Thank goodness we are finally having these debates again, as they have been missing in action for the last few years!

I agree with the article overall. However, I don't think it goes far enough. While examining the justifiability of Australia’s participation in wars is preferable to uncritical acceptance, I would rather we went deeper into why war has come to have such a hold over Australian culture.

Since becoming involved in the peace movement, I have been made increasingly aware of the extent to which Australia’s long and often colourful history of proactive peace activity (especially in WWI) has been repeatedly suppressed, sometimes violently so.

Yet our war culture has been given every encouragement – in the form of government spending, media space, education curricula and extra-curricular school programs, and publishing, film and television projects, to name a few.

For reasons that continue to escape me, Australian culture considers war sacred and those who fight in wars are treated with utmost reverence. Yet, peace activism is seen as a reprehensible, treasonable, morally dangerous activity, and peace activists are routinely pushed to the sidelines of any debates about our cultural identity.

Until we come to terms with this howling double standard, Australia will just keep on doing what it does best, i.e. Fight the war now, ask the moral questions later.

Good essay.

I find this entire topic quite baffling. We seem to be indulging in a collective nostalgia for the "good old days" when everybody had a collective and very meaningful project that they could identify with, other than their own narrow self interest. Apparently there is also a record number of new books on our Oz wars too--both already published and in the pipeline.

It could even be said that we are collectively invoking, or praying for, a return to these "good old days" of collective meaning and purpose.

I would even call it a cult of death. Not dissimilar to the catholic practice of revering the bones of saints---even to the extent of taking the bones (and even a cross) on a world-wide tour so that the "faithful" (or rather completely gullible) can see them (the bones).
Be careful what you prayer for.

Actually, I think that ANZAC Day is probably the least appropriate day to discuss all these things. They should be discussed throughout the year, by all sorts of commentators in various fora. But when the days of 'commemoration' come around (ANZAC day, Armistice day etc.), the arguments and discussions should cease and we should come together to remember the fallen. The soldiers and civilians that died in the belief that they died for a better future for everyone. It does not matter whether this belief was justified or not.

Also, I think that the author (and other authors on the same topic) should be very careful about falling victim to the Historians Fallacy.

The problem with asking this question "Why" did we fight....?

is that the answer is never simple.

"They attacked us"... would be so easy and simple.

In reality, we were involved in the Boer war because we were British Subjects in an Empire which decided it would fight certain people.
Actually.. more correct historically, I think the Boers decided to fight the British...over various perceived grievances.

WW1 becomes more complex. What many on the left seem to deliberately ignore in their frantic and hysterical attempts to undermine any sense of "Nationhood" which of course is a barrier to "International Socialist Utopia", is the fact that the 'peace' such as it was, existed as:

1/ The outcome of previous wars.
2/ The balance of power, based on alliances.

No war ever produces happiness on all sides, and I absolutely believe that the 'peace' of one war simply sows the seeds of the next. So, alliances and power balance is needed.

Once such an alliance is challenged or threatened, the very nature of alliances neccessitate quick and decisive action to remedy the breakdown and restore 'the peace'.

WWII again, can be seen in terms of 'the seeds' being sown after WWI and so on.

Korea and the cold war.. were the 'power balance' at work again.

Sometimes, it could be quite legitimate to 'invade' a country like Germany BEFORE the predictable happens. Which looks 'bad' to those who enjoy heaping scorn on those they see as 'glorifing war' but the reality is, leaders must make strategic decisions in the interests of the greater peace, and minimal loss of life. This CAN mean 'invasions' at times.

As Bugsy says.. it's a time for remembering the fallen, not whether they were 'right' or 'wrong'. they followed orders, plain and simple.
If we need to find guilt and wrongdoing, it will be found MUCH higher up the military/political pecking order than those who have died in combat.

Seems to me, there is a lot of anti-ANZAC rhetoric about on OLO at the moment.Is the socialist book club having a trash the ANZAC’s special or something?

SJF,

You can’t understand why those who give their lives in service to their country are revered?

These people responded to a call from their country to serve. They put aside their personal preferences and subscribed to a higher calling. These people were the ones who asked “why should someone else shoulder the burden, why not me”. Misguided or not these people believed in the idea that real democracy, real society comes with responsibilities as well as rights. To many on the left today that is an entirely foreign concept.

In WW1 there was perhaps some naivete on the part of those who signed up. Yet young men signed up in similar numbers for WW2 with the full knowledge of what war could do. These people died in staggering numbers yet there were few desertions.

Most Australians considered themselves British subjects and would have scoffed at any suggestion that Britain’s business was somehow not our business. Volunteers form across the empire responded to the call. Canadians, South Africans, Aussies and Indians all signed on in support of what was considered the ‘mother country’.

Germany invaded France and Belgium. Just like they did the second time around. Funnily enough the French were not real happy with that outcome. As allies of France with binding mutual aid treaties, it was Britain’s duty to come to the aid of France and Belgium.

Peace activism never had much support from the general community, because the general community understands that the soldiers who fight Australias wars are us. They are not some obscure group, they are our fathers, brothers, sons and now, mothers daughters and sisters. We cannot disown them anymore than we can disown ourselves.

The other point is that the vast majority of people actually understand that the fight was justified, indeed in WW1 and WW2 it was imperative. So the hippy dippy bunch who spout socialist nonsense never got much of a following.

For goodness sake Paul L. We had young men and boys wanting an adventure in WW1 and to go home to the mother land with a free ticket. They were not glorious heroes going to give their lives for anyone, they wanted to have a lark then go home and celebrate christmas in England. Will you get over the boys own adventure stories please?

More of the soldiers died of the pox than died of anything else, something that has been forgotten in the last few years of jingoistic nonsense.

War is never even remotely sensible and is always the total failure of imagination and commonsense and it is time we cancelled anzac day until we grow up enough to stop sending young men to pointless war zones.