Belonging in an Age of Remembrance

 

It is the evening of 10 November 2021. 103 years ago tonight millions of men were engaged in the dying hours of conflict around the world. A war that had begun through a shot fired in the Balkans, then spread inexorably to incorporate dozens of nations across the globe was drawing to a close.

In 1918 the British Army was probably at the zenith of its professional prowess. The UK fielded an army that had in the proceeding four years undergone three radical changes, from a tiny army of professionals, to a force drawing on the TA, to a conscript force and then one that emerged blooded and competent to take on and defeat Germany.

A force that just a few years previously had numbered at full mobilisation just a few hundred thousand men was now nearly four million strong. It had developed integrated operations with airpower, co-ordinated artillery and armoured attacks and developed and sustained an enormously effective logistical supply chain that enabled it to stay in the field.

Those who fought were, in the main, conscripts. They were not naturally soldiers, and many doubtless resented the imposition in their lives, and the requirement to be ready to give of their lives, without their consent or control. Yet fought they did, and in the process these citizen soldiers were responsible for one of the most important British military victories in history.

We remember them to this day, and as time passes curiously the interest in WW1 rises by many. The war was over a century ago, and has all but passed from living memory, with barely a handful of people left alive when it happened who could recall it in even vague detail.

Yet still we remember and reflect on this sacrifice, and what it means to have been in the ‘war to end all wars’.

It is against this backdrop of warfare and loss that we should reflect on what the British Army of today is, and how it wishes to evolve. The force of 2021 is unrecognisable to the Army of 1918, but in the main easily recognisable to those who served in the 1980s and 1990s, even if the underpinning IT is stronger.

The technology may have changed, but the elements making up the force – namely its people, have not. They remain magnificent individuals who willingly volunteer to serve, often in the most arduous of conditions, and do so for a variety of reasons.

The culture of this force is coming under increased scrutiny for there are suggestions that the values and standards of the British Army are increasingly removed from society. It is not comfortable reading for any instinctive supporter of the Army to read of conduct at sites that sounds at odds with the values of our society.

It has been suggested by the outgoing CDS that the Army needs to be at its heart a ‘laddish culture’ as this is what is required to get people to close with and kill the enemy. This is a challenging statement that has come under attack in the media – but is it right, and does it reflect the reality of the Army?

There is a strong point to what CDS is saying – one of the great strengths of the Regimental System is that it bonds a group of people together in an intimate, powerful way to the extent that they are prepared through the bonds of mateship to close with a hostile force, and inflict huge amounts of violence on them in order to kill this force, and look after their mates.

The bonds of mateship run deep – no one wants to be ‘jack’ or leave their mates behind – but to be accepted into this group calls for a culture of belonging – joint work, joint play and shared bonding. These bonds run deep and are forged through shared experiences and adversity.

Image by Ministry of Defence; © Crown copyright

To that extent CDS is absolutely correct -there is a particularly ‘laddish’ thing about a shared group of people coming together in this way. This part of the culture – the belonging and the coming together is really powerful – you need to encourage deep bonds among people to persuade them to put their life on the line – not for Queen and Country, but for the fundamental desire to not let their mates down.

The challenge is reconciling this with the wider changes in society. 20 or 30 years ago society was more laddish, less inclusive and far more focused on booze. Today far fewer people are, with youngsters being less likely to drink than they are to take drugs. That’s not to say it doesn’t happen – but its happening in smaller cross sections of society.

This presents us with an issue – to keep the Army, and in particular the infantry able to deliver the bonding needed, and the life on offer that will appeal, means drawing on an ever smaller cross section of society – young, quite probably working class, probably not brilliantly educated to start with (although the fantastic in service education offer is often well taken up), and looking to escape their home town and start a new life.

This group may well reflect people who feel let down by society, or those who feel society has little to offer them. To serve means being with likeminded people – but what if we run out of people like this?

How do you in the medium term continue to make the Army an attractive place for people to join that is inclusive and welcoming – where people feel that they can go and do a great job globally, while also building the deeper bonds via a lifestyle that will definitely not appeal to all?

Squaring this complex circle is going to be the problem – the risk for the infantry is that as one of the last bastions of ‘laddishness’ it’s a world that is utterly removed from normal life in what we ask and expect its people to do. How do you continue to create this culture, bringing the best of its ethos out, without sustaining the hugely toxic behaviours it generates – can you create the ‘band of brothers’ without breaking the values and standards of the wider army?

Image by Ministry of Defence; © Crown copyright

There isn’t an easy answer here – there is clearly a problem that the V&S in some parts of the organisation are broken. Maybe this will be fixed by osmosis – the arrival of women in the infantry will help put them alongside men as peers, and help build a respect earned through seeing that women are bloody good soldiers – and not relying on pub myths. Change will come through seeing first hand that this will work.

But, creating the condition where women are properly treated, and the risks of casual sexism, misogyny and sexual assault are removed is going to be a longer term piece of work that will need to be strictly enforced. There is no space for these values in the Army, but rooting them out of areas will doubtless see cries of ‘PC gone mad’. This is a long battle to fight.

This has to be set against an Army that still struggles to define what it wants its offer to be – on the one hand its offering a ‘laddish culture’ in parts, yet on the other sees (according to Soldier magazine) the presence of beards as a threat to operational effectiveness (tell that to the soldiers on HERRICK who fought for weeks without shaving). This curious mixture of wanting to be a 21^st century Army, but also cling to the past feels uncomfortable.

When allied to wider challenges about recruiting different skill sets – for example CDS noted in his evidence to the Defence Select Committee the challenges of direct entry and the career structure when trying to attract skilled and qualified professionals, such as cyber, then you are left with an enormous HR challenge ahead of you.

How do you change culture to be more reflective of the 21^st century while ensuring that soldiers feel empowered to bond and kill in a violent manner? The two do not sit easily together and it will require a lot of effort to resolve.

As we look to Remembrance, we must ask ourselves whether the Army we have today is one that is worthy of the name. We ask a great deal of our soldiers, and Remembrance is a good time to pause and thank them for their service and willingness to do what others will not.

Image by Ministry of Defence; © Crown copyright

This is the twilight of the WW2 veteran era, and soon they too will be gone. There will be few left who recall what it is to fight in a global existential war, and the risk is that the military finds itself divorced from society as a result.

People remember the WW2 generation as a whole national effort and sacrifice which all those present contributed to. They do not see the same about the modern armed forces, professional volunteers who choose to serve and see and experience things that few others will.

The result is a society where we have gratitude and thanks for those who serve, without perhaps the deeper understanding of what it is we ask and expect of them. They in turn are judged by the values of society, which as it changes is increasingly removed from the deeper bonds and culture of Service life – and with it the values and standards of that lifestyle.

There is a risk that as we continue down this path with a smaller military, fewer than ever veterans and a society that feels less comfortable accepting of the values that the military accept and embrace, that the two groups will become separated.

Perhaps the biggest challenge facing the MOD today is to balance off the need for public understanding of the military role, ensuring that military values are not divorced from society, and still ensuring that when push comes to shove, wars are won by women (and men) with bayonets fixed, prepared to advance into gunfire and kill other women (and men) in order to take and hold blood soaked ground. They do this for their tribe – and we owe it to those who wish to willingly do this in our name that we respect their culture, while still ensuring it reflects the values of our wider society.

Remembrance is a time to reflect, and be thankful for all who served and paid the price that we may live in our society. Let us hope that we shape and make it a society that reflects the values and hopes that they sacrificed, and that their loss was not in vain.