This is a tough one.
War is bad. It brings out the worst in mankind. Despite the rules of war which both sides should stick to so that atrocities don't take place, we all know that it is easier said than done.
When soldiers far away from home, away from the people they care about, with their lives under threat, are very unlikely to care whether the enemy is treated humanely, regardless if they are innocent civilians. They probably hope that the enemy, civilian or otherwise, was just dead. it's cleaner that way? Less paperwork maybe?
Sacks has to choose between the lesser of 2 evils, both similar in outcome but different in execution (appropriate yet wrong word to use). Sacks is a victim of unfortunate circumstances and a lack of morals among his superiors. Does it nonetheless make Sacks blameless for his actions? No. Does it make Sacks a better person in possibly making his acts less painful for the victim? Yes. Brownie points in heaven, his superiors couldn't care less. Bet he'll go mad from the guilt later (veterans' syndrome). If Sacks objected, he'd be a martyr for morality. Not many would give a hoot, branded a treasonous outcast. It's hard to be the good guy sometimes.
Wednesday, February 7, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Life is simple.
People are complicated.
To the owner of this blog, how far youve come?
Post a Comment