Modern warfare: Drones and society

Perhaps the toughest decision any leader can undertake is the prospect of declaring war. A leader must be confident enough to believe their convictions that war is the only answer. It cannot be taken likely. War is bloody. War is miserable. War is expensive. All focus tends to be displayed on whether it is necessary. A short and decisive victory can elevate a leader into the people’s hearts. Yet a war that is bloody and sluggish can signal the end of a government. Countless leaders have ridden the polls of popularity after victory; whereas countless more have fallen upon defeat. The Prussian general Carl von Clausewitz said that “War is an extension of politics by other means”, and even to this day wars are resolved by political leaders and diplomats, not soldiers. War is constructed through a political and moral lens. Is an invasion illegal? Could it have international consequences? Is it affordable? These are all questions asked before a potential conflict may ensue. Yet few people actually ask militarily what war means.

The apparatus of war has evolved over the centuries. From formations of soldiers across Great Plains, ready to duel on horseback to the use of cruise missiles in the Gulf wars. As the size of armies has grown and the weapons became more mechanised, it created units dedicated to medical and logistics. The advances in communications and intelligence have allowed armies to operate at greater distance and with more efficiency. No longer do generals lead from the front but can be stationed hundreds of miles away. These advances have not only changed the way wars are fought but increasingly how wars are won. Up until the mid twentieth century, victories were determined by the capitulation of an army or the capture of the enemy’s major city. Today’s technological wars are fought within smaller warzones; requiring fewer frontline troops but retaining devastating fire power.

The increasing use of unmanned drone aircraft is systematic of this change. Even at the beginning of the Iraqi invasion in 2003, drones were small reconnaissance probes that scoured for intelligence. Now, they are much bigger and armed with missiles to target and kill any threat. Controlled from thousands of miles away in a military base in Nevada, operators are engaged in a form of virtual war as they hunt enemies around the world. In late 2011, the American born Islamist militant, Anwar Awlaki was killed by a CIA drone in Yemen to little news coverage. In fact, the use of drones over North-West Pakistan, killing an unknown number of militants and civilians, has caused America less trouble diplomatically than the raid carried out by US Navy SEALS that killed Osama bin Laden.

Wars that are unseen are perhaps more conducive for a government and military. Compare the news coverage of assassinations of Iranian nuclear physicists by foreign agents (possibly Mossad) and the computer virus that has caused havoc to Iranian nuclear enrichment plants (CIA, GCHQ) to NATO’s role in Libya. It is unsurprising that governments are investing heavily in their secret services and Special Forces, moving away from the traditional spheres of warfare.

All the while, Western societies are increasingly subscribing to a post-militaristic view. As fewer families are affected by war, they are moving away from the ideas of associated with the army. Civilians do not accept the idea of a soldier dying for the good of the mission. Soldiers are ends in themselves, not means of the Army. The use of improvised explosive devices (IEDs) has made this war more vivid, particularly with a greater number of survivors and a modern media to convey their story. Although every death is tragic, it neglects the fact that soldiers sign up knowing they could possibly die. In World War One, on average 559 British soldiers died per day (886,939 in total), In Afghanistan, a war that began in 2001 has so far killed 398 soldiers. It highlights the point.

All wars are demanding on all constituents: politicians, the military and ordinary citizens. Although wars will be fought on different lines, it will continue to ask the same questions as before.

The last fighting Tommy. Remembered

The final British soldier of the Great War passed away this week. Claude Choules, who was 110, died in a nursing home in Australia. He was the final combat troop to see the surrender of the German Imperial Navy and the scuttling of the fleet at Scapa Flow. For a long time, we have counted down a final resting place for this selfless generation to a war that no one wanted to talk about.

The interesting thing about Britain and war is that we seem to revel in all elements of it. Military terminology is laced in sporting adjectives and the Royal Wedding would not have been complete without a flyover from a Hurricane, Lancaster and the Spitfire. The current trend is raising money for cancer and armed forces charities, yet to a great extent Britain, until the Second World War, Britain was quite a pacifistic nation. World War One is inherently apart of that.

Empire was not necessarily conducive towards war-mongering and despite the ugly images of Amritsar, Hola or Palestine, Britain did its very best to keep the peace with few patrolling on the ground. In historical terms, British generals tend to be lionised because victories tended to come by surprise; mainly because our geography saw a greater need in sea power rather than land forces. The likes of Blenheim (Marlborough), Waterloo (Wellington) and El-Alamein (Montgomery) are etched in the nation’s psyche, yet other historical land battles are hard to come by.

Britain has had few, certainly over the past two centuries, army generals as Prime Ministers. The Duke of Wellington (Arthur Wellesley) stands out, yet the greater demands of Parliamentary democracy intertwined with Empire meant that Westminster had less input from military minds. Even Cromwell’s New Model Army was disbanded after it defeated the Charles the First’s loyalists. Compare that to the likes of continental Europe who saw military men dominate domestic politics for a century further.

