1
1
Kenya is still a growing democracy in many spectrums of her economy and governance structures.
Our security emblem and structure is still on a learning curve and the sudden and unexpected demise of General Francis Ogolla gives us the chance to reflect on the welfare of our military officers.
Worldwide,the military is a celebrated and much fancied fabric of the governance structure of independent states that value peace and the global connection among states.
So what can Kenya do to improve and build more on the gains made in regard to her military welfare?.
Military welfare is a major yet abstract sub-field of warfare studies and warfare history, which interrogates the multitude of welfare, care, medical provisions and social policies that have existed at different times and within different social and political spaces relative to and for the benefit of armed forces personnel and their families or dependents.
The military welfare history is both well developed and still evolving. It comprises a substantive community of scholars who have produced a robust body of literature. Yet, despite all of the scholarship that has existed since the 1960s, and more especially since the 1990s, military welfare history remains estranged from mainstream warfare history.
Where there is welfare we have to talk about warfare which is, by and large, divided into two scholastic fields. The first – military history – is concerned ‘primarily with the histories of armed forces, not only in war but also in peace.’ It has therefore been ‘more comfortable with wars fought by armies and navies than with wars fought between warrior societies, or before soldiering became a distinct profession’.The second is the more diverse – history of war (what many scholars previously called ‘new’ military history),which engages with the ways that governments and militaries prepared for, organised, and conducted war.
Military welfare history can be summarised in a simple phrase: the impact of service. That impact is studied through a multitude of disciplinary and scholastic prisms, and across multiple chronological periods, societies, nationalities, cultures, and geographical regions. The scope of military welfare history is broad because while military welfare clearly begins with soldiers and veterans, it by no means ends with them.
We have to interrogate how the military service affects their families, dependents, and communities. In addition, military welfare history incorporates all the changes to a society due to this service, including but not limited to policies, perceptions, ideologies, provisions, and infrastructures. This vast range of categories necessitates examining the decisions of governments and militaries as well as charitable, philanthropic, and religious organisations. It likewise requires gauging how creating and modifying various forms of assistance (such as government allowances and pensions, regimental provisions, charitable funds, philanthropic education, employment, housing, and medical care) seeks to meet the evolving needs of soldiers, veterans, and their families.
Military welfare is a major yet abstract sub-field of warfare studies and warfare history, which interrogates the multitude of welfare, care, medical provisions and social policies that have existed at different times and within different social and political spaces relative to and for the benefit of armed forces personnel and their families or dependents. As a scholarly project military welfare history is both well developed and still evolving. It comprises a substantive community of scholars who have produced a robust body of literature. Yet, despite all of the scholarship that has existed since the 1960s, and more especially since the 1990s, military welfare history remains estranged from mainstream warfare history. Thus, it is the purpose of this special edition to encourage transformation in three ways: firstly, by highlighting or reacquainting a cross-section of scholars with the existence of this diverse but exclusive sub-field of warfare and welfare history that has existed as long as warfare itself; secondly, by highlighting the diversity of recent and current scholarship in this sub-field, and thirdly, by highlighting the existence of an academic network that has the explicit purpose of bringing together scholars in this diverse sub-field.
The history of warfare is, by and large, divided into two scholastic fields. The first – military history – is concerned ‘primarily with the histories of armed forces, not only in war but also in peace.’ It has therefore been ‘more comfortable with wars fought by armies and navies than with wars fought between warrior societies, or before soldiering became a distinct profession’.
The second is the more diverse – history of war (what many scholars previously called ‘new’ military history),which engages with the ways that governments and militaries prepared for, organised, and conducted war. This field assesses the ‘place of war in society’, specifically its influences on cultures and individuals, and ‘how it has been perceived, experienced, and legitimated’.
The role of war in generating social, political, economic, and military change is also a significant element of histories of war. Yet, there is a third field of scholarship that straddles and complements both of these scholastic fields: military welfare history.
Military welfare history can be summarised in a simple phrase: the impact of service. That impact is studied through a multitude of disciplinary and scholastic prisms, and across multiple chronological periods, societies, nationalities, cultures, and geographical regions. The scope of military welfare history is broad because while military welfare clearly begins with soldiers and veterans, it by no means ends with them. This field also interrogates how their service affects their families, dependents, and communities. In addition, military welfare history incorporates all the changes to a society due to this service, including but not limited to policies, perceptions, ideologies, provisions, and infrastructures. This vast range of categories necessitates examining the decisions of governments and militaries as well as charitable, philanthropic, and religious organisations. It likewise requires gauging how creating and modifying various forms of assistance (such as government allowances and pensions, regimental provisions, charitable funds, philanthropic education, employment, housing, and medical care) seeks to meet the evolving needs of soldiers, veterans, and their families.
In Kenya,it is good to note that the Defence Ministry came up with a plan to honour retired KDF officers.The welfare of retiring KDF soldiers and their dependants can now be adequately guaranteed to by the state after a committee on veteran affairs was unveiled by Defence CS Aden Duale.
The Military Veterans Advisory Committee will institutionalise the provision of adequate medical services and education to dependants, among other welfare issues, to military personnel who have been honourably discharged.
The team is chaired by Major General (Rtd) Lucas Tumbo, who also served as Kenya’s Ambassador to Somalia.
It has nine members who are mainly ex-soldier in a move aimed at institutionalising the management of veterans welfare issues.
This will be part of efforts to implement the Military Veterans Act 2022.
We all remember that the fallen Chief of the Defence Forces General Francis Ogolla then said given the dynamic security threats that continue to emerge, KDF soldiers continue to be sent to outpost locations and for longer periods of time and this has caused various social challenges.
Some of the challenges include absenteeism from their families, post-traumatic stress disorder, drug and substance abuse, family wrangles, among others.
The prolonged tour of duty away from their families also makes it difficult to smoothly transition from the military to civilian life, hence the need for a helping hand from the state.
He said that prior to the new law that was assented to by then President Uhuru Kenyatta in June 2022, the military had various ad hoc mechanisms to address such issues but it was not adequate.
The writer is a communication strategist and governance expert
