What Britain's Oldest Soldier Said

A story crossed the Atlantic last week about funeral services for England's last surviving veteran of World War I. Born in 1898, Harry Patch was 111 when he passed away last month in a nursing home. The rites for him attracted as much attention for the fact that soldiers from Belgium, France, and Germany attended as for his great age and symbolic status. Mr. Patch was especially eager that former enemies should meet; he had grown vocally anti-war in his last years. The New York Times quoted him as saying "Too many died. War isn't worth one life." World War I was ignited for the slimmest of reasons, like our own Iraq War, but with staggeringly more casualties: 900,000 Britons alone.

As a rule, veterans organizations are super-patriots who see it as their duty to uphold almost any armed conflict. It was newsworthy that Mr. Patch told the BBC, "Irrespective of the uniforms we wore, we were all victims." But victims of what? Peace movements have existed for decades (always remembering a remark of Mother Teresa's distinction that an anti-war movement isn't the same as a peace movement), yet nobody has successfully defused the aggressive impulse that ultimately fuels all combat.

Veterans of Mr. Patch's war were especially bitter about old men safe in their beds sending young men off to be slaughtered in the trenches. In this country, the most vocal opponents of the Vietnam War included decorated veterans like John Kerry, George McGovern, and Bob Kerrey, while among the staunch warmakers have been those who never heard a shot fired in anger, like Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, and Donald Rumsfeld. But the division between hawks and doves crosses the line of who served in the military and who didn't. We seem constantly to be looking over our shoulders at the last war and saying "Never again," until a new war comes about under new circumstances. The fact that World War II could happen a mere 21 years after the staggering conflagration of World War I demonstrates something important: pain and death don't prevent war. Sorrow and grief don't, either.

A viable peace movement will only come about when consciousness changes on a mass scale. As long as war seems tempting, for any reason, it will continue. The reasons in recent years have included global ambition, right-wing ideology, ignorance of the enemy's determination to fight, illusions that war can be free, with little cost on the home front and that old standby, working up public fear against "them," a crazed enemy who is focused on annihilating "us." If you argue against these motivations, the rationale for war simply slides into new argument; the impulse to wage war never runs out of them. The U.N. reports a steep falling off of war casualties in major conflicts since 1990, which may indicate that a shift in consciousness is already occurring. Even George Bush, the most reckless warmaker of his generation, refused to provide Israel with the high explosive super-bombs needed to undertake a preemptive strike against Iran's nuclear facilities (apparently a good deal of them are buried too deep for large conventional bombs to reach).

Yet the most heartening sign of progress may ironically be the absence of an anti-war movement, in that President Obama holds anti-war views, not as his ideology or crusade, but as a natural aspect of his generation's thinking. When you don't have to mount a campaign, with all the attendant anger, divisiveness, and virulent name-calling that has been part of the anti-war movement since any of us can remember, an invisible victory becomes possible. I post for peace regularly and watch with interest to see how many fires get started as a result. I won't be satisfied until the number is zero, and then, like civil rights, woman's equality, and potentially gay marriage, what was a point of violent contention can transition into a point of general agreement.

Five former Secretaries of State are among those calling for a world totally disarmed of nuclear weapons, and Obama echoes the call. No one knows how long it will take for peace to reach a critical mass in the world, much less a decisive event -- a symbolic tipping point -- that history holds in store. It won't be the slaughter of "these who die as cattle," as the poet Wilfred Owen wrote about Mr. Patch's war. Perhaps the general agreement that the Iraq War has been a sham and a disaster will one day be viewed in hindsight as a major breakthrough. Unless it is something far more powerful and invisible that we cannot see coming.

Published in the San Francisco Chronicle

deepakchopra.com
Follow Deepak on Twitter

Comments

[4evright]

Peace is not reality, unfortunately. WWII happened, because of evil Nazis who murdered millions of Jews, Christians, gypsies etc., and attempted to expand their power. Sometimes, you must go to war. And by the way, no, America is not like Iran, Cuba, and Venezuela. That's a ridiculous comment.

[Ergon]

Read any good books lately?

[IntellectuallyHonest]

I wonder what Britain's oldest soldier would say about an American soldier (or any soldier) running away to a foreign land to avoid shedding blood and living happily ever after. Is there really any difference between our country and places like Venezuela, Iran and Cuba that actively oppose us? I think not.

[GardenerNorCal]

I we want to remove all nuclear weapons, then first we need to consider Israel and Dimona.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/israel/documents/reveal/index.html

[JacqueItch]

I don't think the Iraq war was a sham and a disaster at all . . . . . when viewed from the perspective of profiteering--- it was eminently successful.
Maybe not as successful as Vietnam which went on for 12 long years and kept the weapons manufacturers most happy, but VERY successful for all of those corporations and contractors who make weaponry, provide for troops, rebuild the blown-up, act as mercenaries for security and training.

