Guys it’s pretty simple.
At the beginning of Attack of the Clones-
Windu: “We’re keepers of the peace, not soldiers.”
At the end of Attack of the Clones-
Windu: Runs into the heat of battle giving orders to soldiers and fighting on the frontlines.
At the beginning of Revenge of the Sith-
Palpatine: “He was too dangerous to be left alive.”
Halfway through Revenge of the Sith-
Windu: “He’s too dangerous to be left alive!”
Coincidence? I think not!
I think the Jedi are seen as flawed in PT because we want to blame them for Anakin’s fall, that they have a hand in his exasperation that led to his transformation into Lord Vader. The problem is Anakin knew he was joining a monastic military order, and that they follow strict codes of conduct, behavior, and life. Qui-Gon warned Anakin, “To be a Jedi is a hard life.” Anakin sis not “weight the cost.” He could have left at any time rather than backstab and take out his angst, and anger on his friends.
“There is a tremor in the Force.”
“Give yourself to the dark side.” -Lord Vader
This comment was somewhat prompted by Superweapon’s comment in the ‘Unpopular Opinion Thread’ about the Jedi Order being a bad institution. I started thinking about one topic in particular and decided it would fit better here, especially since I’d be on topic on this discussion and because this comment became quite lengthy.
I look more positively on the Jedi Order, but there are certain issues I can’t just overlook. For example: the fact that the Jedi Order sends children like Ahsoka into warfare is problematic. In the real world this would be a terrible thing to do- a notion that should apply to fiction as well.
However, the problem I have is that the narrative of shows like The Clone Wars never frames Ahsoka’s service as a bad thing nor are any plot points ever brought up regarding the subject (at least nothing that I recall). Lucas never seems to mention this subject in behind the scenes interviews either. So, is it something intended or not? Are we not supposed to view this action as a flaw of the Order? Or do we simply accept that since it’s apparently not something the narrative is trying to convey, then it’s not important…? If it is a flaw, why isn’t a point made of it in the stories?
This begs the question- how much should be explained to us? How much should the story beat us over the head with its themes? Also, if the creators never mentioned it, is it really a problem, or is simply an oversight on their behalf? Was the presence of Ahsoka on a battlefield never thought about to all its conclusions? Is this action an example of the war forcing Jedi do to things they would never normally consider? Fighting in the war was clearly not an idea the Order relished, but they couldn’t have at least made a deal with the Senate not to enlist children either, right? Is the Senate also at fault for not bringing this up as a problem?
How many questions can be raised without clear idea of the answers? Is Ahsoka’s presence in a war a sign of the writers overlooking the repercussions and all the meaning that such an action implies/entails, or was it purposely made this way to get us thinking?
Because, if the Jedi are “the most moral” beings in the galaxy, why choose this option even if they wouldn’t have wanted to? I’ve heard some suggest that because The Clone Wars was a kids show, having one protagonist be a child is one way of connecting the show to the intended audience, but surely the writers could have found some logical workaround for such a plot point, or at least explained it. Kids shows should still have some sort of logic, yes? Or is having kids fight in wars something normal in the Star Wars galaxy?
Am I overthinking this?
Move along, move along.
Even before the Clone Wars, Padawans accompanied their Masters on fairly dangerous missions. I don’t exactly remember the youngest age to be eligible to be selected as a Padawan, but I believe 13 was the oldest (with special exceptions made during the Clone Wars because of the lack of available Masters, so Ahsoka is actually quite old to be, er, ‘selected’). Based on the books depicting Obi-Wan as a Padawan, he was thrown into some fairly dangerous situations when he was barely a teen.
As you pointed out, the Doylian rationale is that these works need audience surrogates, and those surrogates are going to be children. From a Watsonian perspective, however, I can’t help but conclude that it is not unexpected for young Jedi from around 13 onwards to encounter life-threatening situations or various other traumatic experiences, even when there isn’t a war going on.
(I personally get the impression that the Council doesn’t like sending so many young Jedi off to war, but just like with everything else they feel their hands are tied. I see it as part of the general theme of the structural corruption of good intentions.)