At international summits and in the media, all the talk is about increased defence spending and rearmament. At the recent Hague summit, the NATO allies agreed to increase their defence spending to 5% of their GDP. And yet, all the publicity about finally taking national defence and security seriously comes across as dishonest posturing. Why? Because the leaders of most NATO member states are fully aware that their military forces are not ready for a serious fight. Worse still, the population of Western societies has embraced a post-heroic culture that regards the defence of their nation as not their concern. Young people have been turned off from embracing the values of patriotism, courage, and duty, and, consequently, many of them feel little responsibility for defending their nation.
On paper, Germany ought to be a serious military power. It possesses the largest economy in Western Europe and has the resources necessary to rearm its military. Germany’s Chancellor Friedrich Mertz stated that his government “will in the future provide all the financing the Bundeswehr needs to become the strongest conventional army in Europe.” In reality, all the talk about investing in a major programme of rearmament cannot obscure the fact that Germany is not ready to fight a war. Surveys indicate that the citizens of Germany do not want to leave their safe space to join the field of battle.
A survey conducted this month by the Forsa Institute indicated that only 17% of Germans said they would defend their country if attacked. According to Aylin Matlé, a fellow at the German Council on Foreign Relations, “younger people don’t really see the purpose of why they should put their lives at risk for Germany.” The German army—the Bundeswehr—is aging fast. It also continues to shrink because of an average of 20,000 retirements a year. Such a high attrition rate raises the question—what’s the point of investing billions in a programme of rearmament?
Germany is not the only society that has become alienated from the demands of national security. Last year, a Gallup survey of people in 45 countries asked how willing they were to fight for their country in case of war. Four of the five nations with the least committed fighters globally were in Europe, including Spain, Germany, and, notably, Italy, where only 14% of those surveyed said that they were ready to fight a foreign enemy.
Historically, those most ready to fight a foreign foe came from the younger generations. Today, the situation is dramatically altered. Surveys conducted on both sides of the Atlantic highlight the reluctance of young people to fight for their country. A Quinnipiac University poll, conducted in 2022 in the United States, found that only 55 per cent of the respondents stated that they would fight in the face of a foreign invasion. Surveys of Europeans indicate that their respondents are even more reluctant to take up arms in defence of their nations.
It is evident that the West is in the throes of a post-heroic Zeitgeist where attitudes towards the military are underpinned by a mood of intellectual and moral disarmament. It is not the fault of the young that they have been afflicted with a safety-first risk-averse sensibility. Many of them are no longer educated and socialized to embrace the values of patriotism, duty, and sacrifice.
Duty, Honour, Country are central elements of the Warrior Ethos. Honour, in particular, is a key value for the military. As Paul Robinson pointed out in Military Honour and the Conduct of War:
honour spurs men to fight in two ways: positively, through the desire to display virtue and win honour; and negatively, through a desire to avoid dishonour or shame.” Warriors expect to take risks and make sacrifices to accomplish the mission, protect their fellow warriors, and safeguard innocents.
The Western world in general, and the Anglo-American world in particular, has become risk-averse, and its military has become casualty-averse and estranged from honour and the ideal of sacrifice.
Not so long ago, the ideals of fighting for a cause and even risking death attracted millions of young people to their nation’s cause. Today, for many intellectuals, it is unthinkable that a significant section of society could find meaning in war. As Christopher Coker explained in his Waging War Without Warriors?, wars have become detached from the values that influence everyday life. Western institutions of culture obsess about the value of safety and regard the willingness to sacrifice as a bizarre, outdated ideal.
Heroism has lost its moral status as a medium for inspiring the young. As Coker remarked, “we tend to deprive [heroes] of the fullness of their lives in order to support and sustain the smallness of our own.” Instead of glorifying heroism, the ethos of risk aversion has become institutionalised within society.
Unlike some institutions in society, the military cannot survive without taking risks. However, the military values associated with the warrior ethos face a challenge from potent cultural influences that negate risk-taking behaviour. Despite the many action-packed Hollywood movies that celebrate heroism and bravery, there is little cultural value placed on risk-taking military behaviour. Prevailing norms towards health and safety decry risk-taking behaviour. A culture that shows a low threshold towards losses in everyday life is unlikely to possess the capacity to celebrate risk-taking behaviour within military institutions. That is also one reason why the status and authority of the military have declined.
The elites of society have distanced themselves from a warrior ethos and the military, and their participation in this institution has significantly diminished. Even the mainstream of society has become estranged from military values. As two radical critics remark, “the representative image of the U.S. soldier is no longer that of a John Wayne, and more important, the profiles of U.S. soldiers do not resemble the profiles of the U.S. citizenry.” In Britain, too, fighting a war is increasingly outsourced to private contractors, foreign mercenaries, and the most economically disadvantaged section of society.
If the ruling elites of society have become so profoundly estranged from the warrior ethos, is it any surprise that most people also take the view that the defence of their nation is not their business? In effect, the moral disarmament of the West has deprived society of precisely those values that are necessary for the maintenance of national security.
So while the leaders of NATO nations raise a toast to their commitment to increase spending on arms, their society remains morally disarmed.
Until they take the values of patriotism, courage, and duty more seriously, rearmament will not lead to a world of genuine security.
This is an edited version of an article from the author’s Substack, Roots & Wings, appearing here with kind permission. Subscribe here.
Rearmament Without Warriors? A Pointless Exercise in Impression Management
You may also like
“Où va ma France?”: The App the Left Wants To Ban
An app stirs controversy by graphically showing the devastating impact of immigration on the daily lives of French people.
Venezuela Tests Europe’s Moral Credibility
Those who equate democratic action with tyrannical abuse in the name of international law will not be remembered as cautious but as complicit.
200 Years of a Liberal-Conservative Newspaper: Le Figaro, a Source of French Pride
In the tumultuous flood of digital information, it is reassuring to know that the venerable newspaper still plays its role as a reference point.
At international summits and in the media, all the talk is about increased defence spending and rearmament. At the recent Hague summit, the NATO allies agreed to increase their defence spending to 5% of their GDP. And yet, all the publicity about finally taking national defence and security seriously comes across as dishonest posturing. Why? Because the leaders of most NATO member states are fully aware that their military forces are not ready for a serious fight. Worse still, the population of Western societies has embraced a post-heroic culture that regards the defence of their nation as not their concern. Young people have been turned off from embracing the values of patriotism, courage, and duty, and, consequently, many of them feel little responsibility for defending their nation.
On paper, Germany ought to be a serious military power. It possesses the largest economy in Western Europe and has the resources necessary to rearm its military. Germany’s Chancellor Friedrich Mertz stated that his government “will in the future provide all the financing the Bundeswehr needs to become the strongest conventional army in Europe.” In reality, all the talk about investing in a major programme of rearmament cannot obscure the fact that Germany is not ready to fight a war. Surveys indicate that the citizens of Germany do not want to leave their safe space to join the field of battle.
A survey conducted this month by the Forsa Institute indicated that only 17% of Germans said they would defend their country if attacked. According to Aylin Matlé, a fellow at the German Council on Foreign Relations, “younger people don’t really see the purpose of why they should put their lives at risk for Germany.” The German army—the Bundeswehr—is aging fast. It also continues to shrink because of an average of 20,000 retirements a year. Such a high attrition rate raises the question—what’s the point of investing billions in a programme of rearmament?
Germany is not the only society that has become alienated from the demands of national security. Last year, a Gallup survey of people in 45 countries asked how willing they were to fight for their country in case of war. Four of the five nations with the least committed fighters globally were in Europe, including Spain, Germany, and, notably, Italy, where only 14% of those surveyed said that they were ready to fight a foreign enemy.
Historically, those most ready to fight a foreign foe came from the younger generations. Today, the situation is dramatically altered. Surveys conducted on both sides of the Atlantic highlight the reluctance of young people to fight for their country. A Quinnipiac University poll, conducted in 2022 in the United States, found that only 55 per cent of the respondents stated that they would fight in the face of a foreign invasion. Surveys of Europeans indicate that their respondents are even more reluctant to take up arms in defence of their nations.
It is evident that the West is in the throes of a post-heroic Zeitgeist where attitudes towards the military are underpinned by a mood of intellectual and moral disarmament. It is not the fault of the young that they have been afflicted with a safety-first risk-averse sensibility. Many of them are no longer educated and socialized to embrace the values of patriotism, duty, and sacrifice.
Duty, Honour, Country are central elements of the Warrior Ethos. Honour, in particular, is a key value for the military. As Paul Robinson pointed out in Military Honour and the Conduct of War:
The Western world in general, and the Anglo-American world in particular, has become risk-averse, and its military has become casualty-averse and estranged from honour and the ideal of sacrifice.
Not so long ago, the ideals of fighting for a cause and even risking death attracted millions of young people to their nation’s cause. Today, for many intellectuals, it is unthinkable that a significant section of society could find meaning in war. As Christopher Coker explained in his Waging War Without Warriors?, wars have become detached from the values that influence everyday life. Western institutions of culture obsess about the value of safety and regard the willingness to sacrifice as a bizarre, outdated ideal.
Heroism has lost its moral status as a medium for inspiring the young. As Coker remarked, “we tend to deprive [heroes] of the fullness of their lives in order to support and sustain the smallness of our own.” Instead of glorifying heroism, the ethos of risk aversion has become institutionalised within society.
Unlike some institutions in society, the military cannot survive without taking risks. However, the military values associated with the warrior ethos face a challenge from potent cultural influences that negate risk-taking behaviour. Despite the many action-packed Hollywood movies that celebrate heroism and bravery, there is little cultural value placed on risk-taking military behaviour. Prevailing norms towards health and safety decry risk-taking behaviour. A culture that shows a low threshold towards losses in everyday life is unlikely to possess the capacity to celebrate risk-taking behaviour within military institutions. That is also one reason why the status and authority of the military have declined.
The elites of society have distanced themselves from a warrior ethos and the military, and their participation in this institution has significantly diminished. Even the mainstream of society has become estranged from military values. As two radical critics remark, “the representative image of the U.S. soldier is no longer that of a John Wayne, and more important, the profiles of U.S. soldiers do not resemble the profiles of the U.S. citizenry.” In Britain, too, fighting a war is increasingly outsourced to private contractors, foreign mercenaries, and the most economically disadvantaged section of society.
If the ruling elites of society have become so profoundly estranged from the warrior ethos, is it any surprise that most people also take the view that the defence of their nation is not their business? In effect, the moral disarmament of the West has deprived society of precisely those values that are necessary for the maintenance of national security.
So while the leaders of NATO nations raise a toast to their commitment to increase spending on arms, their society remains morally disarmed.
Until they take the values of patriotism, courage, and duty more seriously, rearmament will not lead to a world of genuine security.
This is an edited version of an article from the author’s Substack, Roots & Wings, appearing here with kind permission. Subscribe here.
Our community starts with you
READ NEXT
200 Years of a Liberal-Conservative Newspaper: Le Figaro, a Source of French Pride
EU Fails To Hold Pakistan Accountable Once Again
Romania’s Mercosur Submission: Obedience Over Democracy