Praying for the Soldier & Condemning the Commander

On 25th April every year, Australians take the day off to commemorate ANZAC day, remembering the sacrifice made by those who fell, or are in the process of falling, on the battlefields. The day is normally celebrated by dawn servicesin specially designed memorial sites across the country. In Turkey, a special service is also held in Gallipolli, where Australian and New Zealand troops, under British command, suffered massive losses in a now legendary failed amphibious attack against the Turks in the First World War.

To the Author, the commemoration of ANZAC day is important for two reasons. The first is not controversial, one commemorates this day to remember the sacrifice of soldiers who lost their lives doing what they were ordered to do. The second reason however may prove more contentious. Whilst these must be bracketed from the actions of the soldiers, it is important, in this Author's opinion, to keep in mind also those who sent those soldiers to their deaths, and remember that often, the day for the commemoration for those who lost or are losing their lives are often mobilised for the purposes of the Modern State, rather than for those that reside within them.

According to William Cavanaugh's Theopolitical Imagination, the Modern liberal State, because it is built on atomistic foundations (meaning that it is meant to allow anyone to do whatever they want), the means to maintain social cohesion can only be effective when it is backed by the threat of violence. According to Cavanaugh then, the use of violence in the name of all the atomistic agents that reside within its borders represents the best way to bring them together to form a cohesive whole. Nothing brings individuals together like a common enemy, and nothing gives individuals that originally had nothing to do with each other a common purpose more than engaging in warfare against that common enemy. If the enemy of my enemy is my friend, then fighting that common enemy would make us all friends indeed.

If Cavanaugh is right, then it makes one pause as to the reasons for the resort to war, which becomes more proficient in tearing bodies apart as the centuries roll on. Can one be conclusive that it is solely for the purpose of defending the community, or for the aggrandisement of a political entity that is not necessarily connected in any substantial way to that community? It is important to note that the significance of Gallipolli lies not in the strategic realm, for it was strategically a disaster; rather the significance of the event that the Author keeps hearing lies in the giving birth to Australia as a country. Though it legally took shape in 1901, the Modern State of Australia only saw the light of day in a real way on the battlefield, amidst the bodies of thousands of human souls. Collective identity linked to the Modern State in a sense, necessitates the bloody sacrifice of those that reside within its borders.

It is significant that quasi-religious terms surround the celebration of this day. The memorial sites are often called Shrines of Remembrance, and the trip to Gallipolli is always called a "Pilgrimage" on the news. This is no accident for Cavanaugh, who argues that war is actually a deformed liturgy of the State, a sick parallel to the sacrificial liturgy of the Church.

If this account is correct, then it is important to ask oneself why one keeps "the ANZAC spirit" alive. One should keep it alive through the weeping over the loss of brothers, fathers, sons, and now, daughters, mothers and wives who vowed obedience to their commanders, and paid for it with their blood. That should be kept separate from those whose decisions sent them to their deaths, and for the idol of the State to whom their deaths pay homage. When the banner that says "defending our way of life" flies, one should ask boldly exactly whose life is being defended.