How many USA politicians got their palms greased by this latest one...?

People wanting an end to war is fine.
That's not the historical record.
What has to happen firstly is penalties for war profiteering . . because otherwise it is not the peaceful and civil folks who would ever consider war a "good" thing------but those parasites who feed from the blood money.
Take away their profits by having the US join in the World Court and putting all of the war profiteers on trial, including those who got kickbacks. Make them sweat, for years. Prosecute them.
Meanwhile continue to eliminate nuclear arms.

Peace WILL come, but it will never come as long as there is profit to be had through mass killing.
Psychopaths are greedy mofos.

[WorldofTomorrow420]

"... President Obama holds anti-war views..." - yeah right, that's why he's escalating the war in Afghanistan. Wake up and smell the cordite.

[observer100]

We have war because it is good for business. When war is not good for business, it will end.

[cct1984]

Reading a pacifist’s ruminations on the nature of war is like listening to an amateur foreign sportscaster call the Superbowl in broken English--it grates on the nerves and is full of flawed observations. There are many reasons why people/nations go to war but ultimately wars are about achieving some end, usually political in nature. As von Clausewitz aptly put it, "war is merely the continuation of politics by other means." This holds true regardless of the ideology of the ruling power. Your observation of recent "reasons" for war such as right-wing ideology and “illusions” of a cost-free conflict betray your prejudices. Surely someone as erudite as the good Dr Chopra realizes that Nazism, Fascism, and Communism.­..left-win­g ideologies all...have killed more in the name of their cause than any right-wing ideology. Any yes, for those of you who didn’t know, Nazism is a left-wing ideology--in German it means National SOCIALISM.

Another glaringly fallacious argument is that the lack of an anti-war movement heralds some American version of the Pax Romana--the peace movement to end all wars. The anti-war movement did not go away, they are simply keeping their powder dry because their guy is in the White House. They know on what side their bread is buttered and don’t want to rock the boat.

We may yet achieve utopia, but it’s not about to happen in our life time nor the lifetime of our children’s children’s children.

[MajorKong]

By your logic the DPRK must be a Republic like us, since it's the Democratic People's REPUBLIC of Korea.

Spare me the Jonah Goldberg Facism = Left Wing bs. That sound you hear is the entire Abraham Lincoln Brigade collectively spinning in their graves.

[hughfree]

I guess you just don't get it. It's about money, not some silly ideology.

[hughfree]

Its about mo.ney, no.t some si.lly ide.ology.

[JacqueItch]

What crapola!!

Nazism is listed as right wing conservative by most every source I have ever consulted.

You're spouting lies of your own manufacture, oct1984----try reading history.

[ffny]

Reality! I was watching a movie the other night, a movie i have seen several times...."THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM" at the end of the movie i heard for the first time a line uttered by Albert Finney's character.­.....Their are no Shites or Sunnis no Democrats or Republicans
it's only the HAVES and HAVE NOTS.

Unfortunately it is those people we fight the wars, for send our youth to die for. It is those people that seem to control the minds of the populace and that is why you can have an Osama, Saddam or Adolph just to name a few among our modern day despots running Somalia, Darfur, North Korea to name a few.

[Liberal Angel]

War is natural to us. Primates are some of most belligerent of creatures. That isn't an excuse for war, it's to state how deeply seated within us violence is. Even so, we know better. We know war isn't something good. We know fighting doesnt resolve anything. What war has ever truly resolved the root of any conflict? We should act like grown-ups and use our big-people words. Read the Iliad people. The story is the greatest anti-war story ever told. And for so much of our electorate and elected officials to proclaim Christ as their Lord, so many of them are so fervent in their bloodlust.

[daffey]

War is to nations what crime is to people. As long as they exist, they will be. Those who proclaim Christ have often felt the need to fight wars - because believing in Christ doesn't make one perfect. Just like being Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish, Atheist, Muslim, or any one of a million belief systems doesn’t spare people from the pains of faulty human behavior. But then, if we are all just primates, since we don't apply morals to primates, why apply them to us? Probably because, despite all the primate talk, most folks prefer to live in a world where we assume humans are something more than just primates (if a human primate wronged you, you probably wouldn’t shrug your shoulders and say ‘that’s primate behavior for you!’). And that includes that particular human characteristic of self sacrifice for others and greater causes, which is why people from all walks of life have gone to war - because it's the only way left to stop great evils. Such is the problems with living in a world where war - like crime - will always be. But then that’s sacrifice, a rather unpopular term and concept in the postmodern world.

[Frank Smith]

I think it's becoming more and more clear that the concepts of conquest and empire are anachronistic.