The origins of World War One are often manifested in the Congress of Vienna, a century earlier that did not prevent all wars (Crimean, Franco-Prussian) but negated all out continental war. This was the first war that Britain legally enforced enlistment. This was common in Germany and France, yet Britain, who tended to avoid European affairs, finally asked its men to enrol. We now know, the pageantry and patriotism became blurred and much of Europe was converted into blood lands. The massacres and suffering decimated a generation and inflicted the vivid horrors of mechanical war to the ordinary.

People like Choules, and those that have gone before him, did not revel in their situation. To them it was pure and simply about duty. World War Two is frequently embedded in our national psyche because we did not see the wide scale human suffering across Europe. We remember the likes of Coventry and HMS Hood, and those who died. However, we do not lament the struggle of the Blitz, Dunkirk or the Battle of Britain. These are scorched in our memories as times of community and celebration. World War Two was an occasion when we emerged from the dark perils of solitude to emerge as victors. World War One was intolerable, unimaginable and suffering. The fighting was not brave because no one entirely knew what would ensue. Inevitably, men were slaughtered and families destroyed. The Great War should never be deemed as a grey conflict that preceded the heroism and gallantry of World War Two, it was a story in itself. Choules, was part of a generation of men that went over the top with the uncertainty of what would happen. The tragedy of the Great War was not the diplomacy and politics that happened after, it was the slaughter on the Somme, Passchendaele and Verdun. We should all remember that.

After war: Post Combat Trauma Stress

I have just started watching Tom Hanks and Steven Spielberg’s World War Two miniseries ‘The Pacific’. As a narrative perspective it is easy to conclude that ‘Band of Brothers’, the 2001 series set in the grey clouds of Europe, is better and for many reasons. The war in Europe had its obvious heroes and villains and moral structures of good versus evil. These were typified by acts such as the liberation of Paris to the discovery of the death camps in Hitler’s blood lands. The Pacific war did not breathe the romance of liberating Europe; it was a war of attrition. US Marines launching seaborne assaults on isolated islands in the hope of flushing out a determined and virulent enemy. It was savage and neglected and often distorted by the realms of Hollywood and the denouement in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

We have a Hollywood interpretation of the brutality of war but have time for those who gave their lives for such causes. Yet there appears to be great neglect to those mentally scarred by war. In recent years the National Arboretum was erected in Staffordshire to commemorate the war dead and much publicity and charity has been made of sites like Headley Court, dedicated to help injured soldiers recover after life-threatening injuries. The toils and scars from the death and blasts in World War One are etched in our memories through the poems of Sassoon, Owen and Graves; yet the legacy was vivid in the minds of those who survived the front only to face a hell from within. The British Army identified around 80,000 men suffered from the exposure to such atrocities, many of their wounds would never heal and they ended up in asylums.

Figures show that more American soldiers have committed suicide in the past decade than have been killed in combat in Afghanistan. Post-traumatic combat stress (PTCS), as it has now been identified, has caused countless dedicated men to turn their lives to drugs, alcohol and crime.

It is estimated that around 20,000 veterans are within the criminal justice system and that 10% of the prison population is filled with former soldiers. There is an argument that many members of the armed forces came from the fringes of society and that enlisting, cruelly, was the best way to steer clear from crime, but that would be an indictment on the reputations of many these honourable men.

In the last twenty years, the British Army was involved in Iraq twice, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Sierra Leone; all for varying durations with incalculable risks. Young and inexperienced men are entering situations that are abnormal to society, and expect the things they saw, did and became as normal. Perhaps it is understandable that drugs and crime have become their tonic.

It is now normal procedure for decommissioned battalions, who have just seen combat, to spend a fortnight or so unwinding in places like Cyprus, away from the enemy’s bullet and the banalities of family life. After the Falklands War it was noticed that members of the Parachute Regiment, who flew back home, were more likely to suffer PTCS or commit suicide, than members of the Royal Navy who had a two-week journey back to the UK. It is deemed that this decompression is a vital starting step to let soldiers unwind from months of combat.

War is never glamorous and even the bright lights of Hollywood are reflecting on the trials of soldiers in modern-day warfare. We know the sacrifices made in such theatres are heavy on families and communities, but perhaps it is changing our relationship with mental illness as well. We live in a country where the public no longer accepts or understands the need for long drawn-out wars. Most soldiers would acknowledge and fear the ideas of sacrifice but I daresay many would disregard the scars that come with it.

The Victoria Cross: These are our heroes.

If one is to attend a job interview it seems quite likely that you may be asked who is your hero? Most people tend to stick to the obvious examples: Winston Churchill, Gandhi and Nelson Mandela. We hold all these men with great reverence and most people would agree with their inclusion. Why though do we ever feel a need to apotheosise ‘great’ men and women and what is the opinion of those labelled or often burdened with the tag. I ask this question because the word hero has been used several times recently. David Cameron described his late disabled father as a ‘huge hero figure’ and last week the MoD released the names of the men and women awarded medals for recent military contributions in Afghanistan.

People have always looked for leaders and inspiration in society, particularly in difficult times. Thomas Carlyle's now obsolete ‘Great Man Theory’ was a practical belief that certain individuals dictated the course of history and changed the interactions of society forever. Yet often it is not these great men (and women) that we look up to. It is the ones that teach and motivate us. They are our guardians in time of need and solace. They are the ones that confounded the odds and changed history for the better.


