Harry Leslie Smith, a WWII veteran, hasn’t worn a poppy for Remembrance since 2013, claiming ‘the spirit of (his) generation has been hijacked’ to sell ‘dubious wars’. This statement reflects the growing feeling that Remembrance Sunday, the media, and politicians have blurred the line between respect for soldiers (both past and present) and a relentless glorification of the military.
The media has always played a huge role in the ways in which military conflicts have been portrayed. Propaganda in some form has been around for centuries - from posed photographs in the Crimean War, the Battle of the Somme film and militant music - in order to promote the political purposes they carry out. The Gulf War of 1990-1991 marked a turning point in the reporting of war to audiences. Cleverly, the conflict was portrayed as painless and bloodless, and the military was presented as a force of humanitarian aid, often using biased or false information to come to these conclusions.
The same philosophy is present in most arguments promoting militarism. Many focus on a romanticised image of people risking their lives to defend liberty, freedom and their country without acknowledging the motives for which the government uses its military. In the case of the Gulf War, there was no defence of the freedom of America. There was no protection of liberty. Soldiers are sent to do what the politicians cannot do themselves.
The political motives behind this war are complex, and somewhat irrelevant, yet what it demonstrates is that any military is at the disposition of the government. In this way, the constant glorification of the Armed Forces dissociates itself from its inherently political existence, leaving its power over lives open to possible exploitation. Questioning the glorification of the military is not a matter of respect; it is a matter of political independence of thought.
Written by Imogen Aley
Artwork by Zara Masood
Comments