30 March 2017
Could You Be A Soldier?
Marine A and the National Army Museum.
By Lynda Goetz
Sergeant Alexander Blackman (also known as Marine A), who was convicted of murdering a wounded Taliban terrorist in November 2013, has had his conviction overturned and replaced with one for manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility. His original sentence was for life with a minimum term of 10 years and that sentence has now been reduced to seven years. Given that he has already been in prison for three and a half years, the compulsory part of the term, it is expected that he will be freed within the next fortnight, much to the relief and jubilation of his wife, Claire, and his many supporters. There are nevertheless many others who consider he should serve the full term for his ‘crime’.
Marine A is ‘the first British soldier ever convicted of murder on a battlefield’. This, if you pause for just one second, is an amazing fact, given the millions who have fought in modern conflicts around the world. Not one of those who fought in the First and Second World Wars was hauled before a court in this way; and although the discredited Iraq Historic Allegations Team (IHAT) and Northmoor operations have investigated thousands of soldiers for alleged murder, torture and rape in Iraq and Afghanistan, no-one else has ever been convicted of murder on a battlefield. Is it this fact which should surprise us or the fact that anyone should have been convicted of murder on a battlefield?
In years gone by, war was something which affected many of those in the population. Local lords and squires were expected to raise armies, or, at the very least, to contribute men to whatever war their king was currently undertaking. Leaders and civilians had an understanding of war based on participation in one form or another. Right up to and including the Second World War, conflict was in many ways close to the civilian population. Everyone had a father, brother, cousin, friend or fiancé who was involved. Even if those who were actually involved found it difficult to communicate the horrors they had seen and participated in, war was nevertheless something relevant to those ‘back home’. Recent conflicts have not been like that. As a result the distance between the civilian population and the soldiers has increased and the understanding has lessened.
How many of us can imagine really what it is like to kill another human being? Move on from that and imagine that that is your job – to kill and be killed. In past centuries our leaders came from those who understood this perfectly, who had indeed achieved their own status because of their own superior ability to succeed in battle; the David Beckhams and Roger Federers of the battlefield, rather than the sports field. Nowadays those skills are not required and our politicians and leaders, including our military leaders, may not have extensive, or indeed any, experience of combat. Modern rules of warfare are drawn up by such people. That there are such rules is progress, but when they are applied it must be recognised that the way humans behave in the heat of battle, or indeed in the aftermath of battle, is not the same way the rest of us would behave or expect others to behave in ordinary day-to-day life.
Perhaps then it is appropriate that at this point in time the National Army Museum in Chelsea is re-opening following a three-year re-vamp at a cost of £24 million. The museum is, contrary to popular view, independent of the army but offers an insight into the world of soldiering and war for today’s largely civilian population. It opens to the public today, 30th March, but those who have had the chance to preview the new museum seem to have been universally impressed by its new incarnation. Gone are the fusty exhibits and confusing layout. According to Tabish Khan in The Londonist, money has been well spent and ‘the designers have done a five-star job’. Mark Hudson in The Telegraph is equally impressed and considers that the museum achieves the difficult balancing act of being both ‘anti-heroic’ in its attitude to war, whilst at the same time managing to communicate the combination of life-enhancing camaraderie, fear, boredom and repetitive duties which make up army life. Both use the term ‘thought-provoking’. Maeve Kennedy in The Guardian rather limits her comments to the fact that the museum hopes to attract increased visitor numbers with its assembled memorabilia, including the Duke of Wellington’s cloak and the skeleton of Napoleon’s horse, but is the only one to attribute the impressive airy new design to BDP architects (http://www.bdp.com/) who must take credit for transforming the original dark and confusing interior.
‘Could you be a soldier?’ is the question asked of visitors to the first of five centre piece galleries. Accounts and words from soldiers over the last 200 years illustrate various aspects of soldiering and as visitors leave they are asked the question again. It would be interesting to find out the answers. I suspect that for many, many of us, including those who have judged Sergeant Blackman, it would be ‘no’. We should perhaps therefore be very careful when judging those soldiers, sailors, airmen or marines who fight on our behalf and whose job it is to kill or be killed. It is not a job most of us would want or be capable of. That Sergeant Blackman is no longer considered a murderer is good news. That his case has highlighted the contemporary gulf between the military men on the ground, some of their superiors and the general public, is something which perhaps in a small way the National Army Museum can help to address.
The National Army Museum (https://www.nam.ac.uk/) Royal Hospital Road, SW3 4HT. Admission Free.
If you enjoyed this article please share it using the buttons above.
Please click here if you would like a weekly email on publication of the ShawSheet
