Round table
 

So I have been invited to a round table by the archbishop here in Luxemvourg about security in general.
The audience are mostly scholars participating in a catholic council called "Justice & peace", coming from all over Europe.
Subject was free to choose. Here are my 7 minutes :
Monsignor, Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen,



Thank you very much for having me here tonight giving me the opportunity to share some personal thoughts with you, based on my experience as officer of the Luxembourg Armed Forces.

The Luxembourg Army likes to see itself as a reflection of civil society: based on the same democratic values and composed by members of this society it is sworn to protect.

Certainly everybody can agree on society having foregone some dramatic changes over the last decades as it seems becoming increasingly individualistic and focused on individual freedoms. Individual comfort takes precedence over the needs and expectations of the community

Therefore I think our focus should be how this individualization impacts our communities, our internal and external security and social peace and if we will be able to maintain the moral contract between generations and different parts and groups that compose our society (young and old, locals and migrants, rich and poor)?

I, for my part, noticed a significant change in the behavior of young men and women who join the armed forces:

-Lack of general rules that guide the actions of young people. They are too often disoriented, overlooked or neglected in their attitudes and behavior vis-à-vis others.

-This lack of rules and frameworks is followed by a thirst for recognition, feedback and reactions to their behavior

The risk of failing to train able soldiers and form a homogeneous group, apt to carry out military tasks and handle combat situations is more important.

From a pedagogical point of view it is more difficult to form a group out of individuals from a society which is rather narcissistic. This requires more educational maturity of the instructors

Personally I discovered a higher acceptance as well as a swifter and more thorough execution of my orders when explaining the reason as well as the policies and political decisions leading to these orders.

Understanding the reason, moral and political justifications, allows to bind the members of the group to a more abstract idea than the simple fact of belonging to a group can.

Thus it is important for me to explain to the soldiers why we are committed in armed conflicts

Self-defense or the defense of the sovereignty of a state has been the most justifiable reason of "ius in bello" as a legal and moral reason leading to approval acceptance and support by the population.

But since the 70’s we have experienced an increase in military interventions based on the priority of defending human rights (even if sometimes it was a cover for purely political or economic reasons).

It is undeniable that a society is generally opposed to wars that are not self-defense ones. Clearly it is more difficult to explain that the defense of the country takes place in the Hindu Kush even if the moral reasons are valid. Even the Global War on Terrorism is not easily understood and accepted among the population as it is very abstract and seems far away.

Yet the identification with the mission and the motivation of the young soldier is in a strong correlation with society’s acceptance of the commitment and military missions. Honoring his commitment to risk his life for his peers, his group, the army, his nation and even a rather abstract idea that could be the human rights in a hick town in Afghanistan, is of paramount importance in order to be(come) a positive and active member of civil society, and certainly helps in the reintegration of the soldier into civilian life.

This recognition by others and the pride of soldiers to serve others and a just cause can be prominently observed in France and Belgium following the recent terrorist attacks and the presence of the military in the streets of the capitals and cities.

The reasons are :

-justification of the commitment as soldier, “to protect the nation/society”

-positive reactions from the different levels of society

-fulfillment of the social contract between the armed forces and civil society

In conclusion I would like to highlight the importance of the reason, the “why” to the generation Y and Z. The search for meaning in their actions and in their life is a major concern of the youth.

I must point out that it is not the role of the military to form, shape or even discipline the youth of a society and I finally would like to highlight the risk of failure in doing so as a society.

Not only will we continue to strengthen the individualization of our society, putting social peace and every generational contract at risk, but we leave room for dangerous splinter groups who will become the moral authority vis-à-vis our youth, as religious and political fundamentalists have already done.


What do you think? Does it seem to have a logical thought? Does it make sense to you?
And yeah, the English may sound europeanish...

undergone, I believe.

I think it's entirely appropriate that Pi be at a round table.

I like the progression of it. I wonder if regularjoe has some input for you?

So that's what you've been up to. :notworthy

You know I'm just doing this so that you can make distaintful comments.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

If you insist. :)


http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=taint

I think you'll have to add some filler if you're going to get to 7 minutes. Some more specific examples maybe? Did you time yourself reading it?

