeed in ground combat, some will not, just as some men will and other won't. Neither "men" nor "women" can seriously be argued as a homogenous category from which all
men, or all
women, can be used as a measurement. But it is that closing sentence that gives me pause for thought. I don't envisage a world without war, but I do forget that accepting it as a reality to be dealt with now should not mean stopping work, on ways that would make warfare obsolete and unnecessary. Not my area of work, but a good reminder of a bigger picture.