ANZAC Day then and now

Why should I try dry my tears,
Or talk of victory?
For my heart lies dead in a nameless grave
On far Gallipoli

(Prose and Verse quoted in Gallopli to Petrov by Humphrey McQueen)

On 25 April 1915, soldiers from Australia, New Zealand, England, Canada, India and many other parts of the world participated in what was unambiguously an act of aggression. To be sure, it was not uniquely aggressive; it was, after all, in the midst of one of the most savage conflicts of human history. But it was as remote from a defensive maneuver as military excursions can get. According to the respected historian John Keegan, First Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill "initiated the Allies' only major excursion to outflank the Germans" by sending the navy and later troops to the Dardanelles. Keegan describes the excursion as "a (sic) heroic failure."

Churchill’s motive in sending troops to Gallipoli was to "[s]top men chewing barbed wire in Flanders" by knocking Turkey out of the war. Another key motive was to persuade ostensibly neutral Bulgaria, Greece, Romania and Italy to join the Allies. If Turkey could be knocked out of the war, it might prove to these neutral nations that it was best to side with the Allies as the likely winners.

That was the theory. In reality, the Gallipoli invasion was a shining beacon of reckless, negligent planning by ill-informed civilian decision makers who had no direct involvement in the exercise of the military excursion.

Does this sound familiar? It should. On 19 March 2003, the United States, with limited support from a few other nations, invaded the sovereign nation of Iraq. The key reason given was that Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, was a security risk to the world. US civilian decision makers hoped a successful invasion of Iraq would act as a catalyst for change throughout the Middle East. Whether this change would be in the form of the creation of ‘Western-style’ democracies or simply just pro-Western regimes is a whole other matter. Regardless, the Iraq invasion has cost the lives of several thousands. A respected Lancet study puts the figure of Iraqi deaths alone at around 650,000.

Prior to the Iraq invasion, record numbers of protestors took to the world's streets to oppose the war. In Australia, many thousands out of a traditionally apolitical society were part of that group. The Labor opposition went to great lengths to ensure that their opposition to what was quite obviously an unjustified war was as ambiguous as possible. However, once the invasion was under way, and Australian forces were involved in the war, most if not all mainstream commentators towed the familiar Anzac line. John Howard explained that since the war had begun, regardless of one's view of the invasion, Australians should support their troops. You could oppose the war and support Australian troops. But you must support the troops, because they are merely doing their time honoured duty. A duty exemplified by the first Anzacs at Gallipoli.

Our Anzacs, our young men, died needlessly at Gallipoli; as they did throughout the many killing fields of the Great War. They did not die out of necessity, but because someone with authority believed it was a good idea.

This reality should give us pause. For while our world is more sophisticated and technological in many ways today, there remains the ultimate reality that our lives, your’s and mine, are needlessly controlled by a few powerful people, mostly men, who deserve neither the privilege of our services nor the lives of those they carelessly toss away into that foul-smelling fire called war and conquest.

Lest we forget.