ABSTRACT
The study of war is a retrospective activity. By the time the historian or the social scientist (usually civilians) turn attention to a particular conflict, the battlefield has been empty, silent and cold for some time. The significance of the moment has been consigned to social memory in the form of official records and specific narratives of warriors, many of whom have written their memoirs years after the event while adjusting to the new environment of retirement. What was ‘real’ or seemed so at the time is now reconstructed and the challenge for the analyst is to collate as well as sift these often contradictory ‘fragments’ of reminiscence into some sort of logical explanation. It is a difficult task, bearing in mind the pervasive nature of dominant narratives and the endorsed accounts by the states involved in the fighting. Yet, in view that the war is over and, historically speaking, no one can obtain a real-time panoramic perspective on a past event, much can be gleaned from the ‘still evident’ cultural fingerprints of the military organizations involved in the campaign. As Alastair Buchan reminds us, ‘war, armed and organized physical conflict, is a very ancient social activity’1 and with all such actions carried out by people, especially those enacted in a deliberate manner by military institutions, certain idiosyncratic characteristics and consistencies can be identified.
