Leftenan Saidi

07/02/2014
10 Comments


Adnan bin Saidi (1915-1942) a Malayan Lieutenant in the 1st Infantry Brigade, fought in the Battle of
Singapore, leading a platoon of forty two against the Japanese. He was credited with early detection of
invaders disguised as "Indian troops" marching four abreast Japanese style rather than by the British
three. Heavily outnumbered in combat, he refused surrender and withstood two days under heavy shelling
and attacks, running low on food and ammunition. He kept fighting even after being shot, urging his men
to battle to the end. After Singapore fell, Japanese soldiers tied him to a tree and executed him with
bayonets. For his actions and bravery, Adnan has become a Malaysian and Singaporean hero.

Q: Lieutenant, we trust you understand the interest in war related questions and society.
AS: Yes, of course. Go on.

Q: This seems to be a challenge humanity won't surmount. One body of thought would have all
military capability disappear; another set of ideas says that's suicide. Even powerful armed forces, which
use very little of the destructive potential available, still seem to be involved in conflict. I am thinking of
the United Kingdom, the USA and Russia over the last few decades.
AS: Israel, Iran, Korea and China can be included on the list.

Q: Would national sovereignty really be threatened if military capability were discarded, REALLY
set aside?
AS: I suggest it be done, to see.

Q: What would happen?
AS: To consider won't bring the effect; it must be done to experience.

Q: This reminds me of a scene in the movie, The Matrix, where a character is faced with capture if he
won't jump off a tall building. He is urged by his companions and friends, in whom he places absolute
trust otherwise, that he will successfully escape if he leaps. He succumbs to fear of death, stays on the
ledge and is captured.
AS: If beliefs are not powerful, they have little value. Power overcomes power.

Q: Good politician answer, but we, the many of us, want to know; would a powerful nation be
invaded if it dropped its military ability?
AS: No, by this reasoning. The collective decision by a powerful potential foe would not create a
transmutation onto adversaries, who would not believe it. They would be suspicious of the political angle,
they would see a Trojan Horse. This is the challenge of humanity; free will. You each individually choose
beliefs and impose them. Some resist, some accept.

Q: So the military potential would require a long time to be believed?
AS: Yes, if ever.

Q: What would happen to the remaining potential aggressor?
AS: As belief took hold, attitudes in the aggressor nation would fade also. There would not be a large
waiting for the best moment to pounce; a potential aggressor and even invader would have time to
consider the effects and consequences.

Q: Are we ever going to see a reduction in military capability, threats and conflicts?
AS: Yes, in the lifetimes of the many of you. Fuel, navigation and other physical effects will reduce
ability to travel by air and sea.

Q: The idea military ability creates an urge to be used seems similar to the idea personal protection
creates an urge to use it also, are either true?
AS: Do dogs kill each other and their masters?

Q: Sometimes but it's rare.
AS: Shall all dogs' teeth be removed, just in case?

Q: What possesses the mind of a leader, a military unit or a nation state to invade, destroy, kill and
subjugate? What goes on in the minds of people willing, even eager to do this?
AS: Control; the sensations of it are addictive in the physical. The annoying branch manager in the
larger organization, with an air of condescending superiority and control, through criticism, favoritism
and condemnation does this to serve his or her own need. The leader and leaders of a nation, more than
for reasons put forth to others, use force to create a similar reaction of which they are not aware.

Q: What did you think as the Japanese began invading Singapore?
AS: They would kill many of us.

Q: Did you sense you might die, as the battle pressed on?
AS: Yes, but I was determined it would not happen easily. I would make the Japanese regret the
decision.

Q: You survived the battle only to be executed after your defeat, no longer able to fight. Why was this
done?
AS: The Japanese, as many military leaders know, understood the danger to them of allowing an
adversary to remain a threat. They understood nothing would subdue such soldier.

Q: What if your forces had simply stood down and allowed the Japanese to take over, offering no
resistance?
AS: The Japanese would not have believed it, and would execute several people in a cruel public way
and create fear, as they see it. The believed terror was necessary to maintain control.

