Conflict and coward control

By Johnny D. Symon

I guess by now we've all heard about Boris Yeltsin's passing away recently. He received the usual fineries that world elder statesmen have received since time immemorial. Yeltsin was most famous during his political life as a classic drunk, and this, unfortunately, could prove to be how he is best remembered worldwide. But I'll remember him for something else that he did just a few short years ago, though there are quite a few Russian journalists and writers who are unable to remember; that Boris handed over the reins of power to Vladimir Putin.

It's not that those journalists and writers are suffering from some kind of collective amnesia over the Poot's rise to stardom and his position as Russian leader, simply put, this group of people are no longer writing about Poot-power any more because they're all six foot under and waiting for old Boris to come join 'em. They all wrote on Poot and his illustrious friends and partners, resultantly they met curious and unusual fates; one appears to have been thrown out of a top-story window, another gunned down on the sidewalk, another shot at point-blank range at their own front door, a few others were to find themselves glowing in the dark, they became geiger-fodder and then suffered horrible deaths.

But it wasn't just writers and journalists who met their Maker during the Poot Regime's first few years in power though; others have lost their businesses to the State, then mysteriously found themselves accused of money laundering and other false charges that corrupt regimes are wont to apply. Some of them had to flee the country and set up home elsewhere in locations that they originally believed to be safe havens, only to find out later that it ain't just the long arm of the law that brings fear, but the long arm of a corrupt dictatorship.

Syria and Iran have a different view of Poot and his regime than the one once held by Russia's dear departed journalists and writers, because both nations are well aware that Poot is their biggest ally and best arms provider. That's why I cared little for Boris Yeltsin and his full state honors send-off. I view Boris Yeltsin and his political efforts and affairs in a different light to the majority, even in the West. The bloody tragedy of Chechnya, when Yeltsin sent in the troops to prevent independence, was something I would not have been proud of had I been in Boris's shoes. But even that little episode pales into insignificance when we consider recent Russian history resulting from Boris's stand-in choice.

"It is not reasonable that those who gamble
with men's lives should not pay with their own."

H G Wells

In the good old days national leaders made strong decisions and stood by 'em. In the good old days a war decision would find that leader heading the battle, if he made a mistake he paid the price too. King Richard l, of England, commonly known as Richard the Lionheart, was an example of a national leader who not only called for war on more than one occasion, he lived up to the Lionheart title by leading the battle. He headed the third wave of the crusades in the Middle East, and returned home more or less in one piece. Richard ll, however, was the flip-side of the coin ... he was a coward, a bum and a moron, and his fears led him to confiscate the property of others and jail and exile all dissenters. His old Uncle John had more control over state affairs than Rich had. Both Richards were a prime example of that thing called chalk 'n cheese, the first was a man of bravery and honor, and the second was nothing more than a louse.

Richard l, not only professed to believe in God, he also put his faith profession into action. And this, I guess, is where I believe there lies the root of a problem together with a ripe bud of a solution to that problem: The problem being national leaders who most times resemble another Richard ll, and act in a cowardly manner against their opponents by utilizing the long arm of the State, whilst hiding behind closed doors. Richard l, waged war, sure, but all of his men knew that he would head the battle. Men of faith feared little and acted accordingly. They knew that if their war decision was not in line with God's Will, they were certain to lose, and possibly die in battle like Israel's King Saul.

All despots throughout history are alike, but recent-time despots knew that their crazy decisions would only affect their underdogs if things went awry, they, however, would still be free and easy. Most world political systems have a built-in recipe for cowardice in future leaders' process: Prospective leaders know that if placed in power, and war results, they'll be sitting behind a nice little desk, when everyone else is pullin' a trigger on their behalf. Most of them have no idea what their blood tastes like or smells like, whereas I, for one, will never be able to forget. If we returned our world leaders to their original position in history, their decisions would most likely be longer in the making and surer when they were unveiled.

Israel's Six-Day War was proof in itself that "if God be for us, who can be against us?" still applies. And even as regards domestic issues, a true person of faith who applies that faith toward the economy and the general populace shall find that poverty will dwindle away, and the economy will prosper. If faith is not present, the opposite shall occur. (See Deuteronomy 15, and Within Thy Gates for the only solution available to end poverty and national debt.)

A soldier's faith has always been tried in the fires of war, but the professed faith of our world leaders no longer reaches out to the flames of world conflict, therefore their faith is questionable, in some cases, even doubtful. General Patton was a man of faith who exhibited said article in the thick of battle. Stonewall Jackson gained respect even from his enemies, not just due to his bravery in battle, but more for his unshakable faith in God and the Bible. Real leaders, with real faith, always end up on the front line one way or another. Their faith in action inspires and builds the faith of their fellow men, and that's the key I believe, to unlock the mysteries of world conflict.

National leaders, from time to time, are faced with situations that spell conflict, but their decision no longer requires their presence on the battlefield, and I believe this is a mistake. Some folks may argue that by compelling national leaders to appear on the battlefront could lead the country into danger if that person is killed, and I believe that it's flawed logic, because if a leader's faith is true, his decision also shall be true, meaning that it's unlikely that he would fall at battle. And equally, if the leader of a nation believes he would not be safe on the battlefield, why should his soldiers feel any safer when carrying out his orders?

Leaders who declare war should travel the same road as Richard the Lionheart, King David, or Alexander the Great, and their ilk, and stop behaving like stupid old lady-fondlin' drunks, or ex-KGB yellow-backed cowards, who follow along the same political mindset as King Richard ll or Caligula. Maybe then, times of war shall be few and far between, and victory on those few occasions shall be as sure and certain as Biblical accuracy and the faith of those from the past who put it all into positive action.

© Johnny D. Symon