Yes, Sir, No, Sir, I will obey, Sir

The News
The British Government have recently unveiled their plans to give members of the Armed Forces 'a fast-track route into teaching', essentially giving retired veterans the opportunity to turn their hand to education even if they do not possess a university degree.

My Take
While many have objected to the British arrangement on the grounds that it devalues the education system and insults current teaching professionals, I would argue that this is one of the least-concerning aspects about this proposition. I think a far more terrifying facet is the prospect of placing our next generation in the thrall of excessively violent and nationalist puppets.

Advocates insist that the military ethos of quality leadership, discipline and obedience is ideally transferable to the classroom, and would instil in the next generation similar values of citizenship. However, given that the primary purpose of education is to open the minds of the young, to encourage them to think for themselves, and to equip them with the tools to do so in later life, the prospect of ex-military personnel in the classroom is disturbing to say the least. It is all too apparent how their narrow-minded dogma would stunt the growth of a young person's intellect and stifle their ability to mature.

Of course, it is also easy to see why the Government would want values such as unquestioning obedience, civil discipline and societal sacrifice drummed into the young and impressionable. To have the obedience of the next generation, to have them all united behind one banner (theirs) would effectively silence opposition and greatly improve the ability of the Government to act unilaterally and dictatorially. Worryingly, this is clearly the intention of this fast-track plan. In the Armed Forces there is a reluctance, a squeamishness if you will, to criticise the Government. Similarly, outside the Armed Forces, there is squeamishness to criticise the men and women who sacrifice for our 'protection'. If the next generation were to be raised by such squeamish people, we would reach a situation where those in power need never fear such criticism.

If this is not enough to convince you of the proposal's deficiencies then just bear in mind that it is an adoption of a plan already  implemented in America, (with the difference that across the pond over 99% of participants already had a degree) therefore aligning us worryingly closely with the Yanks 'unthinking glorification' of their Armed Forces.

And we all know how well that's working out for them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_casualties_in_Afghanistan

No-one has ever 'HAD' to kill...

So, this is a little off-topic. Well, I just mean I'm bringing it forward a bit, I would probably have got round to it in the end.

I've just been watching 'SAS: Are You Tough Enough?', a sort-of documentary/ competition to see if civilians can hack it in SAS selection. It's very entertaining and I recommend it, but that's beside the point.

The issue I wish to address here is a small sentence, near the end of the show, from Barry Davies (Ex-SAS WO) in which he says 'Until you've had to kill somebody, errm, it's really very hard to talk about it.'

Now, I don't dispute the main message, that someone who hasn't killed another can not talk about such things with such ease, but I do take umbrage with the insinuation that killing is a necessity, a duty, an unavoidable occurrence.

There is no-one who has ever 'had to kill somebody'; killing has always resulted from a conscious choice and consequential decision, ergo, a desire. Whether it be the decision to pull the trigger, aim at the target, or even just to join the Armed Forces (in the knowledge that you will be forced to make those decisions), there has always been the option to not kill.

Yes, this may mean abstaining from service, firing wide, or even simply not pulling the trigger, but the fact remains that every man killed has been the result of another's intent and desire.

Even when one's rights and freedoms are threatened, the act of killing is a conscientious decision that those rights are worth more than the other man's life. Whether you agree that they are or not, there is no disputing that killing is a choice, one that every soldier must make and live with the consequences.

There is no shifting the buck to someone else and, therefore, Barry Davies ought to choose his words more carefully, in order to avoid appearing casuistic...