Q: This idea of control, it permeates everything humans do.
AS: Only where the controller sees no threat to his or her own. The word that better expresses what
humanity should embrace is coordination. Voluntary organization, absent threats, is the way to proceed.
Much power and strength is felt by resistance; the control threatened by this is more shallow even. Is
resistance not just an attempt at control as a reaction? Is there much difference between control of action
and control of reaction, but for ordering?

Q: Heaven has control of challenges and war? Obviously I am kidding.
AS: Why kid this way? You question is good; yes, everyone, every soul, has massive control, absolute
control, complete control. All of you have it, in our home. You can control everything, nothing controls
you, a given where your control is complete. You cannot kill because you cannot be killed. Earth offers
elimination, at least the illusion of it.

Q: Complete control?!? I can tell God to go getwell, whatever! And reject the whole concept
completely?
AS: Yes, if you choose. Many souls do.

Q: How does God react?
AS: With love, honor and pride. Is a parent not proudest of offspring who are determined and decided?
Who have their own mind and make decisions in their best interest, as they see it?

Q: Not all of them, but I see your point, Lieutenant! What did Japan think after the war was lost a
few years after attempting to invade your nation?
AS: Which Japan, the Imperial leader or his subjects? There were, as there always are, vastly differing
points of view.

Q: Did the Emperor see Japan as having made an effort not worth it?
AS: Yes, and this sensation now comes to other nations from other conflicts.

Q: What would you do differently if you could return to the place of your famous battle?
AS: Nothing, as a return to this place would only be under similar, nearly identical conditions. This
means attitudes and ideas, mine and those of my fellow soldiers and also our enemies. The event was,
because of these ideas. I would like to suggest a new set of ideas, and this has been called a parallel
universe. I can suggest humanity will not do what is required to reduce conflict this way, without
collective force acting upon all of it. And these are coming. They are beginning.

Q: Since we cannot force our ideas of pacifism upon a potential aggressor, which itself is aggression,
we humans will just have to accept violence, war and conflict.
AS: No! It is not necessary. Simply act with calm, always seek goodwill in others and suggest
improvement, explain and encourage. Lead by example; this will work faster and better than anything
possible.

Q: Sounds terrific; let's tell everybody to be warm, tender and loving to everyone always!
AS: Why not? What cost will you incur, but your pride? It cannot be sold and s/he who dislikes your
expression of goodwill and good example is most in need of it. It will not be much worth to you, to grasp
your pride tighter when it is ridiculed. Give it away, it costs you nothing of your happiness.

Q: May I ask a military question; what will happen to Armed Forces around the world, as time
passes?
AS: There will be less of them; this already occurs in many nations. It will continue.

Q: The idea military force should never be used and therefore should not exist, is strong and has
great appeal. Will this drive the reduction?
AS: No; economic pressure will achieve it.

Q: Lieutenant, thank you.
AS: You were welcome, be good. So long now.


Comments
garrett 07/02/2014 2:07pm
Interesting perspective on reasons for war and international relations. I do wish we do change for the better in
controlling our impulse to create enemies in other groups of human beings to feel more in control by doing so. Good
choice, Patrick.

Patrick 08/02/2014 9:10pm
Not my choice so much, he was suggested to me, just as all the "invitees" are. I never know what will be
said, and I try to never plan too many questions. Our "guests" never fall short with the answers, either!

Ahmed 07/02/2014 3:35pm
Great questions and great answers, thank you Patrick and the Lieutenant.

Patrick 08/02/2014 9:08pm
You're welcome! He was quite a warrior, with quite a message for us.

Mike Thomson 07/02/2014 8:03pm
Great post; really enjoyed it.

Patrick 08/02/2014 9:09pm
Thanks for coming to read it!

alistar 08/02/2014 12:23pm
brilliant

Patrick 08/02/2014 9:08pm
Happy to see you appreciate that!

Mo Fo 08/02/2014 2:28pm
Thank you Patrick for this wonderful post. =)

Patrick 08/02/2014 9:07pm
I'm pleased, honored and also a bit perplexed. Very interesting to read but I don't see the wonderfulness.
I am glad you do! Happy to do it!