War of Warlord
Question has risen on the ethics of arresting and prosecuting Ex. General Sarath Fonseka (SF). There are some who think we should let him go on the basis of the service he has done to the country. There are others who think he deserves the treatment he got based on treason he has committed or he is going to commit. The biggest question is, if we are prosecuting SF, what about others who have already committed wrong doings in Sri Lanka? We all know Sri Lanka is a very corrupt nation. Is this a case of prosecuting a criminal or taking a revenging on someone who has potential political power in Sri Lanka in the future?
The answer to this question varies since many different interest groups have their own opinion. Based on what is happening in Sri Lanka, this is a prosecution by choice due to the fear of SF. That fear is both political and what he knows as far as crime against humanity is concerned.
Sri Lanka has created number or warlords due to the military culture we had to develop to get rid of LTTE. This is not a battle for the national interest. This is the battle among warlords. Therefore, when one warlord tries to take down another, what should the general public do?
I'd say, we need to protect and preserve warlord culture. This is the only way we can prevent creation of a super warlord. Therefore we should all campaign for SF and ask the government to let him go. Cut a deal with SF not to testify against UN for his freedom and civil rights. At the end, we can offer him the multi million rupee SUV he deserves and did not get it with the mansion to park it.
Let the liberation of General Sarath Foneska begin.
"A warlord is a person with power who has both military and civil[1] control over a subnational area due to armed forces loyal to the warlord and not to a central authority. The term can also mean one who espouses the ideal that war is necessary, and has the means and authority to engage in war. The word has a strong connotation that the person exercises far more power than his official title or rank (if any) legitimately permits him or her. Under feudalism, in contrast, the local military leader may enjoy great autonomy and a personal army, but still derives legitimacy from formal fealty to a central authority."
