The Daily Telegraph’s Charles Moore has good and important things to say about how the Armed Forces are viewed these days in Britain. He cites several examples of how soldiers, sailors or airmen returning home from a tour of duty frequently feel completely unvalued, sometimes despised, by the home population.
To a certain extent, this has to be placed in historical context. Since the end of compulsory military service in the early 1960s and the end of the Cold War, the forces have shrunk, so a smaller proportion of us are likely to encounter people who are serving in the forces. I know a couple of people in the RAF and my father was a navigator in the 1950s – on aircaft with spiffing names like Meteors, Javelins and Venoms – but many of us do not. I wanted to follow my old man’s footsteps but I developed a small defect in my eyesight in my late teens so the prospect of Johnathan Pearce at the controls of a Typhoon was zero (probably to much relief to you readers). The idea of having a career in the armed forces is something that occurs to very few of us these days. None of the youngsters I know would be remotely interested in joining up. The pay is not attractive compared with what one could earn in other walks of life and the whole catch of travelling around the world, meeting interesting people and subsequently killing them does not appeal to a generation that can backpack around the globe on a cheap flight anyway. And the killing stuff is clearly not popular. Maybe the impact of television, culture and politics has sapped the military ethos. This is a good thing mostly, but it clearly comes at a cost in the supply of motivated personnel.
Moore’s article concludes with a plug for a very fine charity that helps support our services. Without apology, I recommend those so minded to donate something. May I also suggest this RAF Benevolent Fund site as a place that people can visit. Other branches of the forces have similar bodies looking after people who have served and now need some help.
These words of Rudyard Kipling, the great poet for the British Army, are nice:
“Troopin’, troopin’, give another cheer –
Ere’s to English women and a quart of English beer.
The Colonel an’ the Regiment an’ all who’ve got to stay,
Gaw’s Mercy Strike ’em gentle! Whoop! w’re goin’ ‘ome to-day.
We’re goin’ ‘ome, w’re goin’ ‘ome,
Our ship is at the shore,
An’ you must pack your ‘aversack,
For we won’t come back no more.
Ho, don’t you grieve for me,
My lovely Mary-Ann!
For I’ll marry you yit on a foup’ny bit
As a time-expired man.
(From the poem, Troopin’).
This negative view is altogether new?
‘I went into a public ‘ouse/To get a pint of beer/The publican he ups and says/”Don’t serve no redcoats ‘ere!”…Making mock of uniforms that guard you while you sleep/Is cheaper than them uniforms and they’re starvation-cheap…Oh, it’s Tommy this an’ Tommy that and Tommy, ‘ow’s your soul?’ (From memory, apologies if quotation not wholly exact.) ‘Thin red lines of ‘eroes when the guns begin to shoot’?
Ysabel, you are correct. I think even the Duke of Wellington, victor of Salamanca, Vittoria, Waterloo and other battles, was famed for making disparaging comments about his redcoats.
The Daily Telegraph’s Charles Moore has good and important things to say about how the Armed Forces are viewed these days in Britain. He cites several examples of how soldiers, sailors or airmen returning home from a tour of duty frequently feel completely unvalued, sometimes despised, by the home population.
Excellent! A free society does not and should not have a standing army. Britain’s standing army has been used for criminal activities for centuries, including this very moment. It’s far past time not only to revile the politicians who start these criminal wars, but the soldiers who aid and abet their criminal activities.
As an American of Irish descent, I doubly know the glorious history of the British armed forces, and I can say that I hope every single man or woman serving in them either resigns or meets a horrendous and tortuous death.
– Josh
Josh, for someone trying to make the libertarian case against standing armies – a position for which I have some sympathy, you sure managed to spoil your argument in the third paragraph. Many Irishmen, such as the Connaught Rangers, fought with the Brititish. Wellington was of an Irish family.
Of course we had a spot of bother with the Colonies in the 1770s, but hey, I am pleased the Americans won in the end, although it is a bummer to lose all that real estate.
Pip-pip!
