I have had a taste of military life. For a few years during my twenties I was a member of the Royal Naval Reserve. Although I mostly enjoyed the experience, I realised that it wasn’t for me on a full time basis. I cannot and never have been able to, simply follow orders without question. I’m too independently minded. I can, however, respect those who do. Had I found myself facing an enemy invasion, doubtless I would have taken up arms, but I am thankful that I was not called into action to serve in wars fought on behalf of politicians, rather than for defence. Again, I have some respect for those who can put such sensibilities aside and do what they have signed up to do even if it is wrong. The wars our troops have become embroiled in recently have been morally questionable at best. The armed forces should be for defence, not aggression in other peoples’ countries. We are not and should not be the policemen of the world.
However, my blood boils when a politician thinks he has the right to lecture me about such matters.
David Cameron, the Prime Minister, tells the public it has a duty to provide more support to the Armed Forces.
I have no such duty. I pay them via my taxes. I expect them to be used appropriately in the defence of the nation. I also expect the MoD to pay them well and ensure that they have the appropriate equipment necessary to carry out their duties. That’s it.
He makes clear his belief that it is the whole nation’s “social responsibility” to put Servicemen and women at the “front and centre of our national life”.
Of course this is part of Cameron’s “Big society” cockwaffle. I want nothing to do with his big society or some perceived social responsibility and beyond conducting their roles competently as we should all do in our work, I see no reason to treat service personnel any differently to any other individual carrying out a vital function. And, like other such functionaries, they are volunteers, unlike many of their predecessors.
Mr Cameron also praises public support for repatriation ceremonies at Wootton Bassett and military parades elsewhere.
Given my proceeding comment, I find this constant televising of the Wootton Basset arrivals, both mawkish and macabre. It’s just as well they aren’t facing another Somme or Normandy landing. Or, to put it into perspective, we are measuring the casualties in this war in the hundreds, not the thousands or millions, when repatriation would become untenable. What we are seeing is, frankly, a self indulgent luxury that previous generations had neither the means nor the inclination to gratify.
I respect the dedication to duty and the courage under fire that occurs on a daily basis during warfare and am thankful that I don’t have to do likewise – but I am not putting them or anyone else at the front and centre of anything, frankly. Nor am I going to fall for the social responsibility claptrap. And I’ll be damned if some jumped up politician tells me to.
——————————————————
Update: JuliaM picks up on another “big society” wheeze. They can stick that up their collective arses, too.
Leaving aside that it was and is empty rhetoric, surely the whole point of the ‘big society’ idea was to stress the separateness of society from the state. In which case, Cameron can bugger off. Either he wants to limit the state and allow society to flourish without its interference, or not. I think we know the answer.
Also agreed.
Longrider, I think that you and I could be related.
When David Cameron writes “Silent gratitude isn’t much use to anyone — so next Saturday I hope we see an explosion of red, white and blue all over the country,” I just have to laugh. What use to anyone is this explosion of red, white, and blue?
I suppose it’s about morale, which is, apparently, important in war. But I wonder if such explosions actually have much impact on morale. Maybe Mr. Cameron has Vietnam in mind. Would the US have triumphed over the Viet Cong if there had been more explosions of red, white, and blue back home? I don’t know, but I’m inclined to doubt it.
Or maybe it’s about patriotism. Mr. Cameron wants to see the British being more patriotic. Perhaps he plans to shock the left by legalising the St. George’s Cross. (What? Labour didn’t ban it? Oh. Sorry, my mistake.)
Or maybe Mr. Cameron is just playing to the gallery, because he knows that traditional Tories (the Land of Hope and Glory brigade) like this kind of thing, and expect at Conservative PM to say such things.
But it all seems rather silly to me.
Makes this ‘World Cup’ business seem positively sensible and worthwhile.
😉
Longrider, Young Mr Brown,
It is about morale, and soldiers do very much appreciate the acknowledgement of their sacrifice. However, speaking for myself, I do not believe that individuals have any duty towards their armed forces beyond paying their taxes and taking an active interest in how the government (and MoD) employs them and, if necessary, hold them to account. ‘Armed Forces Day’ is also a typically centrist approach to the issue of morale – what has been the most effective and poignant morale boost to soldiers, sailors and airman in the last few years? The spontaneous and dignified response of the people of Wooton Bassett to the repatriation of the dead. Centrally mandated and organised displays of support reek of insincerity in comparison. I must, however, caveat my comment with the acknowledgement that younger and less cynical soldiers than I may indeed appreciate any kind of acknowledgement: I suspect however even they would prefer politicians to focus on the root causes of low morale than its mitigation.
I believe, on balance, that you do get acknowledgement of your sacrifice from ordinary people. This despite the difficulty caused by many of us not approving of wars of offence in foreign lands. The role of the military is to defend the nation, not meddle in the affairs of others. I do not accept the politicians’ excuses that this has anything to do with defence (and the bogus war on terror). It patently is not. As for holding the bastards to account, oh that we could. Once in power, they do as they please, whatever we might have to say about it.
My complaint here, though, is about the grandstanding of politicians. Cameron wanted to recognise the sacrifice by increasing payments to troops deployed in Afghanistan. Fine, just do it. Don’t lecture the rest of us.