Brownie's Continuum of Conflict

Preface: I was lying in bed when this continuum came to me out of the blue (or was it black?). It’s not perfect (or sanctioned by anyone other than myself), I know, as it is based solely on my own perceptions and experiences, but having a good deal of training from a military perspective, and a measured amount of religious and moral training, as well as a strong sense of conscience, I think it does a good job of explaining how I see conflict. Listed in descending order of severity.


Nuclear Warfare – Ex: Hiroshima, Nagasaki in WWII. Immoral. Unlawful. Immoral because of its indiscriminate and terrible level of destruction not only to participants, but to the environment, and the general physical/psychological/political welfare of the entire world population. Unlawful because it is certain to lead to the reckless slaughter of non-combatants and the destruction of exempted facilities (churches, hospitals, etc.).

Unrestricted Conventional Warfare – Ex: Dresden, Tokyo in WWII. Immoral. Unlawful. Immoral because it slaughters civilian populations and destroys civilian homes/business/industries unrelated to war-making capabilities. Unlawful because it does not exempt non-combatants and exempted facilities from targeting.

Chemical/Biological Warfare – Ex: Iran-Iraq War, WWI. Moral/Immoral. Unlawful. Can be either moral or immoral depending on whether non-combatants are targeted. Unlawful by international agreement.

Restricted Conventional Warfare – Ex: Gulf War, Grenada. Moral/Immoral. Lawful. Can be moral if undertaken in the cause of justice or self-defense, immoral if undertaken for any other reason. Lawful because by definition, non-combatants and exempted facilities are not targeted.

Guerilla Warfare – Ex: Viet Nam, El Salvador. Moral/Immoral. Lawful/Unlawful. Both its morality and lawfulness depend on the conduct of, and reasons for, the conflict; and whether non-combatants and exempted facilities are targeted.

Low Intensity Armed Conflict – Ex: Iraq/US War. Moral/Immoral. Lawful/Unlawful.
Same as above.

Terrorism – Ex: Madrid Train Bombing. 9/11. Immoral. Unlawful. By definition it targets non-combatants and/or exempted facilities, therefore it is both immoral and unlawful in all cases.

Assassination – Ex: JFK, MLK, Attempt on Hitler’s life in WWII. Moral/Immoral. Unlawful. Could be moral if the assassination leads to the greater good, immoral if done for any other reason. Unlawful by statute and international agreements.

Kidnapping/Torture – Ex: Terry Anderson in Beirut, Hanoi Hilton. Immoral. Unlawful. Grossly immoral for the human suffering inflicted on people unable to defend themselves. Unlawful by statute and international agreement.

Human/Civil Rights Abuses – Ex: Slavery and racism in the America’s, Tienamen Square, Suspension of Habeus Corpus in US Civil War. Immoral. Unlawful. Immoral because it removes the bonds of justice from the practitioner and the accountability of government to the governed. Unlawful for the same reasons, as well as by statute and international agreements.

Propaganda – Ex: US war films in WWII, Nazi anti-Semitic campaign in WWII. Immoral. Lawful/Unlawful. Immoral in all cases because it leads to the stirring of base emotions/perceptions/nationalism at the expense of human life, well-being and/or ethnic/international harmony. Lawful if truthful, doesn’t lead to unlawful acts, and is within statutes. Unlawful if otherwise.

Political Corruption – Ex: Watergate, pork-barrel politics, bribery, kick-backs. Immoral. Unlawful. Self-explanatory (If you don’t understand why, then you have a serious ethical deficiency).

Misinformation – Ex: Run-up to Iraq/US war, issuing false communiqués to detect eminent invasion of Midway Island in WWII. Moral/Immoral. Lawful/Unlawful. Immoral/Unlawful if the manipulation of information not only confuses an enemy, but creates false impressions and perceptions in the public that lead to the degradation of their general welfare and/or human/civil rights abuses. Moral/Lawful if undertaken in self-defense or in a just cause, and does not create: perceptions in the public harmful to their well-being, and/or civil/human rights abuses.



P.S. It’s amazing what comes to you when you’re quiet.

The Smeagol Conundrum

I’m continually amazed.

I forget who, but someone famous suggested that good fiction is a lie that reveals the truth. So forgive me while I return to more thoughts on Tolkien and The Lord of the Rings.

I guess it’s time to attack the heart of the whole thing, story-wise, character-wise: Gollum. The poor wretched thing.

First, let me say that my favorite character is definitely Samwise, because I can identify with him. An ordinary chap. Just helping out. Not really interested in ulterior motives or grand schemes unless they will hurt his master (friend). I have always liked face value characters. They are like building your story on a foundation of rock that everyone else gets to stand on. Or jump off of. A nice baseline. Plus he’s just a good bloke. My favorite character—but definitely not the most interesting.

