Victory or Death

[Occhidiangela]

Suicide bombers die for their cause, and they kill for their cause, as the Zealots of the Masada, the Greeks at Thermopylae, and the Texans at the Alamo, among others, killed and died for their causes(or maybe just because.) The legends tell us that they sold their lives for a "higher cause."

The recent attack on the U.N. HQ, not the U.S. HQ, tells the same story as the assassination of Masoud in Afghanistan and Sadat in Egypt, that some will kill and die for their cause beacuse they do not wish for the world to change in a particular direction. I suggest that the following article contains some unintentional irony about peace, war, causes, blood sacrifice, and most importantly, the power of legends on the minds of men.

The guiding principle is that : I am willing to bleed more than you are, and when you are tired of bleeding, you will quit and I will win. Clausewitz called War, among other things, a contest of wills, and would find this point of view in perfect harmony with his general Theory of War.

An article addressing a national myth: Fehrenbach on The Alamo
(Note: T. R. Fehrenbach is the author "This Kind of War" one of the best treatments of the Korean War ever written. He was there, needless to say.)

The cold hard facts, exposed by rigorous historical analysis, of the actual battle of the Alamo are as follows:

Forget what you see in the movies.

In an early morning assault that took less than an hour, Santa Anna's well disciplined troops overran a fortified position through what was intended as a surprise assault. A group of Texians whose leadership kept hoping against hope for aid from Fannin, Houston, or anyone, stayed to defend their walls for a variety of reasons, however their frank respect for General Cos and his Lancers made any hope of a withdrawal through superb cavalry country an invitation to their own slaughter. (Check out Fannin at Goliad shortly after The Alamo for the grim reality of "rebels and militia" against professional soldiers, with bayonets, supported by cavalry and some artillery. See also Washington's militia and irregulars versus Hessians and Brits using the bayonet in the early stages of The American Revolution.)

The Alamo legend outgrew the facts and became a part of the national myth of a people. That is a human trait that crosses all national and cultural boundaries: be ye Persian, Greek, Serb, Arab, Hebrew, German, or French, your national mythology is a powerful motive force. (Robert Kaplan does a better job of explaining this than I do in Balkan Ghosts)

To understand why, of all targets, the Terrorists attacked a U.N. building, we should probably consider Fehrenbach's comments on the issue of "blood sacrifice" and how, as much as we might wish it were not so, that belief is alive and well is a potent force to be reckoned with.

"Victory or Death." Thus cried Travis at The Alamo. He certainly wrote letters to that effect.

"Victory or Death" Thus cry those who oppose the creation of a modern Iraq that could join the community of nations as other than a pariah state, and for that matter, those who oppose U.S. and "Western" influence in the Muslim World.

"Victory or Death" The cry of some factions in the Palestinian Camp.

If you sit in the U.N., and are an internationalist trying to make the world a more peaceful, less bloody place, the very last person you can work with is someone who will not negotiate, who instead, like Mel Gibson's character portrayal of William Wallace in Braveheart take on the attitude of no compromise:

Victory or Death.

"The more things change, the more they stay the same."

[Doc]

"The mark of the immature man is that he wants to live and fight nobly for a cause, while the mark of the mature man is that he wants to die humbly for one."

Somehow, I feel that this statement is incomplete. There should be something short and to the point about worthy causes. Although, I like to think in my own mind that dying humbly should be an unbrella statement about not blowing your self to kingdom come with a jacket made out of dynamite.

Doing what I did in life, I was always ready to die for what I believed in, and still am. I never actually expected to live as long as I have, and had I known I would have survived, I would have tried to take better care of my self. :(

My own feelings and opinions on this are strong, and probably unsettling. I think those whackos who go out and blow them selves up and a bus load of children will get what they deserve, in both this life and the next. They are craven cowards. They are the worst sort of coward, doing something they have to know is morally objectionable on some level, so they take suicide as the easy way out. Some layer of the human mind has to know it is wrong. What they do makes a mockery of the peace process. Nothing, and I mean NOTHING good will ever come of their actions.

Of course, the media today only rewards events worthy of a Jerry Bruckheimer film. Suicide bombers are flashy and all the rage. Yet very little was mentioned about the Christians who died in Iraq, crucified, quite litterally crucified for their cause. Or fed to the animals. Or the Jews who died in Iraq, many of them aid workers trying to bridge the gap. Very little is being said in the mainstream media of the mass graves, one in particular that held the remains of about 10,000 people, and, according to well kept records, all of them "Enemies of Iraq," Jews. Nobody wants to talk about the foriegn aid workers killed almost on a daily basis in parts of Africa, where the governments are changed more then underwear. These people die for a cause they believe in. Giving folk food and water.

