ABSTRACT
The British Army claims to be a ‘force for good’ around the world, prioritising the strengthening of peace and stability in its defence aim (Ministry of Defence 1998, 2003, 2009a), and emphasising the humanitarian aspects of the interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan in all official statements (Ministry of Defence 2009c, 2009b). Cosmopolitan peacekeeping theorists argue that if the complex interventions of the post 9/11 world are to be successful in achieving long term peace and security, new kinds of soldiering will be required (Kaldor 2000; Bellamy and Williams 2004; Elliot and Cheeseman 2004a; Woodhouse and Ramsbotham 2005). It will involve respect for peace building activities rather than seeing them as a poor relation to war-fighting, the proper business of soldiering. Equally, building genuine peace and stability involves a respect and empathy for the ‘distant others’ the intervention is supposed to be supporting – viewing them as equal partners in the project of creating security. These two ingredients are essential components of what can be termed the morality of being a force for good. This chapter argues that the British Army is some way off developing the morality of being a force for good. It contends that another morality, the morality of camaraderie, which involves loyalty to one’s comrades and courage and endurance under fire, is much stronger in the British Army, and trumps the morality of being a force for good in ways that are connected to the gendered identity of the British soldier. Feminist scholars have long pointed out that ideas about masculinity have always been central to the identity of being a soldier (Elshtain 1982; Enloe 1983, 1993; Tickner 1992; Cooke and Woollacott 1993; Zalewski and Parpart 1998; Cockburn 2001; Whitworth 2004; Parpart and Zalewski 2008). As such, any reconceputalisation of soldiering will necessarily involve a reconstruction of the masculine self identity of soldiers. Military masculinities are complex and contradictory and have changed over time, but nonetheless a strong connection between soldiering, masculinity and warfighting has proved resilient. As I go on to explain, this connection both reinforces and is reinforced by what I term the morality of camaraderie. Using British soldiers’ autobiographical reflections, this chapter investigates the constructions of masculinity of British soldiers operating in Iraq and Afghanistan. How does the operational environment influence the construction of military masculinities? Are the practices associated with
warfighting and with the morality of camaraderie – toughness under fire, courage, endurance, loyalty – valorised as much as they always have been? Or are there signs of a reconstruction of masculinity reflecting the concentration on activities associated with peacebuilding? Is there evidence of as much respect for peacebuilding activities as there is for combat? Is there evidence of respect and empathy for ‘distant others’? In other words, are there signs of the development of the morality of being a force for good? The chapter outlines two main themes emanating from the soldiers’ reflections. First, a reinforcement of the links between soldiering, masculinity and warfighting (and a complementary construction of peacebuilding activities as feminised), which undermines the British military’s commitment to being a force for good. Second, the construction of the masculine identity of the British soldier through neo-colonial relations of Self and Other, whereby ordinary Iraqis and Afghans are portrayed as backward, inherently violent and uncivilised, which also makes the achievement of genuine peace and security less likely. It thus concludes that the morality of camaraderie, because of the way it is part and parcel of the masculine self-identity of British soldiers, remains strong, despite the official, peacebuilding, aims of the operations, and that in many ways, this masculine self-identity prevents the morality of being a force for good from developing. The chapter suggests, however, that disruptions – albeit few and far between – to the dominant discourse of military masculinity offer insights into how militaries could be part of a successful security strategy. The emphasis on loyalty, endurance, self-sacrifice, humility and courage – the ‘morality of camaraderie’ at the heart of traditional military masculinities – clearly has potential for the service of peace, as Connell has suggested (Connell 2000, 2002b). The chapter begins by offering a synopsis of the argument that masculinity is central to a soldier’s sense of self. The second section provides some contextual information about the British military in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is important to note here that it is not being argued that the gender identity of British soldiers is at the root of the problems of the interventions into Iraq and Afghanistan. Rather, this section makes the point that the gender dimension is an important but overlooked part of the jigsaw. The third section briefly discusses the methodology, before the fourth goes on to delineate the themes of the soldiers’ reflections. The fifth and final section concludes with a discussion on the clash between the morality of being a force for good and the morality of camaraderie and the potential for resolving the tension between them.
