17 Sodobni vojaški izzivi, junij 2017 – 19/št. 2
Contemporary Military Challenges, June 2017 – 19/No. 2
VETERANSKI	IMPERATIV	DANES
Vladimir Prebilič
VETERANS	IMPERATIVE	TODAY
Obramba domovine, države in naroda je bila in ostaja brezčasna in univerzalna 
vrednota, saj poleg obstoja zagotavlja tudi varnost. Obrambne sisteme predstavljajo 
in gradijo posamezniki, ki so pripravljeni za varnost drugih zastaviti vse, tudi svoja 
življenja, zato bi lahko pričakovali dostojno in spoštljivo obravnavo vseh, ki so 
znotraj obrambnega sistema aktivno delovali za varnost drugih. In vendar ni tako! 
Zaradi odsotnosti velikih varnostnih izzivov in oblikovanja zgodovinskega spomina 
prav obrambni sistemi doživljajo velike proračunske reze. Med njimi so predvsem 
tisti, ki za sistem niso več nujni, to so veteranske organizacije. Takšno ravnanje 
lahko negativno vpliva na vrednote v sistemu, sproži upadanje pozitivne podobe, 
načenja obstoj vojaške identitete ter končno povzroči zmanjšanje bojne morale. 
Če upoštevamo, da so prav veteranske organizacije most med civilnim in vojaškim 
okoljem, ki lahko pomembno prispeva k razumevanju nalog obrambnega sistema, bi 
bilo nujno negovati naš odnos do veteranov in njihovih organizacij. V takšnem stanju 
se vse prevečkrat ustvarjajo okoliščine, ko so veterani potisnjeni na družbeni rob. 
Vojak, veteran, oborožene sile, obrambni sistem, vrednote. 
Defence of the homeland, country and nation has always been, and still is, a universal 
value ensuring both existence and security. Defence systems are represented and 
created by individuals who are ready to put everything at risk, even their own lives, 
in order to ensure the security of others. Therefore one would expect that all those 
who were actively involved in providing security for others within the defence 
system would be treated with honour and respect. Unfortunately there are many 
examples where this is not so! In the absence of great security challenges, and with 
the creation of historical memory, defence system budgets are being severely cut. In 
this process veteran organizations are recognized as a non-vital element of defence 
systems. Such acts lead to an erosion of values within defence systems, and do a 
Povzetek
Ključne 
besede
Abstract
DOI:10.33179/BSV.99.SVI.11.CMC.19.2.1
18 Sodobni vojaški izzivi/Contemporary Military Challenges
great deal of damage to the positive image and the existence of military identity, 
and, finally, contribute to declining combat morale. Added to these facts is also the 
unique position of all veteran organizations in acting as a bridge between the civilian 
and military environments, and as a facilitator to understanding the functions of the 
defence system. It is therefore not only proper to support them, but also necessary. 
More and more examples show that veterans are being pushed to the verge of modern 
society and ingloriously left behind. 
Soldier, veteran, armed forces, defence system, values. 
What all defence systems around the world have in common is the defence of the state 
and its citizens, which is carried out on the basis of institutionalized, systemically 
organized and centralized activities under an executive power. The existence of the 
national security system, part of which is the defence system, enables the existence 
and functioning of the state, in which national authorities have a monopoly on the 
use of force, and, in exchange, they provide security to the citizens at both national 
and individual levels. Its functions are defined within the obligations arising from 
various alliances, which often extend beyond the national framework.
Every social system is based on people, who enable its existence and functioning 
through their actions. The same applies to defence systems, whose basic building 
blocks are soldiers. However, a defence system is distinctly different in its specifics 
from other social systems. A particularly prominent specific is the force individuals 
have at their disposal, with the extreme purpose of taking their opponents’ lives. In 
addition, each member of the armed forces must understand the level of risk to their 
own lives, and take into consideration the possibility of losing their lives during 
the performance of their functions. For this reason defence systems have precisely 
defined rules regulating interpersonal relationships, which are based on clear rules, 
two of which are especially important for military organizations, namely the unity 
of command and subordination.1 In addition, the conduct of members of the armed 
1 The Slovenian Armed Forces are organized hierarchically in a way that enables effective, proper and flexible 
leadership and command. The superior-subordinate relationship is the essential element of leadership and 
command. The organization of the command establishes superiors and subordinates according to the principle 
of the unity of command. All military personnel must know at all times who they are subordinate to, and 
what their powers are. Clearly defined relationships regarding the command are absolutely necessary for the 
execution of any order. Effective organization of command according to the principle of subordination provides 
every commander with the maximum freedom possible in the fulfilment of the duties under their authority. This 
enables the development of their responsibility, initiative and independence. Superiors are obliged to provide to 
subordinates information relating to the performance of tasks in the extent necessary (Rules on Service in the 
Slovenian Armed Forces, Official Gazette No. 84/2009).