Oh and Josh, perhaps you should explain what you mean by “all those criminal wars”. For sure, one can argue against the current military operations in the MEast on prudential grounds – a serious argument – but spare me the usual BS about these campaigns being “criminal”, as if there was much doubt as to the moral justice in removing a thug like Saddam and the Taliban from their positions of power and menace.
And yes, I am sure we could all find examples of what people might regard as crimes in the history of the British or other armed forces. I am hardly starry-eyed about the military and on these discussion boards I have, for instance, said harsh things about the area bombing of WW2, for example. In the main, the history of the army, navy and airforce is a glorious one in standing up to tyranny in various forms. Your views are naive and viciously expressed. Grow up.
Ah Josh, these free societies that do not have a standing army.
Could you name three please?
Josh,
If there is to be a state then its only duty is to protect its citizens and their property from the predations of other states. This requires a standing army, an evil maybe, but a necessary one.
By all means wish harm to come to those who decide what the military does (the politicians) but to wish a torturous death to those who would willingly put themselves in harms way to protect you, your family and your property is the height of bad manners if nothing else.
The military is a tool just like any other (leaving aside the fact that it is made up of humans who have free will and all that that entails), and as the old adage goes; ‘Guns don’t kill people, people do’.
You should think yourself lucky in the fact that you have not had the threat of invasion hanging over you (merely total annhiliation) if you had you might be a little more grateful for the men and women who volunteer to do your dirty work.
I don’t pretend to like the uses which our military is currently being put to but I am grateful that it is there for when we really need it.
For sure, one can argue against the current military operations in the MEast on prudential grounds – a serious argument – but spare me the usual BS about these campaigns being “criminal”, as if there was much doubt as to the moral justice in removing a thug like Saddam and the Taliban from their positions of power and menace.
Which in turn unleashed the forces of hell on the Iraqi people. The invasion is the proximate cause of the Iraqi Civil War, a war which has now sent more than 600k people to their deaths, not to mention the innocent people that the invasion has actually killed, or the private property they have destroyed. Moreover, the British armed forces are trying to build a new state, which is a criminal enterprise.
Also, trying to excuse the British treatment of Ireland because a couple of our own fought in the Rangers is ridiculous.
Ah Josh, these free societies that do not have a standing army. Could you name three please?
List of countries without armed forces
Highlights: Costa Rica, Iceland, Panama, Monaco, Liechtenstein. 21 others, mostly small.
I could also point you to America 1781-1791, both under the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution.
If there is to be a state
…
– Josh
Ok Josh, fair enough. There are countries with no standing armies. But they are piggie back countries to a man arn’t they? They rely on someone elses largesse to protect them if it all kicks off nasty like!
Who in their right mind would invade Iceland?
Wealthy and prosperous societies can either (1) create the military power needed to defend themselves, (2) cooperate or free-ride on those who do. Britain and America became relatively free, wealthy and powerful for a lot of reasons. Being able to generate military power sufficient to secure themselves against major threats was part of that. Libertarians who would like to point, say, Iceland, are not really being very smart. Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia would have overrun such “shires” had not the “Gondors” of the world been willing to fight, incidentally as they did, on their behalf.
The Swiss, an independent people in the midst of the European snakepit, kept their freedom by always (or nearly always) maintaining military power sufficient to deter invaders.
As Arnold Kling has wisely put it, there are three “ethics” which have characterized successful societies. A work ethic, a learning ethic and a public service ethic. Libertarians would like to disparage the latter, but they are defying the evidence of history to do so. A big part of that public service ethic is the willingness of people to service in the armed forces, and to submit to lawful authority in the exercise of force. That is the bedrock of civilization, as John Keegan has written. Civilization is not founded on pacifism, but on the legions patrolling the frontier, the Royal Navy patrolling the sea lanes, or Strategic Air Command on watch 24/7 and maintaining deterrance during the decades of the Cold War. Until we have Human Beings Version 2.0, it will always be this way. The weapons and tactics change, the basic are unchanging and unchangeable.