If one is to attend a job interview it seems quite likely that you may be asked who is your hero? Most people tend to stick to the obvious examples: Winston Churchill, Gandhi and Nelson Mandela. We hold all these men with great reverence and most people would agree with their inclusion. Why though do we ever feel a need to apotheosise ‘great’ men and women and what is the opinion of those labelled or often burdened with the tag. I ask this question because the word hero has been used several times recently. David Cameron described his late disabled father as a ‘huge hero figure’ and last week the MoD released the names of the men and women awarded medals for recent military contributions in Afghanistan.


Why though do people who are called heroes feel they need to disprove it? It is simply that these people were never looking for such titles or admiration. Their lives were never dictated for glory or decoration. The most venerated members of the British Army are those who have received the Victoria Cross, simply engraved with the words of ‘For Valour’, it is only awarded to those who perform the most brave of acts in the face of the enemy. Many say that when performing such acts, these soldiers face a 90% chance of dying; often with no regard for their own lives. Yet listening to their testimonies it is apparent that their ‘fame’ provides an unnecessary guilt. The medal becomes a chain around their own neck and hides the fate of their comrades. Perhaps it is just that without a medal you will remember all of them and not those who survived.

I remember watching the closing scenes of Clint Eastwood’s 2006 film Flags of Our Fathers and listening to the quote given by the veteran’s son. It seems very appropriate and is moving all the same:

“I finally came to the conclusion that he maybe he was right. Maybe there's no such thing as heroes. Maybe there are just people like my Dad. I finally came to understand why they were so uncomfortable being called heroes. Heroes are something we create, something we need. It's a way for us to understand what's almost incomprehensible, how people could sacrifice so much for us, but for my dad and these men, the risks they took, the wounds they suffered, they did that for their buddies. They may have fought for their country but they died for their friends. For the man in front, for the man beside him, and if we wish to truly honour these men we should remember them the way they really were, the way my dad remembered them.”

Heroes are a palpable way for us to realise our dreams. They are the inspiration in our somewhat prosaic lives. They score the goal that we dream to score. They challenge the injustices with desire and pugnacity that we could only hope for. They represent our aspirations and hold our safety net at the same time. They provide an answer to the meaning of our lives and a platform to progress. As corny as it may sound we all need our hero at some time in our lives.

Foreign relations: placing Britain on the map.

Looking at Britain's place in the world, it is easy to think pie in the sky amidst International Relations theory and group our interests as an integral part of Europe, mixed with a 'Special Relationship' with America, not to mention the lasting historical and cultural ties with the Commonwealth. Britain is a nuclear power (albeit under the US's defensive wing), it is the seventh richest country in the world and its soft power is vast in terms of language, law and culture.

Since the Coalition Government came to power there is a renewed sense of soul-searching in terms of the British footprint across the world, through its Foreign Policy and Armed Forces. In times of economic hardship it is becomes apparent that a hefty defence budget is an easy target to slice, particularly when the public are more concerned about health, education and the economy. What can Britain effectively do when it is fighting an isolated and expensive war in Afghanistan and expect major cuts at the MOD?

Britain has Trident, a weapons system that is more appropriate to the Cold War than the modern mobile insurgency that we see today. Yet, if the country were to dispose of this costly yet 'necessary' weapon (figures range between 20 to 130 billion sterling) would we lose our top seat at the UN? Certainly, you could take Tony Blair and New Labour’s opinion that they are needed in an ‘uncertain world’ or the opposite gambit that the money could be spent on more effective defensive equipment like cruise missiles, helicopters or investment in special forces. Ballistic missiles and particularly submarinal warfare is only likely to take place against a superpower, but how likely is that? Would Britain’s voice still continue to be heard if it is willing to send thousands of its troops abroad, even if it doesn’t have tactical nuclear weapons.

The fact the coalition government has decided to ring fence Trident suggests that it is to maintain Britain’s continuing defensive force. This seems utterly stupid when it will have to mothball two Royal Navy aircraft carriers, retain and probably store needless amounts of Typhoon Jets that are too expensive to operate and maintain a combat force of 10 000 fighting a thankless war in Afghanistan. If Trident is necessary then have a debate in Parliament, the Government will win if its case is overriding of any moral or budgetary opposition. The politics of defence procurement is that military contracts and defence budgets can show real muscle flexing but ultimately they are expensive and can be out-dated once contracts are fulfilled. The British tanks in Iraq seem superfluous to today's combat missions.

Defensive reviews and cuts of all natures lead to the same thing: hurting people on the frontline, something very costly to all those men dug-in in Afghanistan. One telling statistic this week was that the U.S. spends £75 billion a year on military intelligence, that’s more than the entire UK defence budget. Spending reviews give no long term answers and only an decision by the government can ultimately decide Britain's future. The Foreign Secretary William Hague is fully aware of the great statesman of the nineteenth century and their policies, maybe it is time for some Disraeli-style pragmatism.