It's a good thing that MLK never lived in these times.

[Occhidiangela]

He was willing to risk his life for his cause, and I don't doubt that he understood the risks involved in social activism. If J Edgar Hoover, pre Miranda, has it in for you, your life could be at risk.

That is a very different approach to change, as it allows dialogue to stay open, even if matters of principle take a great deal of time to resolve, than dying for a cause because one is either impatient with the pace of change, have no faith that change will come, or, and this is what I think is going on here, are unwilling to accept and live in a changed world. That last point strikes me as a key element of the psychology of "Victory or Death" in the contemporary sense.

[Jester]

"The mark of the immature man is that he wants to live and fight nobly for a cause, while the mark of the mature man is that he wants to die humbly for one."

That seems so backwards.

I would perhaps counter with Borges, writing about the Nazis.

"Nazism suffers from unreality, like Erigena's hell. It is uninhabitable; men can only die for it, lie for it, wound and kill for it. No one, in the intimate depths of his being, can wish it to triumph."

Perhaps this problem is not restricted to the Nazis, but is open to anyone who is willing to embrace a suitable unreality. This probably is the problem of the Islamic Jihad terrorist, and of their extreme Zionist counterparts; reality is subject to an abstraction, one which contradicts living, breathing people. The underlying problem is that many such abstractions are unfathomably appealing.

Jester

[Occhidiangela]

That may be part of their appeal, like the idealized Communism that Marx envisioned: an abstraction that could not pay off. The same comment has been made about the eternal life promise of Christianity: the pay off never has to be proven, and can't be, yet, since no one has come back yet to report on how that works out, any more than any of the suicide bombers has come back to report on how nifty the 17 virgins feeding them dates and soothing their cares has worked out.

The power of an idea is not always balanced by the idea being ideal in implementation. :D

[Doc]

Ah, I figured somebody would find fault with that quote.

In these times, very few people are passionate about their causes. In the right way.

Look for example, at Ghandi. He was willing to die for what he believed in, starving himself, and refining passive resistance. MLK was another man who was more then willing to die for his cause, and yet so full of life.

Today, in these times, I don't find many folks who have enough backbone to really devote themselves to a cause. This halfassed parcipitation I see about me bothers me frankly. Not saying anything about the younger generation, as there are a few good souls about, but not nearly enough.

As for being dead, well, Occhi, I find it very boring. I have been dead several times now, and can remember nothing, mayhap I did not go anywhere for the short times I lay there dead?

As for my quote, I stick by it. Death need not always be sudden, but look at Mother Theresa. She spent her whole life in the dedication of serving others, and died, and Princess Die got most of the attention. To devote your whole life to a cause, right up to your own death is what it means to die humbly. The real meaning, is of course, is in the intent to sacrifice, how much is something worth to you, and are you willing to pay a pound of flesh for it? America was founded on this as a principle, as Democracy needs the sacrifice of many lives to preserve it's path. In wars, civil protest, in labour, and paying taxes. I would venture to say that what makes America so great is that so many have bleed for what ever causes have arose, there has never been a shortage of folk willing to give a little or give all for the sake of the cause.

Can anybody say that their devotion to something, anything, is so great that they would die for it? Or would you rather be a coward? Before you answer this, how many of you are family men, or women for that matter? Still think that quote is crap? Spend each day breaking your back dying by degrees to put bread on the table? How many have died in the defense of their family, and their family's freedom, either at home, or abroad, at war? Occhi, you are a devoted serviceman and a family man. Your militart code dictates a lifetime of devotion, to defend against all threats, internal and external, even if it means your life correct? To anybody who has sworn such a promise, does that not mean the chance of having to die bravely, or humbly for the greater good? And for what? Whatever afterlife you believe in is beside the point, in that last moment of life you can depart knowing that you did the right thing.

Life is a grand and wonderful thing. Death is even greater. It is often not how we live, but how we die. Death is our one chance to say something and have it mean something. We only get to do it once (Well most of us) and so making it count is what matters. Do you die alone, hated, despised, and forgotten? Do you die as Joe Shmoe The Average Guy? Or do you die well loved, missed, and remembered for your service to others, your dedications to humanity, or the good positive things you have done in your lifetime? I have spent a great deal of time with terminally ill children. They face death better then most adults, striving to make the most out of life, but even more out of death. Many of them make their death mean something, or set something in motion. The legacy of what they leave behind is often greater then most adults who muddle through their whole life doing nothing. In dying in whatever form, and doing their best to make it mean something, drawing attention to various cancers, or other diseases, not dying humbly for a cause? Would you be craven enough to belittle that by saying dying for a cause is somehow stupid or an outdated concept? How we die is just as important as how we live. And I can only hope and pray that when I finally get around to kicking the bucket, that my death will serve as much purpose as my life has.

