The Bishop’s Debate confronts some truths and representations of war

This year’s Bishop’s Debate attracted an audience to the Town Hall on Tuesday (September 23) of over a hundred  – many of them long-standing Malburians.

To debate the theme of War, Truth and Literature  the chair, Rosemary Cook, had assembled a strong panel: Dr Colin Irwin is an expert on conflict resolution – working from the Middle East to Northern Ireland and far beyond.

Sergeant Simon Harmer served with the Royal Army Medical Corps until 2009 when serving with the Coldstream Guards in Afghanistan he lost both legs in an IED explosion.  The Very Reverend June Osborn is the Dean of Salisbury Cathedral and a member of the Government’s WW I Centenary Advisory Group.   

Allan Mallinson is a retired general, a military historian, successful author and writes on defence matters for two national newspapers.

Dr Irwin took the audience through his experiences in conflict resolution particularly in Northern Ireland and his understanding of Inuit culture.  The Inuits’ approach to disagreement is to discuss and discuss until a consensus emerges.

In Dr Irwin’s view everybody has a narrative and listening and understanding each other’s narrative is vital to resolution and helps limit the possibility of war.

Sgt. Harmer discussed his experiences both at war and in rehab and recovery.  He gave us the new recruit’s view of the Army: most would believe it to be an adventure and the very grave risks would be understood, but “won’t happen to me”.  The excitement of action and survival was contrasted with the sorrow of casualties.

Allan Mallinson focussed on the aspect of truth in warfare.  A broad definition of ‘the truth’ is difficult, truth being a personal interpretation.  War is equally difficult to define and to help he provided many quotations involving influences from evil to adventure.

He felt that new recruits were told about the risks of war.  The philosophy of a Just War featured in his presentation as it did more strongly in the last presentation.

The Very Reverend June Osborn thought that the ramifications of the Just War philosophy should apply strongly as we consider the morality of war, its rights and wrongs, the need for mature reflection and, particularly, proportionality.

She considered the 1.3 million casualties from both sides at the battle of The Somme.  Were the gains proportional to the losses?

When steering a way through the morass of moral dilemmas, she though it would help to expand the range of views on war to include poets, artists and philosophers and academics rather than just politicians and the military.

The presentations were followed by questions from the floor.  Many interesting questions were raised broadening the topic out:  ‘During and after war how do we plan to manage the peace?’  ‘Is the threat of nuclear war disproportional?’

Few asked about the media aspects of the debate subject, perhaps that indicated their satisfaction with the panellists’ coverage.  However in wrapping up the debate, Rosemary Cook tried to draw the panel’s attention to the relevance to this debate of fiction, drama, poetry, cinema and computer games.

Although the debate was well considered and addressed the conventional aspects of war, it was thought by some members of the audience that the panel had not given enough weight to the television and on-line war fantasies played out in our living rooms.  Have these made us cautious about war or simply made the job of the recruiting officer much simpler?  Do they illustrate the gruesome realities of war or simply make war an adventure?

The brief for the debate was wide, encouraging the participants to bring their expertise to bear on less obvious causes of war.  Although the presentations were interesting and well researched the narrow focus was a little disappointing – it appeared somewhat narrow and conventional.

As one member of the audience it:  “A bit of a missed opportunity for some really original thought.”

So, in a new location, the Town Hall rather than St. John’s Theatre on the Hill, with presentations rather than debate, is the Bishop’s Debate treading water or breaking new ground?   It will be interesting to see what next Bishop’s Debate brings.