If born 100 years earlier- many of us more passive or, fragile individuals- would not have survived.
Disease, disasters, famines, violence, and even childbirth were all hazards to which the meek
Presently, it is possible for those who do not possess the courage, will, and/or ability to wage war, to
both survive and effectively influence human affairs. It is the soldier, gone before, contributing to
present circumstances favorable to this existence.
In the early 21st Century, the world continues to be a violent place yet now, more the ever before,
there are ever-increasing numbers who have never witnessed or participated in organized
violence. Does this lend to the accumulation of true strength or does it make us soft and ill-
equipped to survive adversity... the type that history suggests is the prevailing ‘way of the world’?
If violence and chaos are the predominant forces that shape our world, must we then be ever-
preparing for violence seen as inevitable? Those without the strength and/or desire to wage violent
conflict and/or, are reluctant to confront harmful words/beliefs, are wise if to cultivate broad-base
coalitions to assure mere non-violence does not equate to a collective vulnerability.
Do the meek and/or fragile represent the cause for which so many courageous people have
sacrificed their life? How could a pacifist dare to think this possible? If not for all, then who?
Perhaps the answer lies in the response to whom is served by the soldier’s sacrifice….
Does the soldier of violent conflict fight in service to the cause of the future soldier or, is it the
cause holding that one day those with solutions- alternative to violence- will be given greater voice
The fragile/meek are the first to parish if immersed in violent conflict... Alternative
means of resolution beg discovery and application. There are those not of the
strong nor, the courageous. We do not welcome death for the cause of country but
we sense a time is near in which the whole of humanity will allow accommodation to