Key words
Introduction
Vladimir Prebilič
 19 Sodobni vojaški izzivi/Contemporary Military Challenges
forces is regulated by other internal rules, including the rules on service2 and military 
codes3, as well as the legal norms of nation states and provisions of international 
humanitarian and military law4. The goal of all limitations and guidelines regarding 
the conduct of members of the armed forces is control over the potential use of 
force, and the setting of standards governing their conduct within and outside the 
system. According to Južnič (1993, p. 306), soldiers and officers are in the service of 
defending and looking after the interests of a state, and they must completely identify 
with it. For this reason, military service is the most distinct public service, where 
national and military identities intertwine. National identity is closely linked to space, 
which defines the living space of a nation and, indirectly, also its characteristics. The 
foundation of military identity is also the living space which must be defended. Even 
though efforts are being made nowadays to put the understanding of military identity 
in connection with national identity in perspective, I maintain that the relation 
between the two identities has in no way changed, despite some new functions and 
forms of the manning of units. What is more, defence systems of modern states 
are based on those foundations, and are consequently effective in their performance 
of their functions. On the other hand, relativizing the foundations undermines the 
most important basis of the military organization; a process we have witnessed in 
the Slovenian Armed Forces5, which suffers identity under-representation in core 
elements. One would expect a complementarity of military and civil values, but 
there is a growing gap between them. According to public opinion polls, there are 
no identical values to be found among the core values listed in the Military Code of 
Ethics of the Slovenian Armed Forces. Based on that, the conclusion can be drawn 
that military values do not reflect civil values, which would significantly increase the 
possibility of understanding of the military system, its necessity and its functions. 
Veteran organisations, which are indirectly linked to the military system, share a 
similar fate.
2 The Rules on Service in the Slovenian Armed Forces (hereinafter: the Rules on Service) regulate the rights and 
duties of military personnel during military service, their code of conduct during military service, relationships, 
order in facilities used by the Slovenian Armed Forces, work and internal services, guard service and alarm 
systems, and military ceremonies and mourning. During war, the Rules on Service are applied in accordance 
with the war situation and the Rules on Combat Operations of the Slovenian Armed Forces. The Rules on 
Service apply to all personnel performing military service in the Slovenian Armed Forces (Rules on Service in 
the Slovenian Armed Forces, Official Gazette No. 84/2009).
3 During military service, members of the Slovenian Armed Forces must comply with the Military Code of Ethics 
of the Slovenian Armed Forces (hereinafter: the Code), which is the code of the Slovenian Armed Forces as a 
military organization. The primary purpose of the Code is to ensure that all members of the Slovenian Armed 
Forces perform their military service with honour and in accordance with ethnic guidelines and principles set 
out in the Code.  Members of the Slovenian Armed Forces must comply with and follow this Code throughout 
their performance of military service in the Republic of Slovenia and abroad (Military Code of Ethics of the 
Slovenian Armed Forces, Official Gazette No. 52/2009).
4 The provisions of the international law of war are based on international treaties, and represent limitations to 
the use of force, the protection of vulnerable groups, and rules on the conduct of combatants during the conduct 
of operations. Compliance with these provisions is obligatory, and represents an upgrade of the national legal 
order for states and their armed forces (Jogan, 1997, p. 3).
5 The five basic identity elements are: defence of the state, clearly defined patriotism, respect for authority, strict 
compliance with international war and humanitarian law, and high ethical and moral standards (Prebilič and 
Juvan, 2012, p.  67).
VETERANS IMPERATIVE TODAY
 20 Sodobni vojaški izzivi/Contemporary Military Challenges
However, it is not always exclusively a question of values. Due to the economic crisis, 
numerous cuts have been made and economic measures taken with a view to reducing 
the expenditure of social systems which could not be funded from national budgets 
as a result of the loss of income. Defence budgets are no exception. De France (2015, 
pp. 1-4) states that, without exception, European national defence budgets were 
reduced over the period 2008-2014. It is possible to observe a correlation between the 
severity of the crisis in a state, and the scope of the reduction in the defence budget. 
Interestingly, defence budgets of mostly Southern European countries were reduced 
by 30%. A result of that is the internal restructuring of the defence budget, which 
reduces expenditure on training and the supply and maintenance of equipment, while 
expenditure on salaries, which represents an increasingly large proportion of defence 
budgets, remains the same. 
The question of financing veteran organizations, which are usually (insofar as they 
do not have their own ministry) under the Ministry of Defence, is therefore quite 
common. A decline in resources is to be expected; in circumstances where the system 
itself is in financial peril, such expenditure represents a dispensable component of 
the system. The bonuses awarded to veterans are also uncertain. The question of 
that expenditure is therefore more than fair. The answer is not clear-cut, as is not in 
regard to the definition of the term veteran; but that expenditure can be extremely 
high. On that subject, Stiglitz and Bilmes (2009, pp. 61-90) mention expenditure on 
veterans in the US, which includes all form of rehabilitation, disability allowances 
and benefits for the veterans’ family members; psychological and physical 
consequences suffered by veterans change the lives of entire families. Considering 
the fact that there are around 24 million veterans in the US – meaning those who 
have the status of veteran – of which 3.5 million claim various benefits on account 
of injuries, it is to be expected that after the conclusion of military operations in Iraq 
and Afghanistan, where 1.6 million soldiers have conducted military operations, the 
number of beneficiaries will increase dramatically. The two authors estimate that 
after the conclusion of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan the costs will be between 
$422 and $717 million. It is true that over the last two years there has been an 
increase in defence budgets, especially in Central Europe where SIPRI (Stockholm 
International Peace Research Institute) researchers found an increase of 13% (SIPRI, 
2017), but the question is how and, even more importantly, to what degree, the funds 
allocated to veteran organizations have been aligned with these changes.
