Using Armymen for diplomatic muscle-flexing, be it in the US, UK or India, has become commonplace. In the end, it diminishes the institution’s name and glory
Globally, ‘veterans’ naturally gravitate towards conservative parties as the Centrist and Left-of-Centre parties are traditionally perceived to be ‘soft on security’. The Republican Party in the US and the Conservative Party (the Tories) in the UK usually garner more support than the Democratic Party or the Labour Party, respectively. With politics assuming more nationalistic undertones, political appropriation and positing of the ‘soldiers’ and their ostensibly-related causes has become more blatant and commonplace. UK Prime Minister Theresa May had slammed FIFA’s decision to disallow English football players from wearing ‘poppy’ lapels (in remembrance of soldiers who died in wars) as “utterly outrageous”; whereas US President Donald Trump came back from the Bastille Day military parade in Paris, wanting to replicate and top the same with his own version of a grand military parade. Clearly, centering the ‘soldier’ makes for good politics.
However, beyond the immediate traction, overplaying the symbolic hand on this tact without doing anything concrete or meaningful has diminishing returns. Already, the unprecedented cuts in the UK’s Department for Work and Pensions, affecting the ‘veterans’, have made ‘ex-service personnel account for one in 10 rough sleepers across the UK’. Indeed, in the US, Trump’s shocking mock of the post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)-affected soldiers or the ‘privatisation’ of the veteran health services, militate against the professed concerns for the uniformed fraternity. The lazy perception that these men and women of honour could join the Administration of the ruling political dispensations as ‘trophy-candidates’ and loyal ‘yes-men’, to project militaristic muscularity, patriotism and decisiveness on the bankrolling party, is slowly coming undone. It is true that the institutional ethos and regimental/corps spirit bequeaths these combatants with certain outwardly machismo, steel and heroic ‘branding’, but beyond the razzmatazz of their medals, uniforms and swagger, lie decades of hands-on experience, blood-sweat-toil in disturbed areas and years of training and reflection that make these people amongst the most balanced and nuanced individuals who do not suffer from knee-jerk reactions.
Usually, what comes as a surprise to the politicos is the latent gravitas, inherent sense of self-respect and the undying spirit of speaking the truth (gently but surely), that ultimately make the political masters uncomfortable in their midst. The retired Marine Corps General James Mattis (who recently quit as the US Secretary of Defence) is famous for telling his troops: “You are part of the world’s most feared and trusted force. Engage your brain before your weapon.”
The healthy institutional diversity within the ‘barracks’ and the societal bonhomie under the most trying of circumstances make these veterans life-long believers in plurality and ‘inclusiveness’ that is above the regressive divides that beset and define partisan politics.
Combatants are also hardwired into believing “dissent is not disloyalty”, albeit, expressed in a certain form with the requisite context, form and dignity. Thus, the unmalleable spirit of ‘brothers-in-arms’ that swears only to the hallowed Constitutional spirit of the nation, riles against the political necessities, compromises and bigotry that usually accompany partisan politics.
Contrary to some caricaturised perceptions, soldiers are not war-mongering or blood-lusting cadres, as the nobility of the soldiers code ensures a more professional, rationale and reasonable instinct that differentiates a soldier from a mercenary. The legendary General Douglas MacArthur famously said: “The soldier above all prays for peace, for it is the soldier who must suffer and bear the deepest wounds and scars of war”.
The recent case of a similar realisation dawned on the draft-evader, Trump, who, in order to inject some testosterone of muscularity that befitted his contours of ‘America First’, got carried over by the Captain America-like superhero image of the iconic, four-star General, James Mattis (popularly known as ‘mad dog’ and ‘warrior monk’), and inducted him as the Secretary of Defence.
Perhaps, unknown to Trump was the erudition, sagacity and profundity that also came along with the Pattonesque-persona, whose real-time combat experience was enhanced by the scholarship that came with a personal library of over 7,000 books, unlike the empty rhetoric and vacuous bluster of a Donald Trump. The officer-like conduct in Mattis had insisted on a certain decorum and dignity in engaging with the allies, and not in the fanciful flights of temperamental rants that define Trump. Mattis’ exit and inability to get along with Trump mirrored the similar fate that beset other veterans, like the previous National Security Advisor, Lt Gen McMaster.
Historically, in India, too, veterans-turned-politicians have been amongst the most respected, well-read and responsible leaders like the classic cavalier Jaswant Singh, Maj Gen Khanduri and Rajesh Pilot — each of who did imminent justice and service to their respective political parties and administrative responsibilities. However, in the last few years, a new phenomenon emerged of newsroom-warriors plumed in their regimental regalia, thundering political invectives and positions dominating the prime-time slots. Thankfully, time and tide forced some into introspection, reflection and realisation that the politicos appropriated and misused the imagery of the ‘soldier’ for their own partisan purposes and basically the institutional interests and concerns remained unanswered, as before.
Election time is always fraught with the risk of such tactical propping of veterans as ‘show-horses’ for posturing patriotism and political muscularity. Care must be taken to ensure that the apolitical-construct and wiring of the Armed Forces is respected, and no ‘firing from the shoulders’ of these veterans is done to justify political pettiness, nefarious designs and selfish electoral objectives.
Like the veterans of yore, no implied extension of their military service should be encouraged to suggest an ‘institutional’ preference towards any political party — the veterans should propagate their partisan preferences in their individual capacity and certainly not on behalf of the ‘institution. A delicate line must be maintained. Irrespective of the political parties, matters concerning the ‘soldier’ have remained unaddressed and in crunch situations, the discomfort of politicians with the perspective and concerns of the ‘soldiers’ — be it in the US, UK or India — has led to the steady diminishment of the ‘institution’ in the national narrative.
(The writer, a military veteran, is a former Lt Governor of Andaman & Nicobar Islands and Puducherry)