Nice choice in topic.

I'm my culture, some of your context would be problematical at best and offensive at worst:

Abstain from drawing conclusions for the audience; or, otherwise telling them what they should think unless you know for sure that you're preaching to the choir. "Certainly everybody can agree ... It is undeniable ... Clearly it is ... " This kind of wording, even if true, will turn people off.

"The Luxembourg Army likes to see itself ..." Don't purport to speak for a government organization unless expressly authorized to do so.

Maintain consistent terminology. The phrase "it seems becoming increasingly individualistic" relates to your topic. The phrase "They are too often disoriented" is a different issue that detracts from your topic.

You're giving a speech, not teaching a class. The written version should reflect normal speech patterns contained in paragraphs, not talking points (i.e. bullets) like "-Lack of general rules ... -This lack of rules ..." Bullets should only be in your working notes, between paragraphs, as a memory aid, so you don't skip something.

"Jus ad bellum" refers to the reasons for (i.e. right to engage in) war. The term you used, "Ius in bello" (Jus in bello), refers to the laws affecting conduct during warfare. You've been invited by clergy and they speak Latin. Don't get out of your depth.

"This requires more educational maturity of the instructors" You're not going to make any friends by inferring Army instructors are immature in any way. That's a broad brush.

IN SUMMARY is where you review the parts of your rationale you want to highlight. Keep it short. If you repeat too much to fill time, people will feel you're treating them as stupid.

IN CONCLUSION is where you consolidate what you think should be done. Emphasize your sincerity here. Then:

"What are your questions pertaining to what I've discussed? [time permitting/filling]

"Thank you for listening."
---------------------------------------------------------
EXAMPLE (YMMV)
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for inviting me to share my experience as an officer of the Luxembourg Armed Forces. Being in the Luxembourg Army, I see myself as an extension of the civilian society we have sworn to protect and its democratic values.

Society has undergone some dramatic changes over the past few decades becoming more individual oriented with emphasis on individual freedom and comfort over community needs and expectations. I believe we must adapt to this ongoing "individualization" process to better provide our communities with internal and external security, social peace, and to maintain the moral contracts between our many societal groupings ... generations, locations, immigrations and more.

Among Armed Forces recruits, over time I've noticed a significant change in their disposition which I attribute to a general lack of guidance for our young people. Their individualistic attitudes and behaviors are too often overlooked by others. This lack of societal rules and frameworks; however, is followed by a thirst for recognition, feedback and reactions to their behavior.

From a pedagogical point of view, it is more difficult to form an homogeneous group out of individuals from a society. The risk of recruit training failure becomes more significant. This requires greater educational awareness by the instructors.

Personally, I've obtained a higher acceptance rate as well as a swifter and more thorough execution of my orders after explaining my reasons as well as the policies and political decisions leading to those orders.

Understanding the reason, moral and political justifications for what's required of them better binds the members of the group to a community oriented greater purpose than just the simple fact of belonging to a group can. It has become more important for me to explain to the soldiers why we are committed in armed conflicts.

Self-defense; or, the defense of State sovereignty has been the most justifiable "Jus ad bellum", the legal and moral reason for acceptance and support by the population.

...

So... thanks for all your suggestions and comments (except xoxoxoBruce, of course).
I made some changes, trying to be less ex catedra and fixing obvious mistakes.
For a first it was quite a success. I surprised them with my perspective without missing the subject. Q&A was interesting and the dinner afterwards too as people had either no knowledge or followed and developed my line of thinking.
Thanks!!! http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/2016...e7cd9526a3.jpg

I'm glad it went well. Congratulations!

Wait one fucking minute! I expressed interest in what you've been doing and congratulated you on your success. What the fuck is you're problem?:eyebrow:

Is :notworthy a typo and should be :noteworthy?

I'm pretty sure Bruce was saying that he is not worthy after hearing what you were up to.

Haha I was pretty sure he was being sarcastic and telling me this was not worthy being discussed...

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

No.