Living is important, we need live bodies to do the work, but to die in a way that inspires your fellow man to keep that work going is important as well.

[TaiDaishar]

As for being dead, well, Occhi, I find it very boring. I have been dead several times now, and can remember nothing, mayhap I did not go anywhere for the short times I lay there dead?

I'm afraid to ask...

[Gonaad the Barbarian]

I really like the discussion. From my point of view life>=death (and almost always greater than). At least hope exists with life. Anyway, the reason that qoute seemed backwards to you Jester is that it is.

"The mark of an immature man is that he wants to die nobly for a cause, while the mark of a mature man is that he wants to live humbly for one." (Underlines mine)
William Stekel (Results from Internet Collections: alt.quotations Archives:)

That rearranging of the life/death thing makes all the difference for me, especially the older I get.

Regards.

[Occhidiangela]

In the Newsweek issue that has the Great Power Outage on its cover, one of the columnists wrote an excellent, albeit short, treatment on suicide bombers in Russia and Chechnya as compared to those in the Kurdish areas of Turkey.

It is an interesting counterpoint to some of the thoughts I raised, and like most McNews, offers no solution of any depth due to brevity and space constraints, and I suspect lack of sufficient expertise on the part of the author.

[whyBish]

The cold hard facts, exposed by rigorous historical analysis, of the actual battle of the Alamo are as follows:

Tickle me Alamo ... Oh wait, wrong thread :P

[Mick]

Youth is wasted on the young, health on the healthy, and life on the living....

:)

But as some bright chap once said, "Forgive them for they know not what they do".

I agree that those volunteering to die with a crash of flames in a media spotlight are less noble to me than those who die humbly while trying to achieve a simpler humanistic goal. I can't fathom the 'suicide bomber' mentality at all - no hope of success, only massive pain and mainly to innocents. How can anyone fall for a line about virgins in paradise, or any other promise in the afterlife? How can they not say, "Well, Osama/whoever - if you think it's such a good idea why are you asking me to do it instead of going yourself?"

This conversation has reminded me one of PJ O'Rourke's stories. O'Rourke was a long-haired counter-culture drug-taking hippie liberal radical for a while during the 60s. Then he got out more and saw more of the world. He enjoys criticising radical liberal politics, especially the comfortably middle-class version. He pokes fun at those who feel they are saving the world with a sit in, especially these days, or who feel that wearing a rainbow tie-dyed t-shirt will save a whale.

In the piece I'm thinking of he asked, "Who is really saving the world?" and went through some of the sort of people Doc mentions. The doctors who work in third world countries for food and board when they could be making $100,000 a year back home. The kids who never imagine being a baseball player but live in hope of being able to walk a few steps before they die.

One of his favourites, and now one of mine, is the guy at the UN building, sharing half an office in some grey corridor, who arranges anti-diarrhoea tablets for African aid programs. Diarrhoea kills hundreds of thousands of people every year in Africa, from various illnesses and other causes, but taking one pill every week will stop it for most of those people. This guy spends his life arranging the buying, shipping and eventual delivering of those anti-diarrhoea tablets. O'Rourke worked out that he, along with the others in his program, had saved millions of lives.

No, it isn't colourful, loud, photogenic or romantic, but it's immensely important.

Mick.

[Medicine Man]

I can't really understand the state of mind required to make suicide bombing possible. One thing does seem clear however, I don't suspect that the people making these attacks are ever going to be satisfied with a peace agreement, no matter how generous the terms. A very bleak picture of what is to come, perhaps...

Being slightly less serious for a moment: Is getting 17 virgins in the afterlife really that good a reward? I kinda have to agree with Dennis Miller on this one -- after 2-3 virgins fumbling around you would probably want a pro.

[Jester]

"One thing does seem clear however, I don't suspect that the people making these attacks are ever going to be satisfied with a peace agreement, no matter how generous the terms. "

This is probably my largest beef with what could be called the "Sharon position", that is to say retaliating hard and fast to any provocation in order to "teach them a lesson" (paraphrase).

As moderation gains force, and violence is further rejected (I.E: The further along we get on the "road to peace"), the more desperate groups who don't want a moderate solution get. What are they going to do? Blow stuff up! It's predictable; It's almost like clockwork. And you know what? It's not going to stop until they're all dead or too old to care. That's at least twenty years down the tube.