Actually, up until 2-3 years ago I was certain that a fully functional standing army was essential to our defense.
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have demostrated the seriousness of our Reserves and National Guard. They are functioning in almost every way as any standing army could. If anything could be said of necessity, it is that the National Guards and Reserves are the componant that is essential to our defense.
Medical, transport and logistics, even things like air support are moving more and more from regular army to NG and R.
Also, we now have the capability to scramble these part time forces with amazing speed. I see a real possibility that the regular army could become an infrastructure maintenance and training organization and combat staffing could become a part time job.
Aircraft carrier groups and some other functions would need to be full time staffed in order to remain on patrol. Or could they be predeployed with skeleton crews?
This is something I’ve been wondering about more and more in the last year. Is it nearing feasibility?
Apologies to the rest of you but I am now going to have a go at Josh.
Josh,
What the British do in Ireland is frankly none of your business, unless you are one of those ‘Irish Americans’ who made donations to ‘The Cause’ during the troubles. in which case you probably did more to prolong them than you did to bring about their end. The Irish who fought in the rangers are no more ‘your own’ than any other Irishman, you are an american. By all means remember where you came from but please live where you are, if you want to be Irish so much then emigrate, otherwise worry about the problems in your own country before thinking you have any claim on those of another.
Sorry to the rest of you but U.S. citizens who claim some sort of kinship with the country their ancestors fled from a hundred years ago really irritate me. Why can’t they just be americans and be happy with it?
Mid—no it isn’t. And that’s just as well.
Pardon me if I don’t bother with the troll and his lunatic worldview.
The disdain for the common soldier is not new, but what is very modern is the disdain for the warrior personna and warrior ethic.
Throughout history, and almost universally in primitive cultures, the primary male self-definition is that of a warrior first, then hunter, and then other roles in descending order.
For good or ill, our culture has so devalued the ferocity and dedication required of the true warrior that people possessing those qualities are now suspect, subject to endless armchair psycho-analyzing, and the bizarre belief that they are somehow victims of this or that conspiracy.
Anyone who has ever been in close contact with the community of warriors, regardless of service designation, instantly knows this latter idea is utter nonsense, and rejects it completely.
We have become distant from many of the aspects of survival in the real world that used to be close and personal, part of everyone’s daily life and experience. As a result, we marvel at, and are mystified by, those who revel in the dangers of combat, and relish the clash of arms.
Read the great literature of human history. It is “of arms and the man” that songs are sung, not “of numbers and their accountants”, or “keyboards and their typists”.
The day will come, as it has so often in the past, when all will be at risk, and all will depend on courage and devotion to duty, not snide sarcasm, or condescending vitirol.
Pray to whatever gods you have left there is a strong shadow to protect you from the sun that day, for the days of wailing and gnashing of teeth have not yet passed away.
Okay, but why is it just as well? If a NG/Reserve fighting force could be deployed as quickly and with the efficacy of regular army, it would be very compatible with small government, libertarian state, fiscal conservative ideals.
I can see that it may not be feasible yet, but why is it a bad thing on principle?
Ok, a couple of things:
First, everybody please forgive Josh, who is obviously a college student somewhere. And a victim of British oppression, or whatever.
Second, I’m in the Michigan Army National Guard and I’m on my second tour in Iraq. Both voluntary. For those of you kidding yourselves that the Guard and Reserves could replace the Active Army, just stop. Nobody, least of all the professionals, takes you seriously. Nor should they.
Third, what is it with you British and how you treat your military? I don’t get it. Americans, despite a certain dipshit on this thread, are huge supporters of their military. Yes, you get the moonbats who don’t, but they’re loud, not big. I have been many places in my uniform in the States, and I’ve always had people come up to me and thank me for my service and otherwise praise those in uniform. Some on this thread talk about the “necessary evil” of having a standing army. Right. Because having a well trained professional military is what’s keeping your society from reaching it’s full potential. I’ve served with the British Army. They’re better than you deserve.
