Allegory of the debate

This little parable came in my email today. It was thought-provoking.

Two armies meet on a field of battle. There is no hope for surprise; the enemy has already fired the first shot.

The leader of one army goes to his officers and says, “I think we need to fight this battle and we need to win. Are you with me in fighting this battle?”

A battle-hardened lieutenant is among those who agree. “We need to fight this battle and we need to win. I agree with this. Go ahead.”

The General then says, “Okay, my plan is to send our infantry up into this box canyon.”

The Lieutenant says, “Wrong unit, wrong place, wrong time. If you send those units into that canyon you will be boxing them in where they will be in danger and can do little good. You make them sitting targets for the enemy.”

The General answers back. “You are being inconsistent. First, you say we should fight this battle. Now, you say ‘wrong unit, wrong place, wrong time.'”

The Lieutenant answers, “I am not being inconsistent,sir. We need to fight this battle, and we need to win. Marching that infantry into that box canyon without doing a lot of preparation is not the best way to fight and win this battle.”

“So, what would you do differently?” the General asks.

“Well, I think we should first meet with our allies so that we can coordinate our attack. We need to convince them that this is right and add their strength to ours. This will increase our chance of victory.”

“So, you want to give them veto power over whether we defend ourselves. You want them to decide for us whether we fight or run away.” says the General.

“No, not at all,” says the Lieutenant. “I want a coordinated attack by the largest army possible, not an isolated attack by a force that is smaller than it could be and, honestly, smaller than it should be.”

“Make up your mind, Lieutenant. First you say we should fight. Then you say “wrong unit, wrong place, wrong time.” Now you say we should go over there and ask those other Generals whether we should defend ourselves, after you have already said that we should fight. You are a mass of contradictions, Lieutenant.”

“Permission to speak freely, General.”

“Granted.”

“Either you are too dense to understand basic military strategy, General, or you have some ulterior motive for lying about what I am saying. If you are lying, then you are contradicting your own belief that it is wrong to bear false witness against thy neighbor, because you are constantly bearing false witness here against me.

“What I am saying, and what any reasonable person knows that I am saying, is that it is a mistake to move your infantry into the canyon unless you have an exit strategy. Make sure you take the high ground first, and make sure that you can get your units out again if you need them someplace else.

“Also, a winning strategy involves a coordinated attack by the largest possible force. This means getting together with our allies and working out a joint strategy. The soldier who arrogantly charges in alone is far weaker, and far more likely to get himself killed, than the soldier that participates in the coordinated activity of a larger unit.

“Certainly, some of those allies may disagree with our plans. We may need to negotiate. That is the price of having friends — you have to have a little give and take. A person does not dictate to and bully his friends. He negotiates with them. No friend is going to have veto power over whether I defend myself. But, if I want his help — if two is stronger than one — I may sit down at the table with my friend and work out a joint strategy that we both think has a better chance of defense. Maybe he knows something that I do not. Maybe he understands something important better than I do. Either way, we are stronger as a team, than we are as separate individuals.”

The general then shakes his head. “I have allies,” says the General. “I have four other generals fighting with me. In addition, I have this contribution from thirty other armies.” The General points to a haggard platoon of infantry in random uniforms.

“This is your alliance?”

“How dare you insult these people like that! These are good, loyal, and brave soldiers! You take that back!”

“General, I agree. These are good, loyal, and brave soldiers. But . . . this is all you cold get? I am not impuning their fighting spirit or their character, I am amazed at how ineffective you have been at forming alliances. Victory is best achieved by the strongest army possible, and this is all you can get?”

“You are out of line, Lieutenant. This is insubordination!”

“You gave me permission to speak freely. I shall, until you revoke my right to free speech. Is that right revoked?”

The general looks out among the crowd. “The right to speak freely includes the obligation to speak responsibly. By questioning my plan, you are undermining the morale and fighting spirit of this army. Who in their right mind would follow a person who says, ‘wrong unit, wrong place, wrong time’?”

“I expect people to react with the recognition that they are better off with a winning strategy than a losing strategy, and ‘wrong unit, wrong place, wrong time’ makes the case that I, at least, can tell the difference.”

“That’s it, Lieutenant. This discussion is over. Back in line. We are going to do things my way and anybody out there who says anything against my plan is guilty of treason. You are either with me, or you are against me, Lieutenant. There is no middle ground. Either I am right, or the enemy is right. I am certain that, given these choices, you will agree that I am right. So, shut up and follow orders.”

THE END?

—
Matthew P. Barnson
– – – –
Thought for the moment:
“Gee, Toto, I don’t think we are in Kansas anymore.”