Columns

One of the more interesting features of the coming battle for the presidency is how national security has become a central issue. It might be said that security — and who can best provide and sustain it — seems to have pushed aside other key concerns of the people.

Presidential candidates Gotabaya Rajapaksa and Sajith Premadasa: Giving priority to national security

They said that good generals would try to choose the terrain that suits them best to fight on. That might not be always possible today because warfare now is often against an unseen enemy. Modern technology has turned warfare into battles from thousands of miles away. It is often push-button war or killings that often obliterate not just the enemy but innocent civilians in some village celebrating a wedding or gathered for a funeral.

Some might recall the vivid scenes of the killing of Osama bin Laden and his family in a house in Pakistan, while US President Obama and his top officials and military watched from the safety of the White House.

One might say that at least the Navy Seals who participated in the elimination of the al Qaeda leader flew to the scene and were physically engaged in the attack.

But what of a soldier who pushes the button of a cruise missile from aboard a warship in mid-ocean and destroys military installations or civilian populations a long distance away? Are they to be characterised as war heroes and worshipped? Surely not! They are as much heroes as one who would sit at a computer and send off a message to someone in a country thousands of miles away.

Some might remember Donald Trump’s denigration of Senator John John McCain’s Vietnam war record during the US election campaign. Trump thought that Macain was no hero because he was taken prisoner. His 5½ year captivity during which he was tortured and humiliated was more heroic than sitting around at the White House sacking every official passing by, as it were.

Writing in HistoryNet some years ago a Vietnam veteran Karl Malantes recalled Trump’s words because he said it illustrates how confused people are “about words like hero, bravery, warrior and coward and how loosely we define them”.

Malantes, who was awarded the Navy Cross for “extraordinary heroism” while leading an assault on an enemy bunker makes some interesting, and one might say, valid observations on war and the difference between a war hero and a soldier in the battlefield.

“Acts of heroism are different from acts of bravery. People who are heroes go beyond what is expected of them, risking life and limb to benefit others. There is an altruistic aspect to heroism. All acts of heroism require bravery, but many acts of bravery are not acts of heroism because they are done for self-serving reasons.”

Malantes says that it has become popular to call everyone who serves in the military a hero. This trivialises the word just like calling everyone who wins a trophy on the field of sport a champion.

He says that most of those who serve in the military feel embarrassed to be called heroes. That is because most people in the military are not heroes. They are warriors.

All this came up during a discussion some Sri Lankan residents here had some days ago after presidential candidate Sajith Premadasa said at his inaugural rally at the Galle Face promenade, that if he wins he would place Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka in charge of all matters concerning security.

Why Sajith Premadasa made this announcement was surely because security issues had come to be a matter of central concern in the election campaign. It was    fortuitous circumstances that pushed the security issue right to the front.

The Easter Sunday suicide-bomb attacks in Colombo and elsewhere by hardline jihadist groups and the fact that security alerts sent by intelligence services of a neighbouring country were either ignored or downplayed by Sri Lanka’s security services resulting in the carnage that followed.

Immediately afterwards, Gotabaya Rajapaksa, another candidate, commented that the intelligence network he had set up during his days as defence secretary had been dismantled by the current regime. Had it been in operation, they would have not only acted on the intel received from India, but Sri Lanka’s security services would have prevented the operation or minimised its impact.

What happened provided Gotabaya Rajapaksa with an unexpected advantage because national security and the peace that reigned after the LTTE’s military defeat were quite evident.

Meanwhile, those including some leading Buddhist monks who called for strong leadership also joined the chorus promoting Gotabaya’s candidacy, with retired military officers, businessmen, academics and others pressing the youngest Rajapaksa’s case as the resolute new leader that Sri Lanka requires.

But at his first media conference a few days ago it seems the Rajapaksas made a faux pas. When questioned about LTTE cadres that surrendered to the troops and what happened to them, there was an attempt to kick the ball into the long grass. Eventually it was conceded that former president Rajapaksa and defence secretary Rajapaksa did not lead the army, that it was the army commander that led the troops and he should be asked what happened.

By saying so, they were conceding that it was the army commander of the day who led the troops. If that is so, then the accolades should also go to Field Marshal Fonseka who would head the security apparatus and be in charge of national security if Premadasa wins the battle soon to be fought over ballots.

It seems like a gift horse in the mouth, if Sajith Premadasa’s campaign team has any sense in how to make use of it.

Some years ago when preparations went ahead to commemorate Armistice Day, the BBC had several programmes, some recalling war time events and the experiences of surviving veterans from later wars.

One was a pilot who had flown 151 combat missions in Vietnam and had been awarded the Air Medal with three Oak Leaf clusters. When he returned from Vietnam his family and friends said they appreciated what he had done.

“But nobody called me a hero,” he said.

In an opinion piece he wrote, Stephen Kinzer, Visiting Fellow at the Watson Institute on International Relations, Brown University, made a keen observation.

“To admire soldiers who have performed acts of bravery is fully justified. Not all combat heroes, however, are eager to stand before thousands of people and accept the honour they deserve. If we truly want to promote a positive form of hero-worship, we should not only abandon the idea that uniforms automatically transform ordinary people into giants. We should also recognise the other giants who protect and defend our society”.

But not all our people think so as I discovered listening to the discussion that dragged into the night. If everyone who donned a uniform is a hero then what does one call those out of uniform but also performed heroic tasks?

But then there were heroic dBut then there were heroic deeds like the Sri Lankan army soldier who is said to have confronted an LTTE tank and immobilised it killing himself in the process, one of the discussants added. Yes indeed there were heroic deeds done. But not all deeds were heroic.

As those tales retold in the TV series reminded viewers, heroism is an act of great bravery. Calling every uniformed person a hero only diminishes the bold acts of those others who performed heroically.