1:14:26
WSDC 2019 Grand Finals - India vs Canada
Mai Mokhsein
Overview
This video presents a debate on the motion "This house regrets the glorification of soldiers as heroes." The proposition argues that glorifying soldiers leads to negative consequences such as worsening military actions, harming current and prospective soldiers by coercing them into a difficult profession, and fostering toxic nationalism. The opposition contends that glorifying soldiers is crucial for encouraging recruitment, ensuring accountability through higher standards, and providing societal support for veterans. Both sides explore the implications for military interventions, the treatment of soldiers, and the impact on national politics and societal values.
How was this?
Save this permanently with flashcards, quizzes, and AI chat
Chapters
- Glorifying soldiers means viewing them as perfect, heroic, and embodiments of the nation, often through parades and awards.
- This glorification creates a blanket narrative that simplifies complex realities and prevents criticism.
- The alternative to glorification is respect, similar to that given to doctors or firefighters, not hero worship.
- The debate focuses on the negative impacts of glorification, not on whether soldiers deserve respect or recognition.
Understanding the proposition's definition of 'glorification' is crucial for evaluating their arguments about its negative consequences.
Massive award ceremonies for soldiers, military parades, and posters encouraging people to 'serve your nation'.
- Worsening Military Action: Glorification makes humanitarian interventions less likely due to the 'body bag effect' and increases self-interested interventions (like drone strikes) with greater impunity.
- Hurting Soldiers: It increases government coercion for recruitment, especially of vulnerable populations, into a profession with inherent harms and poor conditions, while also making it harder for soldiers to report abuses.
- Toxic Nationalism: Glorification fuels nationalistic fervor, leading to more damaging retaliatory actions and worsening political discourse.
These arguments outline the direct harms caused by the societal narrative of soldier glorification, impacting both international relations and individual well-being.
The 'body bag effect' making interventions like the one in Mogadishu less likely, or border skirmishes leading to damaging retaliatory strikes.
- Better Counterfactual: Without glorification, soldiers might be seen as expendable, leading to more interventions and less care for their lives, potentially increasing conscription.
- Increased Accountability: Holding soldiers to a standard of heroism encourages codification of conduct (like the Geneva Conventions) and institutional accountability (like war courts).
- Societal Buy-in: Glorification is necessary to attract individuals to a difficult profession and to gain public support for necessary military actions.
- Internalized Heroism: Soldiers are more likely to act sacrificially and prevent war crimes if they view themselves as heroes.
The opposition argues that glorification, rather than being harmful, is a necessary mechanism for effective and accountable military operations and societal support.
The establishment of the Geneva Conventions as a result of viewing soldiers as important individuals deserving of dignity.
- Critique of Opposition's Counterfactual: Glorification actually legitimizes policies like military conscription and makes it harder for individuals to make free choices.
- Focus on Respect, Not Heroism: The alternative is treating soldiers like other professions, providing tangible support (like PTSD funding) rather than just words.
- Worsening Nationalism: Glorification incentivizes nativist tendencies, entrenches majoritarianism, and legitimizes military coups or generals in politics, especially in developing nations.
- Impact on War: Glorification leads to covering up war crimes and makes both humanitarian and self-interested interventions worse.
This section refines the proposition's stance by directly challenging the opposition's core claims and introducing the significant danger of toxic nationalism fueled by soldier glorification.
The example of politicians using their military past to gain public service, or military coups in developing countries.
- False Dichotomy: The proposition's case relies on a false characterization of glorification as making soldiers infallible or war itself glorious.
- Focus on Individual Acts: Glorifying soldiers celebrates specific heroic acts and sacrifices, not war itself, which remains tragic.
- Preventing Atrocities: Glorifying soldiers, not treating them as expendable pawns, is essential for preventing atrocities and ensuring accountability through structures like the Geneva Conventions.
- Better Interventions: Glorifying soldiers encourages humanitarian interventions and provides solace to families, while toxic nationalism (from the proposition's side) is more likely to dehumanize enemy civilians.
The opposition attempts to clarify their position, distinguishing between glorifying individual soldiers and glorifying the military apparatus, arguing their approach leads to better outcomes.
Remembrance Day being a sad occasion that acknowledges loss while still honoring soldiers' sacrifices.
Key takeaways
- Glorifying soldiers can create a narrative that prevents criticism and hinders accountability for abuses.
- The debate hinges on whether glorification leads to more or fewer harmful military interventions.
- Societal narratives about soldiers impact recruitment, conditions of service, and the willingness of individuals to join the military.
- Toxic nationalism, potentially fueled by soldier glorification, can have severe negative consequences for political stability and inter-group relations.
- The distinction between glorifying individual soldiers and glorifying the military institution is critical to the debate.
- Accountability structures like the Geneva Conventions are presented as a product of valuing soldiers' lives and dignity.
- The proposition argues for treating soldiers with respect akin to other essential professions, while the opposition believes a higher standard of 'heroism' is necessary.
Key terms
Glorification of soldiersHeroesMilitary interventionsBody bag effectCoercionToxic nationalismAccountabilityConscriptionGeneva ConventionsPTSD (Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder)
Test your understanding
- What are the three main negative consequences of glorifying soldiers as heroes according to the proposition?
- How does the opposition argue that glorifying soldiers actually leads to greater accountability?
- What is the 'body bag effect' and how does it relate to military interventions in the proposition's argument?
- Explain the opposition's distinction between glorifying individual soldiers and glorifying the military apparatus.
- What alternative to glorification does the proposition suggest for how society should view soldiers?