What should be the relationship between a democratic state and its armed
forces? It is easier for politicians to play to popular sentiment about “our boys”
than to address the moral and constitutional issues.
Enshrining the 'military covenant' in statute is doubtless good party politics.
David Cameron has shown himself to be quite shameless in conflating support
for the military with love of country. Promoting Armed Forces Day in 2010, the
Prime Minister called for “an explosion of red white and blue all over the
country”. The implication was that if you had reservations about this, you were
not a good, patriotic citizen and were not doing your duty in support of the
armed forces.
It is de rigueur for politicians to praise the undisputed bravery and skill of
armed forces personnel. But all too often, that has seemed to serve as a
substitute for equipping them properly and taking good care of their needs when
they return from active service, broken in mind or body. That has to change but
it is questionable as to whether a legal covenant is the means by which to
provide for those needs. It certainly will do nothing about the hypocrisy,
expediency and lack of vision which so regularly places servicemen and women
in wholly avoidable situations of suffering and slaughter. (Consider the despots
and hate figures whom the West has been happy to arm and support in the
past: Saddam Hussein, bin Laden, Gaddafi, the Afghan Talibs)
The government argues that soldiers, sailors and aircrew are expected, by the
nature of their employment, to accept the possibility of death or injury and that
they must be duly rewarded for their willingness to do so. The reality is that
individuals will sometimes be sacrificed for national objectives. Those objectives
are defined by governments in a manner which frequently takes no account of
the will of the electorate.
So what of the balance of power between people and politicians; politicians and
military commanders? One clause of the covenant describes "the unique nature
of military land operations [which] means that the army differs from all other
institutions, and must be sustained and provided for accordingly by the Nation"
and concludes that this creates “a mutual obligation”.
Between the civil power of a democratic state and its military, the relationship is
one of command and subservience. This is not a “mutual obligation” in any legal
sense. Control of the military must always be in the hands of elected politicians
(except in extreme circumstances where commanders believe they have been
given orders which are illegal) and anything which could dilute or obfuscate that
is potentially dangerous and undemocratic. Making laws which have not been
thought through may have profoundly serious constitutional consequences.
Certainly, the care, housing, pay and support of service personnel should be of
the highest standard. (As, by the way, should that of fire-fighters, lifeboat
crews, police and mountain rescue teams – all highly skilled and courageous
people who uncomplainingly put their lives at risk for the protection and safety
of their fellow citizens.)
But this does not require a legal arrangement which has the potential to alter
the relationship between politicians and generals. The former must always have
primacy and must learn to take greater heed of the will of the people and of
parliament before committing service personnel to conflict situations.
We need to serve our armed forces better. The covenant says "British soldiers
must always be able to expect fair treatment, to be valued and respected as
individuals." The best way to meet those rights is to advocate for greater
integrity in international affairs, for anticipation of international flashpoints to
avoid conflict, and for the devoting of resources to resolving conflict when it
does occur.
When that is done, politicians can rightfully demand a loyal and obedient
response from the armed forces under their control. That is the covenant for
which we should strive. It is a moral covenant, not a legal one.
http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/14782

https://www.nairaland.com/2081997/why-should-moral-covenant-military ....responsible nations appreciate their service men but Nigerian government sentence them to death even when it failed to provide the tools for them to fight

God bless the Nigerian Armed Forces.