Morality depravity: A deliberate unethical provocation of values

The polarised political situation in Zimbabwe seems to be coming from a theoretical thinking that modernity only comes from the West and people in Zimbabwe and the Third World must loosely embrace this Westphalia thinking without interrogating it.
There has been talk of Security Sector Reforms emanating from civic groups, NGOs, the human rights groups, neo-liberal academics and politicians. It is a fact that Security Sector Reforms are a Eurocentric strategy that has been used in the post cold war to reform East European States and limit the Russian influence in Europe.
According to Timothy Edmunds, when West German absorbed the East German National Army all soldiers above 55 years, generals and admirals were retired. However, Edmunds notes with great concern when he looked at the challenges and problems for democratic oversight in regards to security reforms.
First, he notes that there is no clear and agreed set of definitions for Security Sector Reforms. He further states that “the current usage of the term Security Sector Reform tends to be dictated by the concerns of particular academic or policy communities”.
His second observation is that the reform seems to be talked about when security issue concerns increase in frequency in Europe and America. For example, in Europe, it was employed to limit the military might of Germany. It was also later employed after the fall of the Berlin Wall.
In these two instances it was used as a strategy to weaken West Germany after 1945 and weaken Russia’s influence after the fall of the Berlin Wall. The objective here was to strengthen individual states’ sovereignty in Europe against the might of West German.
Nicholas Williams argues that after the September 11 attacks; “the immediate priority of governments in Europe was to review and adapt their domestic security instruments to provide better protection and assurance to their publics.”
In that regard governments in Europe and America are increasing and transforming their armed forces to create effective rapid reaction capabilities, providing the means to intervene within as little as 10 days and wherever needed. The morality of it is to ultimately safeguard their national interests and sovereignty.
While the West practises a moral right to safeguard their interests, it is the opposite in Africa and in particular Zimbabwe. When the West enhances and develops its security institutions for effective and efficient discharge of security work, Africans particularly Zimbabwean neo-liberal academics, politicians and rights groups call for the reduction and removal of strong security characters. The call for security reforms by the civic groups is done in an unethical manner as a provocation of African values.
In the United States, the military has a moral and ethical obligation to defend American interests. According to an American Military Leadership Manual (AMLM) it is stated that: “The Military leader who deeply values loyalty to the nation sees himself as a person who will always do his best to defend American Ideals.”
AMLM is a military leadership manual which forms part of the American Military curriculum taught to military leadership. In my view, it is a manual that clearly positions American military leadership on the spiritual realms of politics. It is also a manual that guides American military leadership on what is morally and ethically right, how to act and when to act in defence of American ideals. This manual emphasises on loyalty and what underpins it. According to this living manual of America: “Loyalty to the ideals of the nation underlies other professional values”.
It further states that: “Being a professional military leader means being selfless, honourable and committed to serving the ideals of the nation. True leaders are always more concerned with service to America than they are with promotion or glory.”
The United States military leadership belief correlates with the important saying of Sun Tzu: “The state is as strong as its generals”. True to the above statement that has lived over centuries, America, China, Russia and Britain have lived their days riding on the comfort of a strong military leadership that correlates with a strong sense of national symbolism.
The teachings in the AMLM vindicate the Zimbabwean generals’ commentaries from being political and partisan to resemble a clear consciousness of their “will” to defend national ideals.
The statements they make are not a new phenomenon or a politicisation of the military, but are rather an assurance to the nation that the judicious generals are a symbol of national pride. Their commentaries should realign the thinking of neo-liberal academics, politicians and rights groups that modernity and civilisation are concepts that only exist in the Western world.
The generals, as men and women who took part in the liberation of this country have a moral obligation of reminding the nation that the ideals of our great nation Zimbabwe, lie in the declaration of independence and the constitution as is in America.
Our national ideals are also explicitly expressed in the hymns of the national anthem. The national anthem, clearly mentions to every Zimbabwean, loudly and vividly that: “Tinoda Zimbabwe neupfumi hwayo hwose.” (We want Zimbabwe and all its riches)
President John F Kennedy and Abraham Lincoln were assassinated by the military for what was viewed as mainly failure to contain communism in Cuba and Vietnam and for abolishing slavery respectively, what would be wrong with our generals reminding politicians that they would not respect puppets?
If military literature books that guide the American military leadership on how to defend American ideals are at the core of American military curricula, what stops our generals from reminding the nation about the need to jealously safeguard our hard won independence.
Are our generals not being more assertive and proactive by reminding the nation on the consequences of engaging in treacherous and treasonous activities that compromise the state interests and sovereignty?
Who is a better general between the Zimbabwean general who warns traitors that they would not be allowed to enter office lest they embrace liberation principles and the American general who keeps quiet and assassinates the traitor in his course of action? Food for thought?
General Washington of America said, “the time is now near at hand which must probably determine whether Americans are to be freemen or slaves, whether they are to have any property they can call their own, whether their houses and farms are to be pillaged and destroyed and themselves consigned to a state of wretchedness from which no human effort will deliver them.
“The fate of the unborn million Americans will now depend, under God, on the courage and conduct of this Army. Our cruel and unrelenting enemy leaves us only the choice of brave resistance or the most abject submission. We have therefore to resolve to conquer or die.”
This is an assertion that has lived in American military leadership minds for centuries up to today. So why not ourselves live to conquer in our small, but great nation?
Surprisingly, when our courageous highly assertive, proactive generals postulate that Zimbabwe shall never be a colony again and that the military institution shall not brook any puppetry that seeks to send Zimbabwe back to the control of our erstwhile colonisers, neo-liberals cry foul.
Fellow Zimbabweans, it must be clear in our minds that to our generals, national interests and State sovereignty are covenants that are universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated.
According to AMLM: “It is a sworn duty of military leaders to defend American ideals, numerous wars in the past two centuries were fought to preserve them”
It further states that: “Legal and moral actions that assist the army in defending the American ideals are right. Actions that are contrary to the ideals or principles upon which the nation (America) was founded are wrong.”
Thus when Major General Trust Mugoba says, “This we shall defend with our blood as we have always stated,” he means numerous wars can still be fought in defence of national interests, State sovereignty, national flag, coat of arms and indeed our national anthem.
So, to those in the traitor’s camp, I say emancipate yourselves from mental slavery or you shall be the victim of your treacherous actions. Remember democracy, governance, human rights, rule of law are not overrides of national interests and state sovereignty as in America.
EH Carr a “realists” said a State has a moral obligation to make a citizen “die” in defence of its nationhood”. Does this sound morally and ethically real? Zvabayaka chenjerai kupinda nemoto mudziwa. Icho!