The dangers of continuing politics by other means
Edd Aspbury explores the complex links between Politics and the Army
We in Britain are lucky that when we talk about politics, we rarely have to mention the army and it is easy to forget how the army relates to the politics that shape it and dictate its actions. We take its absolute subservience and its absence from the political arena for granted but there are some worrying shifts in attitude that may lead to a politicised military.
It is easy to think that all militaries share a similar ideology but as the recent Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts demonstrate, even western armies can differ significantly in mentality. The stiff and continued civil resistance, which the British, army took in its stride, was deeply traumatic for the American military as it sincerely believed it was fighting, not simply for its countries interests, but for freedom and the freedom of Iraqis and Afghans. The difference between the British military, which prides itself on its professionalism and apolitical stance, and its ideologically charged American counterpart is not merely an academic difference. When you fight because it is your job, the enemy is simply the enemy, another human being in combat – but when ideology, whether it be political, social, cultural or religious, is involved, the enemy becomes an enemy who wants to destroy your way of life, he is a threat to everything you and your country stand for. Hatred and a deep lack of understanding of an enemy easily leads to a callous attitude to the enemy, brutality and atrocities. The callous attitude and brutality of the Americans towards the Iraqis manifested itself in the Abu Ghraib scandal.
Where the allegiance of a politicised military lies can quickly become an issue. For example, the Turkish army believes itself to be the guardian of Ataturk’s republic and they are certainly not under the complete control of the government, indeed, the Turkish army has effected numerous (and often deeply unpopular) coups to “protect” the republic. The French army views itself in a similar way and in 1958, during the Algerian War, brought DeGaule back to power. Later on in the same war, large parts of the army and Foreign Legion (including four generals) mutinied and attempted to take over Algiers and brought France to the brink of civil war (the mutineers had even planned how they were to take Paris). Increasing opposition the war and decreasing sympathy for the army and finally, DeGaule’s u-turn on Algeria created in the military the sense of utter betrayal. After the failure of the coup, many disillusioned officers found their way into the OAS – the French right-wing terrorist group that was committed to retaining Algeria.
An army’s neutrality can be sustained if people from all over the political spectrum chose to enlist. But when enlistment becomes a political or ideological issue then the army can quickly become politically minded. As liberals and leftists avoid national service in combat units, the Israeli Defence Force’s combat arms have lurched to the religious right. The consequence of this shift is that some parts of the IDF have said that they will not participate in the dismantling of any Jewish settlements – a process which is vital to any peace deal.
There are lessons to be learnt here, particularly from the Israeli and French examples – both are modern armies from modern states, both were politicised during long and unpopular wars. A situation which is not unfamiliar to us now. Activities such as protesting at military parades, attempting to deny military recruiters access to schools or campuses, denying military personnel membership to certain societies or parties may not immediately politicise the British Army, but they may give it a push down that road.
It is interesting to note that a large amount of soldiers and officers, including many generals, disagree with either our presence in Afghanistan or our actions there, yet they have still done their duty. We must be sure to support the troops and we must avoid at all costs making enlistment a political issue even if we disagree with how the military is used, because, a politicised army might act very differently.
