Over the Christmas season, a period where we often get to take some time off, connect or reconnect with our family, and friends, many of us face the fun and often challenging conversations with those who know us well. Many soldiers have at one point or another had the question put to them, ‘why does the government spend so much money on the armed forces?’ As a topic of conversation, over Christmas lunch, Max and I agree that it is something we tend to avoid. But for many, it is a burning question – especially to those working hard and demanding government improvement and reform in education, health, emergency and other services, and to be fair, they have a point. Many of those putting in a shift in the police, or the ambulance service may demand more resources for training, after all if the military is given the time and resources to train ‘non-stop’, then why not the other services of government?
And just like that, we stumble into the hastily prepared nuisance minefield. We do realize that military obstacles are generally covered by direct and or indirect fire – simply, a principle of war. So, if we have to consider the discussion, then it is best that we do so with caution, take a step back, and orientate ourselves. At its core, a subject like military preparedness, is tantalizingly close to ‘war and peace, and me and my little life’, and therein lies the dilemma. When it comes to war, all of us, soldiers, civilians, politicians, leaders, observers, or the unfortunate victims and casualties of conflict, have very different experiences and perspectives. The further away we are from war, the more the realities of violent conflict seem a distant reality, almost imperceptible, and certainly not ours. With this, comes a psychological distance that seems to sharpen our opinions and blunt our humanitarian impulses. Away from the immediacy, and the sadness – the fight for survival, there is a growing philosophical debate. Reactions and commentary from some quarters become harsh, polarized, and pointed.
The chants of war now occur in multiple dimensions – in person, and digitally. They come not only from the modern Cossack astride their battle tank, but there is also another voice, a contemporary war viewer, shouting their war slogans over the many social media platforms, ‘death to… kill so and so’. The soldier returns to camp after the engagement and writes to their family. ‘I am okay, I miss you’. She then cries. A far away person comments on social media ‘well done in this airstrike, and I am glad… and smiley face’. For most soldiers, they take no pleasure in having to execute their duties, and every step is accompanied with the fear of not being able to return home. Those at home in safe and secure countries perhaps forget the cost of their safety. The price is the training, and the preparedness needed. On some level, our lifestyle and society, at least in the West, is guaranteed, provided for, and protected by the military. We are not asking you to salute as you read this, but rather, we provide the beginning of an answer to the question.
Now, is a peculiar moment, as many of the world’s militaries have downsized considerably. Those in the armed forces, and their supporting industries, are critical of not enough resources being made available. Finland has recently joined NATO and Sweden is doing everything to follow suit. ‘Beware of the military industrial complex’, Eisenhower said. A counterpoint, is perhaps, ‘beware of Putin, and the likes of him’. Somehow there needs to be a balance, a middle-ground between military spending, and defense of society.
Circling back to the original question, ‘why does the government spend so much money on the armed forces?’ I am not sure that it is spending too much, but as long as it is spending enough to ensure we have a military that can defend us in a war, today and into the future, then we are satisfied.
Most assuredly, we fully support any additional resources, financial or otherwise, required in the medical – emergency and other vital services. Those were truly the heroes of the pandemic and, the heroes of the everyday. The question is complex and it asks to seek balance between two seemingly separate, abstract, worlds – geopolitical realities and societal needs.
Our dilemma is the perception of war from afar, with its illusion of our own safety, and the reality of those suffering in areas of conflict. Despite the heartbreaking tragedy of war, with all its attendant casualties, and despite all we do from home, sending supplies, protesting, buying drones, and so on, we can never really imagine that we could be next. The psychological distance, or perhaps just good old denial, ultimately tempers our concerns.
Thank you for joining us for the inaugural edition of War Diary.
Max and Tony
The War Diarists
About the Authors
Max Lauker, served in the Swedish Armed Forces, 2002-2018. Primarily serving in Special Purpose Units belonging to the Norrland Dragoon Regiment, Arvidsjaur. Later serving in Stockholm and Karlsborg with units included under the special operations and intelligence umbrella. Several deployments over the years include Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan, Africa and the former Eastern Block leading numerous covert operations. Now working in the private security sector with Intelligence as his main discipline.
Antonio Garcia, is a civil servant, who additionally holds non-resident positions as a research fellow at Stellenbosch University, visiting lecturer at Durham University, and tutor at the Open University. As a combat engineer in the SANDF, Antonio has served in missions in the Sudan, the DRC, and South Africa and its borders. He has published widely on military history and strategy.
1 Comment
[…] In our previous issue, we spoke of the psychological distance from war, and how this provides different viewpoints from which we observe and experience conflict. Here, we link this to how we represent our thoughts in the digital space. We are not trying to censor social media but merely asking people to consider how their posts will look in time to come. The histories of modern conflicts are being written as we click the next link and type our next message. What we would regard as archival sources of the past are increasingly becoming digital, and what would previously have been captured in the diary of a soldier or politician, later to be committed to a state repository; and what would have taken historians decades to get to, is now instantly available. What we send out to the world in a moment can be captured, and in that instant, we may say something we do not mean, or something not intended for posterity. Perhaps something directed by emotion, goodness knows your War Diarists have done the same. Depending on one’s professional and family responsibilities, it is maybe something we should do with due consideration. We are now stepping down from our soapbox, and we leave you with a quote. ‘What an odd thing a diary is: the things you omit are more important than those you put in.’ – Simone de Beauvoir […]