Politicians argue about the first world war, but Tommy stays silent
|
Version 0 of 1. Prying political capital from soldier's hardships is a grand old tradition. It is the modern equivalent of looting corpses strewn across the battlefield. A week into the centenary year and public figures are falling over themselves to rebrand the great martial calamity of the first world war, and once again they are trading on the backs of the war dead. Everyone is so busy firing volleys at Tommy Atkins's expense that nobody has seen fit to ask him his view. Had they bothered to inquire of a veteran from the ranks, they might have heard how exasperating it is to see the dainty long-range patriots of Labour thrashing it out with the staunch gutter jingoists of the Conservative party – and barely a non-commissioned vet among them. Perhaps the most jarring aspect of this circus is the attempt to positively colour the failed wars of today with a poorly doctored history of the conflicts of yesteryear. It does not fill this veteran with optimism to see that Labour has got no better at fact-checking since dodgy dossier days. In their indignant, harrumphing rush to counter Michael Gove's foaming attack on TV programmes like Blackadder Goes Forth and the left, Labour completely forgot to take into account that a Labour minister, former army officer Dan Jarvis, had put, almost word for word, the same arguments as Gove did in an article published late last year. He received no public rebuke at all from his party colleagues. Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage chipped in today. Tellingly, Private Baldrick has proved to have a crisper grasp on history than the lot of them put together. All sides in this soulless game are prone to collapse into gurgling, incoherent heaps at the merest mention of the military. During and immediately after wars it has always been the case that the soldier becomes politically useful and that all parties fight to be seen as having the best interests of Our Boys at heart – especially when there are elections approaching. Let us not forget that returning veterans of the "war to end all wars were promised a "land fit for heroes", yet what they got post-1918 was poverty, squalor, unemployment and, after a short lull, more war. It doesn't end there. Labour's Jarvis has also suggested special courts for veterans. In practical terms this seems to mean special courts for people with post-traumatic stress disorder – a condition which is hardly limited to the military. Veterans, Jarvis' article argues, deserve lifelong care. Does that mean people in non-military jobs do not? Is there something special about service personnel? As a veteran and PTSD sufferer myself, I take issue with any such claim. In this country we are meant to consider all people equal before the law, are we not? Surely existing courts can be reformed to take into account the effects of mental trauma on those caught up in a judicial process. I have no doubt Jarvis is genuinely concerned with the plight of soldiers; by all accounts he was a good and conscientious officer, but I believe that veterans are once again being elevated to special status in the hope that it will mitigate public disgust at to the recent round of wars. Once again the soldier himself will be largely voiceless in all of this. He, like the history of the first world war, will become a political football to be kicked around by those who barely understand the conditions of his life. But while politicians are busy trying to score their hero point over the next four years they would do well to remember that, as Kipling put it, "… Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool – you bet that Tommy sees". Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. |