This sentence is not only heard in modern science
fictions series but also elevates the minds in many military
propaganda. In this article it will not be further developed, if this
practice is consequently, and if at all, executed in real world
military units, but rather centers on the theoretical difficulties of
this idea. It is a question about individualism and collectivism that
sounds like a dualistic message.
“We
never leave a man behind!” This is a motivating sentence for a
young soldier going to risk his life for his country. She knows, that
given the case, that she is left back in the jungle during some
military action, her unit will come back and rescue her. But, why
does this idea inspire her?
If
this strategy is consequently applied it means that, when your
partner is left in the jungle, you will have to risk your life to
rescue him!
We
could now argue, that soldiers have agreed on risking their life in
favour of the greater good to save the nation from some foreign
threat.
Given
this is true, and among many other reasons for young people to become
soldiers like adventure, wealth, inexpensive higher education,
reputation and similar, serving their country and becoming part of
something greater might be a very important reason to enter the Army.
The
question is now, is it not inefficient to risk resources, time,
effort, energy in order to save one single person instead of going on
with the primary target of the unit? Certainly, it might be useful to
help some struggle mate through the jungle, because he could be
helpful in other situations and may recover very soon. But, the
situation under discussion is the risky action of going back to the
jungle in search for a lost compatriot somewhere out there, who might
be hurt or have given information to the enemy under torture. Does it
not set the whole military operation under danger? What about the
enemies knowing those tactic. They can use our lost soldier as a
trap.
All
this makes rescue actions look inefficient. But, if the soldier has
gone to the war in order to serve his country the best she knows,
Would it not be rather recommendable in case of greatest danger to
suicide and to avoid the temptation of the rest of the group to risk
her?