But Smeagol…ah…Smeagol. Bane of his own existence. Shadow of himself. Tragic. Loathsome. Pitiable. In many ways, he seems to me to be Samwise gone horribly wrong. Or better yet, Samwise who made one wrong choice. One. He took the ring from Deagol. Every other event in his sad life stems from that one bad choice that he couldn’t undo.

He was cast aside by his family, his friends, society. He became loathsome and full of all pettiness. Abandoned by all who ever loved him, and all he ever loved. If we consider:

“We are lost, lost. No name, no business, no Precious, nothing.” -from The Forbidden Pool

“Lost lost! We’re lost. And when Precious goes we’ll die, yes, die into the dust.” -from Mount Doom

Then how can we find anything but pity, as Frodo did, and Bilbo before him, for such a being? Bereft and stripped of every dignity. No home to return to. And alone.

Imagine it. Alone. In a mostly empty continent, for five hundred years. Your only company? A snake that seeks to devour you. That lies to you. That you can’t let go, and that won’t let go of you.

If we find it difficult to find pity for him immediately, then we must consider what Jesus of Nazareth said: “I was a prisoner and you visited me. I was naked and you clothed me. I was starving and you fed me. If you do it to the least of mine, you do it to me.”

Are not all my brother? Therefore, are not all, as I am? Smeagol is the ultimate outcast. The sad thing is- he is us; and we are him. No one is perfect. We all, at some point, chose to do wrong. Did his punishment fit his crime? I think so. But I believe we’re all going to have to face the music sooner or later.

Some see Frodo as a Christ figure. I can see that—to a certain extent. But I can also see Smeagol as a somewhat similar type of Christ figure—again, to an extent. As some of the great satirical stories of our time have the quintessential anti-heroes (Rossarian in Catch-22, Winston in 1984, just about any main character from Vonnegut), so I have begun to think of Gollum as a sort of anti-Christ. Not in the theological, apocalyptical sense, but more as a combination of the anti-hero and the Christ figure.

Frodo and Gollum are quite similar, because neither is wholly good nor wholly evil. They both gave in to temptation. Just at different points in their lives. Neither can take full credit for destroying the One Ring. Then again, it would not have come to pass without both of them- and all their frailties and weaknesses. They both suffered in the end for their choices. But who paid the bigger price? It’s hard to say. In The Silmarillion, Tolkien said that death was the gift that Illuvitar gave to mortals. It was Morgoth who instilled a fear of death into men.

Death found Smeagol after his long lot of suffering. And Frodo got exactly what Smeagol got—just a little later. His suffering eventually found him. He saw his life changed forever, his body maimed, his soul unsettled by foul memories, his home and family wrecked, and no strength to face the world in which he lived before he gave in to the evil of the One Ring. Which is why he left from the Gray Havens. He could no longer bear his suffering. Just as Smeagol couldn’t bear his suffering, and went away to hide with his precious in the roots of the mountains for such a long, long time. The only difference I see between Frodo and Gollum, that really matters anyway, is that Frodo’s friends stuck by his side, did not abandon him, helped him and looked out for him. Smeagol was not so lucky.

I must admit, that for a long while, I abhorred Gollum and found no pity in my heart for him. Thankfully, that has changed. Because I now see that he is us, and we are him. It’s probably something we hate to admit, but when we do, we free ourselves from judgment by not judging harshly.

“Love thy neighbor as thyself.” –Jesus of Nazareth

“Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. Even the very wise cannot see all ends.” – Gandalf the Gray

Smeagol is just a dark, shadowy reflection of myself. Frodo is just a light shadowy reflection of myself. I am bound to fail. I am bound to my suffering. I am bound to death. But the promise of death is something I should not fear. Everyone goes through it. Maybe Tolkien was right, maybe it is a gift.

In the end, I guess I do not fear it, for I found pity in my heart for the creature most deserving of harsh judgment—Smeagol…and myself.

My God, your sea is so big, and my boat is so small.

Book Update: A Nibble

For those who don't know, I've finally had a request from a publishing company to read my manuscript for The Heart of the Graystone. I sent it off last week after whipping it into a more professional looking format. The double-spacing put it at about 440 pages (!), nearly a whole ream of paper to print it out. I was pretty surprised my toner cartridge held out, but it did.

I still haven't heard from three of the other publishers I've queried, which is a little surprising, but one flat rejection and one request to read the book was a 50/50 response, and better results than I expected. I ran around a little giddy for the first few hours after receiving the request, but I soon realized it wasn't much more than a nibble at the bait I sent out. If I am not a complete hack, (I think I am most of the time, though once in a while I write something I'm pleased with), then maybe I'll get this thing published. Knock on wood.

(The conscious manifestation of Brownie's insecurities continue chanting to the drumbeat of his id: I know I'm a hack...I know I'm a hack...)