This is simply a price of the endemic violence. There is no choice but to pay it; it's the cover charge at "Chez Peace".

Extremistis on both sides have played this card more times than I'd care to count (the PLO in the early 70's, and lately, as Yassir gets old; Israel in the 80's, for fear of an internationally backed/PLO endorsed return to the '67 borders). It's sick, but it's popular enough.

The problem with Mr. Sharon's (and Hamas', and Islamic Jihad's, etc...) idea of "teaching lessons" is that it keeps us permanently stuck at square one. There's no progress when the extremists only have to sneeze in the wrong direction to blow over the entire peace bandwagon.

Jester

[Occhidiangela]

It is the byproduct of folks reaching a "relative contentment zone" wherein where they are now, and where they think they are going, is sufficiently acceptable that they find that violence/force/war is no longer a suitable means to their ends, but are willing to take on faith that that other means will satisfy them.

Peace is rarely a condition that an extremist can survive in, since changing "what is" is sort of what he is about.

[Growler]

I would like to point out that different kinds of conflict call for different styles of leadership. MLK and Ghandi were peacetime reformers who took for granted a degree of civility in the society they struggled with, which civility did in fact exist and was responsible for their ultimate victories. Comparing their respective involuntary martyrdoms to suicide bombers or soldiers at war is apples and oranges. They were emphatically not "Victory or Death" personality types.

In what manner can it be said that leaving a legacy behind is humble? Isn't it more humble to die in the anonymity of a private life not wrapped up in some social cause or other? Isn't it more humble to die without a Foundation or Memorial Fund named after you, without your own national holiday? I think those you praise have no claim to humility, but are instead indulging themselves in a particular form of megalomania with the characteristic of wanting to leave a "mark on the world." That impulse can serve good or evil, but I always distrust it.

"Your job is not to die for your country - your job is to make some poor dumb bastard die for his." - General George S. Patton

[Jester]

"Isn't it more humble to die without a Foundation or Memorial Fund named after you, without your own national holiday?"

Very few people have national holidays (or memorial funds...) named for them before they die.

;)

You can only be humble when you're alive. What they do once you've kicked the bucket is their business. Just look at that Jesus guy.

Jester

[Occhidiangela]

Martyrdom has been a method of conflict resolution that is pretty old in the context of human civilization. Typically, the martyr's death is tied to an idea, either intentionally or unintentionally, and is used as a cornerstone to sustain an emotional base for change.

To call martyrdom stupid is, in my opinion, to assume that all persons have the same world view.

I am, and have been, willing to risk dying and killing for my country, as have many others. What I want to have a chance at, though, is to be alive to see how it all comes out. Thus also with the Ghandi and King example: they risked being hurt or killed based on principle, but I expect that they wanted to have the chance that they would see the fruits of their efforts while still among the quick.

The deliberate martyrdom in suicide bombing is motivated by a different frame of reference. He cares not whether he sees the change take place or not, just so long as his death "makes a difference" and his adversary bleeds at least as much as he does. It is a very negatively based approach, in that it requires negative energy for success.

Consider the Kamikaze. When that was resorted to, I'd paraphrase the thought process behind it thuswise:

Nothing else seems to be working, we are dying in this war anyway, take a few more of them with you on the way down. Make him bleed hard enough and you may stop him. If they see how dearly we will sell our lives, maybe they will not have the stomach for more fighting. Or, "If you're gonna lose, go down swinging!"

[Jester]

... they have a great saying that, I think, sums it all up nicely.

"Live as if you were already dead."

It's a Zen thing, I suppose. But I like it.

Jester

[Occhidiangela]

"Live every day as though it were your last. One day, you are sure to be right!"

Hmm, taking my own advice, I'd say it's time for a Guinness. Care to join me? :)

[Growler]

To call martyrdom stupid is, in my opinion, to assume that all persons have the same world view.

No, not the same. To call martyrdom stupid is to assume some world views are better than others. (For myself this is not an assumption, but as I offer no proofs here your usage is correct.)

My real problem here is calling suicide bombers 'martyrs'. A martyr should have an unyeilding devotion to ideals, but that only leads to death when compelled to choose between life and ideals. Rushing to death instead of their ultimate ideal sucks all the heroism out of their life. The same with hunger strikers and people who pour gasoline on themselves and light a match in order to prove a point. Suicidal people in general are just trying to attract attention to themselves, not accomplish anything practical. I am not impressed by such false martyrs.

As you said, Americans take risks but don't do guaranteed suicide missions just to hurt the enemy. There are instances of soldiers falling on grenades to save their buddies, and of risky and reckless attacks, but none with death guaranteed with no positive result. That is not in our "world view."