The Good Shepherd by C.S. Forester: a book review

“For in war the character and personality of the leader is decisive in events much more than questions of material.”

The Good Shepherd is a naval military classic - perhaps slightly dated for contemporary readers as it revolves around a group of naval vessels protecting numerous merchant ships in convoy transporting cargo from the US to its World War Two allies in Europe. Ships from several allied navies under the command of a young US naval officer, George Krause, are assigned to guard a convoy from marauding German submarine predators.

Forester’s novel is about character and leadership. The fast paced action and naval duelling are simply the containers through which the author reveals his insights.

Forester does an amazing job getting the reader inside Krause’s head. We know Krause loves black coffee and can guzzle an entire jug – hot or cold - without flinching. We also know he is a religious man whose decision making is influenced by his notion of Christian ethics.

Lives hang in the balance as the captain makes life and death decisions instantaneously, sometimes literally as whether to pick up enemy survivors drifting in the open sea. In these split second decisions, Krause must reach urgent compromises between husbanding convoy resources, cultural / political factors given the presence of ships from navies like Poland, etc., attack versus defence, maintaining moral leadership over his crew and inspiring the other crews.

Sometimes his decisions are explained while at other times these choices seem almost random flips of a coin. (Luck as a crucial element in leadership?)

More often than not, war literature is associated with armies and land based warfare. The Good Shepherd by C.S. Forester is a pleasant change. It brings to life the hopes, fears and desperations of a generation of seafarers who fought on earth’s vast oceans. The work is not only an adventure novel but also wanders into the realms of psychology. Though first published in 1955, Forester’s work has not lost any of its allure during the ensuing six decades.

__________________

Imran is a Singapore based Tour Guide with a special interest in arts and history. Imran has lived and worked in several countries during his past career as an international banker. He enjoys traveling, especially by train, as a way to feed his curiosity about the world and nurture his interest in photography. He is available on Instagram (@imranahmedsg); twitter (@grandmoofti) and can be contacted at imran.ahmed.sg@gmail.com.

‘Collateral damage’ joins mainstream modern warfare

In the old days, wars were fought with honour. Soldiers met on appointed battlefields and fought until one army was victorious. The losers surrendered and to the victor went the spoils. Undoubtedly, there were incidents of looting, pillaging and other unsavoury stuff that soldiers are apt to do during wars.

However, by and large, civilians continued with their dreary lives in villages and hamlets. Only their 'masters' changed as armies won and lost wars on battlefields.

Yes, then as now, it was said that 'all's fair in love and war.' In the old days perhaps that meant bribing someone inside a walled city to open the city gates, poisoning the king or buying the loyalty of a general. Today, it more likely refers to the justified killing of civilians as part of a broader war effort.

Whether one speaks of suicide bombers or UN mandated stabilization forces erroneously killing civilians, such conclusions are not merely based on anecdotal evidence. (Although the daily newspapers sufficiently portray the horrific amount of civilian suffering in today's war zones.)

In her 1999 book 'New and Old Wars,' Mary Kaldor reveals the facts underlying the dreadful trend in modern warfare. In the early part of the twentieth century, almost 90% of all were casualties were soldiers. Of all the casualties in World War Two, 50% were civilians. (Dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki coupled with allied air force bombing raids on 'strategic' targets in Germany during the last few years of the war started racking up the civilian numbers.) Today, more than 50% of wartime casualties are civilian.*

The mushroom cloud from the nuclear explosion at Nagasaki. Within four months of its detonation, the bomb resulted in the deaths of 60,000 - 80,000 people in the city

Dropping bombs on civilian areas by air force planes as done during World War Two is one thing. Killing civilians by uniformed, disciplined soldiers during engagements with rebel groups is another. However, the worst of the lot is intentionally killing 'soft' civilian targets by suicide bombers, intending to browbeat populations into submission.

(It's irrelevant whether the suicide attack takes place in Tel Aviv, Kabul or Pakistan's tribal areas – by targeting civilians such attacks are morally and religiously unjustifiable.)

Sadly, the way warfare has been transformed into 'total warfare' leaves little doubt that civilian deaths will continue to dominate warfare for many years to come.

Warfare, like everything else in the digital age, has been 'democratized.' The front lines are no longer manned by soldiers but by unwitting civilians. Unfortunately, neither bombs nor bullets discriminate when choosing victims for death.  

*The data is referenced in Loretta Napoleoni's book, 'Terror Inc.' published in 2003.