Honorable Combat

Somewhere in that difficult nexis between a civilized human being and a combat soldier lies the idea of honorable combat. In a civilized world this oxymoron is possible only in personal self-defense. A combat soldier does not live in a civilized environment; the soldier's world is chaos, death and destruction. The combat soldier is the embodiement of violence delivered in service of the nation. Somehow that violence must be legitimized, must serve an honorable purpose if the soldier is to live with him or herself.

I have tried to write about honorable combat several times but never came up with much because the concept is so inherently contradictory. Today I find a very good description of honorable combat from Kevin Tillman, describing what happened to his brother, Pat.

"I don't think that punishment fit their actions out there in the field," said Kevin Tillman, who was with his brother the day Pat was killed but was several minutes behind him in the trailing element of a convoy and saw nothing.

"They were not inquiring, identifying, engaging (targets). They weren't doing their job as a soldier," he told an investigator. "You have an obligation as a soldier to, you know, do certain things, and just shooting isn't one of your responsibilities. You know, it has to be a known, likely suspect."

The quote is well down in a long article which on its own, is worth the read.

Knowing whom you are shooting is as important as knowing why. A valid purpose, good judgment and good aim make combat about as honorable as it will ever get.


postscript

The linked article also surprised me in that Kevin Tillman was serving in the same theater, let alone on the same mission. I thought the military did not allow siblings to serve together in combat. But then again, four brothers served together in Vietnam.

[crossposted]