Re: [Marxism] British Service Personnel Abused By Members Of British Public

["Paul Flewers" <rfls12802@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Further to John E's report from New Zealand, what I find strange about the
UK coverage of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is that the BBC and other
news outlets will spend several minutes of a half-hour bulletin saying that
one soldier has been killed or another has been injured, or that Private
So-and-so rescued Sergeant So-and-so whilst under fire, that kind of thing,
all about one individual, or maybe two or three. Military funerals, even the
transportation of coffins to the UK, are peak-hours news items. Now whilst a
death or injury is a serious and deeply emotional matter for that person's
friends and family, it does seem that a disproportionate amount of time is
spent on individual cases. Similarly with Parliament, with MPs of all
parties not only falling over themselves to congratulate members of the
forces, but making announcements about and giving condolences on individual
deaths.

There is a deep contrast with earlier wars. My father was a conscript in a
British infantry regiment during the Second World War. The casualties both
fatal and non-fatal were numbered in the thousands, my father himself was
wounded during an encounter with the Waffen SS in Holland in 1944. At least
one of my grand-parents' brothers was killed in action during the First
World War. Each death or injury was as traumatic for friends and families
then as now. But individuals were not mentioned in the media during those
wars, unless he was a famous high-ranking officer, or some exceptional case.

Why the difference? Of course, the numbers then were far greater; one
million British servicemen killed in the First World War, 350 000 in the
Second. So when almost every family had a member in the forces, when
everyone knew someone in the forces, the war was an immediate and constant
matter. Now, it's different; a war is far away from the experience of most
people not merely geographically, but in that many people have hardly ever
met a serviceman, let alone been in the forces (conscription stopped here in
the 1950s, you'd have to be about 70 years old to have been conscripted).

So with the distance of the experience of war for most people, and -- most
importantly here -- the unpopularity of the Iraq and Afghanistan adventures
with a large proportion of the population, with people of all political
persuasions opposed to them, it seems that the media and politicians are
trying desperately to involve the public in these wars by emphasising the
personal aspects of them. The latest wheeze is a call for a Military Day:

'Military chiefs, MPs and families of Britain's war dead have called on the
Government to recognise the contribution made by servicemen and women with
the creation of an "Armed Forces Day". Former defence chiefs believe that
such a day would allow the public to pay tribute to the Armed Forces and
their families following years of sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan, where
264 servicemen and women have been killed and more than 1,000 injured. The
day would be marked by all Armed Services members, both on and off duty,
being encouraged to wear uniform in public, open days held at barracks and
announcements in school assemblies to make pupils aware of local troops and
their service to the nation.' <
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/09/narmyday109.
xml >

I very much doubt if this will overcome public apathy, or whip up support
for the current wars.

What is the situation in other countries?

Paul F






________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism