This electronic thesis or dissertation has been downloaded from the King’s Research Portal at https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/ 'The Military Covenant Its impact on civil-military relations in Britain since 2000 Ingham, Sarah-Jane Awarding institution: King's College London The copyright of this thesis rests with the author and no quotation from it or information derived from it may be published without proper acknowledgement. END USER LICENCE AGREEMENT Unless another licence is stated on the immediately following page this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ You are free to copy, distribute and transmit the work Under the following conditions: Attribution: You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work). Non Commercial: You may not use this work for commercial purposes. No Derivative Works - You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work. Any of these conditions can be waived if you receive permission from the author. Your fair dealings and other rights are in no way affected by the above. Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact [email protected] providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Download date: 07. Oct. 2021 THE MILITARY COVENANT: ITS IMPACT ON CIVIL-MILITARY RELATIONS IN BRITAIN SINCE 2000 Sarah Ingham Submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy at King’s College London Department of War Studies 2012 - 1 - Abstract This thesis examines the genesis of the Military Covenant as part of the British Army’s development of its Moral Component in the late 1990s, the migration of the concept from military doctrine from 2006 and its subsequent entrenchment in the civilian sphere, where it has become integral to analysis of the civil- military relationship. Codifying a moral bond of reciprocity between soldiers, the Army and the nation, the Military Covenant was summarised in a paragraph in Soldiering – The Military Covenant. Launched in 2000, this was a companion volume to another Army Doctrine publication, Values and Standards of the British Army. Written for the Army’s senior cadre, and somewhat institutionally neglected, in 2005 Soldiering was subsumed into the Army’s new capstone doctrine Land Operations. The Covenant began its migration from the military sphere in late 2006, when the newly-appointed Chief of the General Staff, General Sir Richard Dannatt, invoked it in a controversial newspaper interview to convey the pressures confronting soldiers involved in concurrent combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, for which the Army was inadequately resourced, manned and equipped. Codifying the nation’s moral and material support in exchange for soldiers’ service and offer of sacrifice, the Military Covenant was subsequently described as fractured by many in the civilian sector, including the media. Following migration, the Covenant came to represent the bilateral relationship between the government and the Armed Forces’ community, while helping to rally public unprecedented support for the Forces - if not for the missions in which they were involved. Consequently, policy-makers were compelled to address long- standing ‘people’ issues affecting the Forces’ community. Today, the Military Covenant conveys the health of the civil-military relationship in Britain, not least because the judiciary has invoked it to assess the value the nation places on military service. - 2 - Contents Abstract Acknowledgements Introduction 6 Chapter 1 The Historical Context 33 Chapter 2 The Doctrinal Context 71 Chapter 3 The Contractual Context 108 Chapter 4 The Military Covenant and the Nation (The Public) 143 Chapter 5 The Military Covenant and the Nation (Policy-Makers) 182 Chapter 6 The Military Covenant, the Army and the Individual Soldier 219 Chapter 7 Military Covenants 260 Conclusion 298 Bibliography - 3 - Acknowledgements Researching and writing this thesis has often felt like doing an enormous jigsaw when the lid of the box has been lost – and some of the pieces might be missing. Many people have been incredibly generous in giving me their time and the benefit of their wisdom, experience and points of view, helping me to try and solve the puzzle. Should the final picture be inaccurate or incomplete the fault is mine alone. My thanks to Major General (retired) Stephen Andrews CBE, Mike Bray, Brigadier (retired) Ed Butler CBE DSO, Rt. Hon. Sir Menzies Campbell MP QC, Major General (retired) Tim Cross CBE, Major General (retired) Peter Currie CB, General The Lord Dannatt, GCB CBE MC, Lord Davies of Stamford, Rev. Dr Victor Dobbin CB MBE, Rt. Hon. Jeffrey Donaldson MP, Frances Done CBE, Malcolm Farrow, Professor Anthony Forster, James Fergusson, General Sir Timothy Granville-Chapman GBE KCB ADC, James Gray MP, Field Marshal the Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank GCB LVO OBE, Adam Holloway MP, Rt. Hon. Adam Ingram, Vice Admiral Tony Johnstone-Burt MBE, Kevan Jones MP, Julie McCarthy, Major General (Retired) Andrew Mackay CBE, Robert Lee, Patrick Mercer OBE MP, Brigadier (Retired) Philip Mostyn, Dr Andrew Murrison MP, Dr Hugh Milroy OBE, Bryn Parry OBE, Major General (retired) Andrew Ritchie CBE, Rt. Hon. Andrew Robathan MP, General Sir Michael Rose KCB CBE DSO QGM, Major General Andrew Sharpe OBE and his colleagues at Development Concepts and Doctrine Centre, Chris Simpkins, Sir Kevin Tebbit KCB CMG, Colonel (Retired) Stuart Tootal DSO, Very Rev Prof Iain Torrance, Major General The Duke of Westminster KG CB OBE TD CD DL, General Sir Roger Wheeler GCB CBE and to all those who spoke to me on a non-attributable basis. In addition, thanks also to Robert Bieber, Brigadier (retired) Tweedie Brown CBE, Professor Brian Holden Reid, Frank Ledwidge, Richard Nunneley, Luc O’Donoghue, Dr John Stone, Alasdair Wilson - 4 - Thanks must also go to Major-General (retired) Sir Sebastian Roberts, KCVO MBE, the author of Soldiering The Military Covenant, for an inspirational piece of writing. I would like to acknowledge the kind assistance of the staff at the London Library, the Maugham Library, the National Army Museum and the Liddell Hart archives. Finally, my biggest debt of gratitude is the one I owe to my supervisor, Christopher Dandeker. - 5 - Introduction Soldiers will be called upon to make personal sacrifices - including the ultimate sacrifice - in the service of the Nation. In putting the needs of the Nation and the Army before their own, they forego some of the rights enjoyed by those outside the Armed Forces. In return, British soldiers must always be able to expect fair treatment, to be valued and respected as individuals, and that they (and their families) will be sustained and rewarded by commensurate terms and conditions of service. In the same way the unique nature of military land operations means that the Army differs from all other institutions, and must be sustained and provided for accordingly by the Nation. This mutual obligation forms the Military Covenant between the Nation, the Army and each individual soldier; an unbreakable common bond of identity, loyalty and responsibility which has sustained the Army throughout its history. It has perhaps its greatest manifestation in the annual commemoration of Armistice Day, when the Nation keeps covenant with those who have made the ultimate sacrifice, giving their lives in action. Army Doctrine Publication Volume 5: Soldiering: The Military Covenant, 2000, Paragraph 103) 6 A covenant was a familiar concept to the soldiers of the New Model Army. In the Soldiers’ Catechism of 1644, one paper among the countless tracts, declarations and pamphlets produced during the English Civil War, reference is made to the Solemn League and Covenant, agreed between Parliament and the Scottish Presbyterians in 1643. According to the Catechism, ‘all Parliament’s affairs have prospered well since the Covenant was taken, look at our victories and successes’.1 Although known to Cromwell’s Ironsides, until very recently, the concept of a Covenant as an agreement was no longer a familiar one in Britain. After 2001, X-Box fans began to associate Covenant with Halo, the games series.2 However, from 2006 a different covenant began to establish itself in the collective British consciousness. Since then, the Military Covenant has become the prism through which all ‘people issues’ relating to Britain’s Armed Forces community - serving personnel, their families and veterans - are seen and the context in which those issues are debated. Forster describes it as ‘the cornerstone of Britain’s civil-military compact’.3 Counter-intuitively perhaps, the Military Covenant is not an antique compact signed by the New Model’s Commander-in-Chief General Fairfax and, contrary to a 2007 report in the Daily Mail, neither was it drawn up in Wellington’s era.4 Like many traditions to be found in Britain, particularly those surrounding national institutions such as the monarchy and the Army, the Military Covenant was invented.5 It was codified in a paragraph in Soldiering: The Military Covenant that was published in 2000 as part of the Moral Component of fighting power in British military doctrine. Given the Army’s 350-year history, the formalization of doctrine was itself a very recent development, getting underway in the late 1980s. At its simplest, the 1 The Soldier’s Catechism, 1644 2 An informal poll via email of 20 final year students from Durham University in 2011 found that 18 associated the term ‘Covenant’ with Halo and two with Raiders of the Lost Ark. 3 Forster, 2006 pp.1043-1057 4 Comment, ‘Our Boys Betrayed’ Daily Mail, 14 September 2007 5 Hobsbawm and Ranger, 1989! 7 Covenant is an understanding: in exchange for their service and sacrifice, soldiers will be supported by the nation and by their chain of command.