[Pablo175]

Obama is maintaining Bushes strategy in Iraq and escalating in Afghanistan.

He sold the electorate a bill of goods.

[daffey]

By the way, FWIW, of the wars of the 20th century entered into by America, only one was initiated by a republican ‘war hawk.’ The rest? By Democrat presidents typically associated with liberalism (including FDR and Kennedy). Bad, bad use of history here. The usual ‘funny how all of the truths of the universe suggest you should support one particular party!’ approach to things. Not that I disagree with nuclear disarmament, or support war. Who does? But some pretty fast and loose approaches to interpreting things here, the type that typically causes divisions, not heals them.

[Ergon]

Raygun- Grenada
Bush Sr. - Panama
-Iraq I
Bush Jr.- Iraq II
- Afghanistan

I count 5, not 1, but get your point.
I wouldn't consider the president anti-war either.

[ideasmatter]

Oh I see, FDR was responsible for Pearl Harbor. Apart from that though, Democratic Presidents have been just as belligerent as their Republican counterparts. You can't take that position though and still argue that Republicans are strong on defense and vice-versa. So what is it, daffey?

[MajorKong]

Once upon a time, the Republicans used to complain about "All the Democrats Wars".

Sadly, they got over it - in a big way.

[demigod]

I am very troubled by President Obama's Afghanistan policy - I most certainly did NOT vote for that, I think it is a huge mistake, I cannot understand his position, and I will march in the streets against it if I need to, just like I did against President Bush many times. It seems to go against everything he said about Iraq - I normally admire Mr. Chopra but his assumption that Mr. Obama is by nature anti-war is clearly not correct. If he were, he'd see what a loser Afghanistan is, and he would not waste a single American life there.

[aramos]

If you're not willing to fight for your freedoms or for the opprressed, prepare to lose the former and become one of the latter.

[Garioch]

The only people who fight for the oppressed are the oppressed and the freedom that nations fight for is the freedom to exploit them.

[MajorKong]

"If tyranny and oppression ever come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy" - James Madison

[nepharous]

The biggest contributing factor to war over the course of Human history has been religion. "God is on our side" has been the mantra for war and destruction forever. When we as thinking beings with freewill finally wake up and admit this we will have taken as huge step towards peace. Mr Obama's anit war stance is a natural world view for generation Xers. We grew up in the aftermath of Veitnam and have watched the Baby Boomers tear each other apart for 40 years over that war. It was engrained in many of us from our parents that war had to stop being a standard response to diagreement.

Xers on average are also much less religious/church oriented. Our anti war views most likely stem from this lack of hardcore religoius belief. We grew up in culturally mixed environments were your friends were every shade of color in the world. We grew up after the civil rights movement so its ethos runs strong in our collective philosophy. Us Xers are a cynical bunch and speaking for myself I would never war for an invisible being's affection or attention. War defiles the grace of life.

As the boomers time in power begins to draw to a close peace and compromise can be achieved on a global scale.

Just a thought.

[demigod]

You really, really need to learn how to spell, dude. You impeach your own education, and undermine the seriousness of your views. Could it be that even your handle is misspelled - perhaps Nefarious - which is an actual word with a wry definition ? Just asking. We "Baby Boomers" don't argue over the Viet Nam war due to some character fault, or biased upbringing. The Viet Nam war can still be argued in any bar in America because it was unnecessary, wasteful, and the product of political ignorance combined with naive nationalism. It was a war fought by the poor on behalf of the rich, prosecuted by politicians who placed America's prestige on the line in an argument that did not concern us, in a place far, far away, a place where the French had already been mauled for ten years. It presumed the unstoppable rise of Communism - a laughable contention today. Those who fought need to believe it counted for something, that's just human nature. Some went because they believed the right wing hype, some went because they were drafted and couldn't say no. The draft is something the Xers don't and can't understand. In short - the Viet Nam war has never been resolved in America, it has simply been covered up with scar tissue, to be measured as all other American wars are.

[nepharous]

You and I totally agree. I apologize for the spelling but my 2 year old was bugging the living hell out of me while I was putting ideas together. My point was that my generation lived with the long term emotional consequences of the conflict. It was our Dads that came back scarred and damaged. That is not thier fault. But the misery that came from that was taken out on alot of my peers in the form of abuse and neglect. Xers have had a fairly hard time later in life due to the dustruction of family that came from the war.

As we see it the Veitnam War fallout lead to the massive schism between left and right and as your generation gets older this difference has only hardened.

Xers are not that polarized politically or religously. We have a chance to settle down the cultural wars your generation just can't seem to move on from. Thats not meant as an insult only as a fact. If your intersted in a better view of your children's generation that I suggest "X Saves the World" by Jeff Gordinier

[nepharous]

Nepharous is the name of a local prog rock band I enjoy very much.