Who is fighting your war?

Starmer’s push to make the UK “battle-ready” is at odds with a generation disillusioned with war, distrustful of government motives, and unwilling to fight without a clear moral cause (and maybe not even then).

Starmer is ready to make the UK “battle-ready” as he unveils his defence spending plans that will apparently have us fending off the very immediate threats around us. It follows Starmer’s drip and drabs of threats that ensure war stays in the public consciousness, only giving us a few months in between to relax.

But he’s back at it by not only announcing the increase in defence spending but with a side of scaremongering on top of it. In all fairness, our military and defence systems have been fairly underinvested in in recent years and are unequipped to deal with potential threats. However, nuclear is not one of them. Sure, bolster our defences against cyber-attacks, invest in more drones, build a more autonomous defence system with Europe that has less of a reliance on our unreliable ally the US. But we are already spending a phenomenal amount on nuclear.

The 140-page review oversees one of the first years since the Cold War where defence spending wasn’t cut and proclaims the UK must be “ready to fight and win”. Which is important when “Russia is already menacing our skies and our waters and threatening cyber-attacks”. Many understand that the current situation we face in world diplomacy has never been so rocky, there is a lot of escalation surrounding us. More defence investment is perhaps wise, but what war are we talking about here? Do we realistically see a war coming to us, and in what capacity?

Yet, in all this talk of getting ready to fight, and win, I think they really should be asking who will be doing the fighting? A recruitment drive is on the way, which makes sense since you can fit all UK military personnel in Wembley Stadium at present. However, in this war that they seem so eager for (probably as a last-ditch attempt at boosting Starmer’s ratings), who are they thinking will take up arms in their name, and in big numbers? I think what might be rather shocking to the UK Government is the young people of today, the age group that would be the ones forced into this, are not interested in war and are not willing to fight.

Let’s face it, the chances of a war coming to our shores are extremely small, yet if that were to happen that would be a different case altogether, and like the Second World War, yes Starmer, you would get your all-willing army. Defending your own home is a very different situation. But since the chances of that materialising are small, we are talking about troops going overseas. We would once again be supporting or bringing a war to somewhere foreign.

If we’re not providing a good reason for young people to fight a war, e.g. your home may be destroyed, and we need to fight for everything you know, then there has to be moral obligation. Mind you, I could understand the resentment when our economic make-up has afforded little to nothing for young people today, so asking them to fight seems like a bit of a kick to the teeth.

So to get those young folks running towards their local recruitment office there would have to be a moral obligation. A feeling of sticking up for what’s right in this world. Just like grandparents and great-grandparents did against the Nazis.

Alas, that seems to be the last time where we were truly the good guys. Since then, we have too often danced with the role of being the aggressor and on the wrong side of history. All coming to a crescendo of today where we seem to be supporting the efforts of a genocide and offering up a measly plea to Israel to cool it on killing children.

Funnily enough, most people have caught on to this and have come to the realisation, maybe for the first time, that the UK armed forces and general allyship isn’t always on the right side. According to a recent YouGov poll, the support for Israel in the UK is almost at its lowest once again, the public perception of how the UK Government and the British media have reported on Gaza is not favourable.

Trust has been eroded and what’s happened will not be forgotten. To talk about glorious war on one hand and expect the public to be happy, while at the same time supporting war crimes, is shameful. The young people of today are far removed from World War Two, very few have living relatives who went through it who paint a picture of the good we do. Young people will know of the disaster that was the Iraq war, they will know about the way in which we left Afghanistan in a mess and how senior military figures blocked those who aided British forces in gaining visas.

What they have been shown in their lifetime is that we aren’t always the good guys. In this hypothetical war situation, it’s hard to believe that many would be so willing to just accept what the UK Government says and willingly go to war. So you’re left with the problem of, can you run a war without the consent of those fighting it?

Another poll at the start of this year found that only one in ten Brits would be willing to fight in a war. While 41% of those asked aged 18–27 said there would be no circumstances at all in which they would take up arms for their country.

It is rather significant that this large a portion of young people would not take up arms. However, already this Government is using any excuse to drive up recruitment, on top of the scaremongering is the increase of unemployment in the young and the lack of jobs. Because why would they help young people into employment when they could funnel them into the armed forces…

However, you can bet that while Rachel Reeves speaks to ITV about the benefits of joining the army, she would not be pushing her children towards it. It goes without saying that a career in the armed forces is a great fit for some people and will deliver a long and rewarding career, but it shouldn’t be the option afforded because of a lack of options elsewhere.

It is no secret that the army continues to target young people from poor working-class backgrounds to drive up recruitment and have had recruitment campaigns criticised from the likes of Child Soldiers International due to this.

I am sure that following Starmer’s fight and win speech we will witness a lot more of this, and perhaps continue to be an army with significantly younger soldiers than that of our allies. Many have questioned our ability to lessen the moral risk of those more vulnerable in the British Army, and believe that recruitment procedures fail to promote and protect moral wellbeing in disadvantaged school-leaver recruits.

So, Starmer, who is fighting your war?