On behalf of Americans I offer my sincere apologies for Josh’s idiotic slander of the British military.
Midwesterner, while I wouldn’t disagree an army composed entirely of reserves would be desireable in principle, I don’t see how such a thing could be made to work in practice. The prosecution of a war becomes more technically complicated every day as the tempo of operactions increases. Training for these kinds of operations is a full time occupation.
In addition, we had some advantages in Iraq that favored the deployment of reserves. For one thing, as the aggressor the timing of the attack was of our choosing. We knew months ahead of time what was going to happen, so we could activate reserves and plan for war without having to fight it at the same time. If the US were involved in another war like Korea, a standing army would be absolutely essential. How large? Depends on the war.
Also, as far as I’m aware, at least initially the contribution of reserve ground units was limited almost entirely to support roles – logistics, medical, stuff like that. You need logistics to fight a war, but you can’t fight one with only logistics.
There are countries with no standing armies. But they are piggie back countries to a man arn’t they?
No. Costa Rica, Iceland, and Panama neither piggyback nor have armies of their own.
Sorry to the rest of you but U.S. citizens who claim some sort of kinship with the country their ancestors fled from a hundred years ago really irritate me. Why can’t they just be americans and be happy with it?
Why should I forget about the country of my ancestors and kin just because I don’t live there? Why, exactly, do you think my ancestors fled Ireland, the weather?
On behalf of Americans I offer my sincere apologies for Josh’s idiotic slander of the British military.
It would be libel, not slander, and truth is an absolute defense to libel.
– Josh
The only nation I know that is fully prepared for war
right down to Its youngest citizen is Israel.
It has been thus since 1948, and has been fending off attack ever since.
We need a ready to go, very well equipped military.
Your ideas on militia are fine Mid, but unworkable, unless your oppressors are working to the same plan, and they usually are not.
Our Politicians get us into these things like wars without having the slightest understanding of what is really entailed. We are a generation down the line now from when anyone you voted for heard a shot fired in anger, least of all at them.
They expect our military to perform miracles with the bayonets and flip flops (the only kit that actually works properly!!) they give them on behalf of our Nation!
I could take this in many different directions, but I wont for now.
Suffice it to say my wife works for the War Vererans Agency. The stories I could tell you, wouldnt just curl your hair, but make it fall out!
Swede said:
“I’ve always had people come up to me and thank me for my service and otherwise praise those in uniform.”
I have often thanked military people, and military parents as well, because I think you are doing a very difficult job.
But the hard fact is that if you get injured severely, you will have a miserable life and nobody will remember how important Iraq once seemed to be.
And by the way, regarding the sub-thread here on standing armies, George Washington also viewed standing armies as a potential gateway to tyranny (while recognizing its advantages). An ambivalent attitude toward the military is a long American tradition.
Right, so Iraq wasn’t hell under Saddam Hussain and his psychotic sons? And if the civil war broke out (i.e. a home-grown attempt to overthrow Saddam) with much the same effect (“forces of hell”) without UK troops being involved, that would also be bad? Or is it only bad if UK troops are involved? Or is any instance of removing a homicidal tyrant who has been ensconced for decades bad because it sturs up those ol’ forces of hell? Can you see why I cannot help seeing you as one of totalitarians “useful idiots”?
Jesus are you still hear man!!!
Just what I need-
A winged horse with the brains of a Turkey!!
Mid—others have answered well, so I won’t get into another big post.
I guess my baseline reason can be summed up by recalling Kasserine, in N Africa, in WW2.
In combat, the learning curve is ferocious, and unforgiving.
Ever met a disabled vet from WWII?
Have you forgotten what he fought for?
“An ambivalent attitude toward the military is a long American tradition”
That hasn’t been exhibited since roughly 1980.
Yes, I’m old enough to have met severely injured WW2 vets. I don’t remember them as happy people basking in the glow of an admiring society. Some people pitied them, and young people generally didn’t care at all.
To give you an idea of the general level of appreciation these days, I know intelligent middle-class teenagers who can’t identify the correct century in which WW2 was fought. Vietnam is also ancient history for them, having occurred before they were born.
I will meet my cousin over the Christmas debauchery, I am looking forward to it. He is a serving Soldier in the Blues and Royals and came back form a tour in Afghanistan early in November, so it will be good to hear first hand what it is like.
I do not believe he should be disparaged for joining up and going to fight. I believe he should be honoured, along with the rest of those people who volunteer to risk their lives so that we can live in relative peace.
Later
Gengee
Gangee – please extend the thanks of this Yank for his service to his Queen and Country in our common mission.
Gangee=Gengee.
Damn that dyslexia.
Josh, I was not trying to excuse anything. Rather, I was attempting to point out that anyone who wants to portray the history of Ireland as a simple picture of honest Oirish peasants against evil Brit oppressors has to accept that this story is rather more complex than the sort of arguments you might hear down a Boston or New York Irish bar.
Do not get me wrong. My original article about the armed forces does not give a blank moral cheque to anyone, nor does it attempt to play down or cover up problems in the past. However, since you have raised the Irish and American conflicts with Britain, I should point out that playing the historical “victim card” is a double-edged sword, since if I wanted to be nasty, I could remind readers about the use of slavery by the colonists or the appalling history of violence down the years of the IRA, etc, etc.
As for your arguments about people who serve in the armed forces, you should bear in mind that unless we live in some sort of anarcho-capitalist utopia, we are going to have some kind of military force to defend us, and that means the people involved will have to take decisions that moral purists might find difficult to accept.
I also do not find the examples you give of nations without standing armies very compelling. As others have said, some of these nations would be overwhelmed in pretty short order without the presence of sympathetic neighbours with significant defence capabilities.
I am surprised you did not mention the Swiss. That is an interesting example of a neutral state with military conscription. However, one wonders whether that example is very applicable to all countries. I doubt it.
Actually, the weather played a part. The potato famine of the 1840s was partly caused by a period of wet summers on which the Irish peasanty were dangerously over-dependent. The British disastrous Corn Laws – tariffs – made the situation worse by holding imports of cheap food.
I personally think the Brits missed a vital chance to avoid a lot of trouble by not granting Ireland home rule in the 19th Century, as Gladstone and others wanted.
Quite right Johnathan. The Irish of the 1840s had obviously not heard the proverb of putting all your eggs in one basket. Hence making a bad situation much worse.
It’s sunday, so time for my anecdote of the week.
I often wonder how much Irish Americans who happily stuffed the coffers of Noraid , actually understood of the root causes of the Troubles.
The first time I went to the States was 1973, when the Troubles were getting into full swing. Catching the plane home to Heathrow I was seated next to an Irish American about my age (21). Now despite sounding every inch the urbane englishman, I always have my Celtic victimhood card in my pocket for just such occasions.
So we chatted about the situation and solutions. He was very keen on Troops out and freedom etc (well we were young then and idealistic).
He was travelling on to Belfast to visit some distant relatives that he knew little about.
In the course of the conversation it came out that he was protestant!
I thought, but didn’t say, “Boy have you got a shock coming! You’re on the wrong side!”
Costa Rica and Panama both realize that they lie behind the American defese perimiter, and free ride under the US Military.
Have you ever heard of the recently decommissioned NAS Keflavik? American Base in Iceland. There were American units with plans for going to Iceland incase of the Cold War turning hot.
The day will come, as it has so often in the past, when all will be at risk, and all will depend on courage and devotion to duty, not snide sarcasm, or condescending vitriol. I’m afraid we are there already.
The only nation I know that is fully prepared for war
right down to Its youngest citizen is Israel. That what most of us here used to think, but the last war with Lebanon proved us at least partially wrong. It seems that we are plagued by the same problems other Western societies are, only problem is we don’t live in the West. Wait, come to think of it, neither do most of you any more:-| People like Josh better wake up, before it’s too late.