When I was in Vancouver, I got into a bit of an argument with some of the troops over beers up in Whistler. I asked them: what gives a man, specifically a soldier, the right to kill in order to achieve it’s mission?

After all, if someone is antagonizing me in my day to day affairs, I don’t have the right to pick up a weapon and harm them, or even kill them. And yet, soldiers worldwide are permitted to kill in the scope of their duties, and I wanted to know what they thought of this.

The argument quickly boiled down into semantics in a matter of minutes. We hashed out what is logical, what is rational, in whose eyes justification is given, and so forth.

Everyone felt that they had the right to kill in self-defense. If someone is shooting at me, I’m going to shoot right back – that was the consensus. But what gives us the right to kill a man even if he’s trying to harm or kill us?

Preservation of the self, came the answer. If it’s his life or mine, I choose mine. But then what makes our life any more valuable than his? What if he’s trying to kill us because he believes that we are a threat to him, his country, his ideologies? Who then has the right to judge and say, you are right and he is not?

The debate continued into the night, reaching no definite conclusion. It’s difficult to argue in shades of grey – especially when one’s personal practical inclination differs so vastly from what one believes in principle.

I don’t think that war truly has a place in a world that is inhabited by rational men. The old mode of might-as-right is an institution with ageless tradition and history; the armed forces are privy to a culture of honor and violence which glorifies the same, and ensnared the world in cyclical routes of destruction.

Therefore, abolishing warfare is not an easy thing to do. Not while the institution of war is a profitable an wide-reaching industry that gives purpose and jobs to countless people. Not while soldiers are part of some gentlemen’s club and are seen as heroes while in reality being pawns of those who rarely see them as more than bodies, more than numbers.

So how does one then wage righteous war? A war with a conscience? I think that would involve a deep dissection of the purpose of war, the aim, method, and evolution of war… This is without even taking into consideration the distinct perspectives of those involved in combat, both as a group and individually.

From a soldier’s standpoint, the dilemma is not so concerned with matters of morality. It is a career; it is a duty. You do as ordered so long as directives fall within the rules of engagement. You’re not going to stand in a firefight and debate ethics with your commander, and you’re most likely not going to think about it prior to, either.

But no matter which way you slice it, war cannot be had without soldiers. Even if it’s the government paying them and making the overall decisions as to which wars will be fought and which will be passed up, soldiers themselves decide to pick up their rifles and fight. I wish that more of them thought about the significance of their actions.

The playground of politics should really have no affair directing the lives of countless troops, committing them to battles not their own. But we are far from a perfect world.

It cannot be denied that militaries have done good in this world – even, ominous as it may sound, conquered evils. Speaking as a member of the Canadian Forces, I have seen us go to war-torn nations and attempt to provide a measure of safety and stability. We have provided humanitarian aid, built houses and schools, ensured clean running water, and more. Surely this is to be applauded, the spreading of our wealth of the necessities and amenities of life – and, where possible, the luxuries as well.

The issue is a two-headed beast, more often than not. And for a person who loves fighting – from debates to martial arts to full-on warfare – to argue against war in principle is odd, especially when that’s how he gets his paycheck. The issue remains, though: when I think of a world without even the thought of war in it, I envy that creation of my mind, even with its flaws – for it would still be far from perfect – though I would go mad to live there.

I fight to create a world where wars will no longer be necessary. I fight so that future generations won’t have to. That is my belief, that is my mandate. A world that is too good for me to live in, because my mind is too violent. A world for the future.

posted from my iPhone.