Working in the defence system undoubtedly involves specific limitations, which 
is understandable; however, it is less understandable when the question arises 
regarding the status of those who no longer perform tasks in the system for various 
reasons. What benefits are possible, and what could be their scope of work done 
in the defence system? What is the status of those who have fought, and exposed 
and risked themselves for the security of others? Why does this remain a topical 
question despite otherwise clearly defined relations? How is it possible that within 
the defence system, and even more outside of it, veterans are overlooked, and maybe 
even rejected and discouraged from continuing their activities? And finally: why is 
Vladimir Prebilič
 21 Sodobni vojaški izzivi/Contemporary Military Challenges
the funding of veteran organizations and the meagre benefits paid to the defenders of 
the nation even a political question, and subjected to austerity measures in the state 
and society? The responsibility for these and similar situations is at least three-fold: 
the first entity responsible is represented by national institutions which take and 
implement decisions; the second is represented by veteran organizations, because 
it seems that they are not active enough in pointing to certain issues; and the third 
entity is civil society, which should be considerably more proactive when it comes 
to discussions on the status of veteran organizations. What their cooperation looks 
like, who is responsible and to what extent, and why it seems that the role of veteran 
organizations in modern societies must be given more room in terms of quality and 
quantity, are the topics discussed in this article. One should bear in mind that by 
acknowledging veteran organizations, and with an appropriate attitude to veterans 
and their unanswered questions, the state and citizens acting on its behalf show 
only due respect. The attitude to veterans is also a good indicator of the attitude to 
national history.
 1 WHO IS A VETERAN?
Even though it may seem unnecessary, certain dilemmas and questions relating to 
veteran organizations and veteran status should be highlighted. It must be clearly 
stated immediately that there are two aspects to the word “veteran”: the first aspect 
is about the legal status, and is based on the legal definition and connected to status 
benefits determined by law; the second is represented by a significantly looser 
understanding of veterans, and refers to participation in combat tasks and missions, 
and to the termination of active service in the armed forces. In both cases there is no 
clear boundary marking the status of veterans. The predominant reason for this lies 
in the way of manning of the armed forces, and the tasks performed by members of 
the armed forces on behalf of the state. These tasks have recently exceeded the basic 
missions of all armed forces – the protection of national territory from the aggression 
of outside threatening elements. They are a result of a changed security architecture 
including various forms of alliances, which in addition to safety benefits bring certain 
obligations. Despite emphasizing these systemic changes, there are also specifics 
at the national level of individual states. On that subject, the capabilities of states 
themselves must be stressed, and more importantly, the attitude that states foster 
towards the defence system and consequently those who have carried out its tasks.
When defining who a veteran actually is, one discovers that there are various different 
definitions of this concept. Multiple meanings can also be found. The term “veteran” 
does not necessarily denote only former military personnel. The Dictionary of 
Standard Slovenian specifies that a veteran can also be “an elderly and experienced 
worker in a certain field”6. Such understanding undoubtedly applies to the military 
organization, because it refers to experiences as virtues and skills acquired during 
service in an organization or system. The Dictionary of Standard Slovenia draws 
6 Dictionary of Standard Slovenian. Available at: http://bos.zrc-sazu.si/sskj.html.
VETERANS IMPERATIVE TODAY
22 Sodobni vojaški izzivi/Contemporary Military Challenges
attention to that fact by listing two meanings of the word “veteran”. A veteran can be 
“an old experienced soldier or one who is no longer in active service”7, or “an elderly 
and experienced worker in a certain field”8. International Encyclopedia of Military 
History9 explains that the definition of a veteran varies according to the nation or 
state where veterans live. Simply put, veterans are people who have served in the 
armed forces during combat, although the use of that term has different meanings 
depending on the historical period and nation. In the US, for example, the term is 
applied to someone who has served in the armed forces10, while other nations reserve 
this term essentially for someone has actually fought, i.e. taken part in combat tasks. 
An example of such description is used in the UK; namely, “ex-service” is a term 
denoting someone who has served in the armed forces, while the term “veteran” 
applies to someone who has actually fought11. Australia and Canada have yet 
another definition of a veteran. The first awards veteran status only to those who 
have been actively involved either in operations abroad or in wars the state fought 
in the past (Burdett, 2012, p.  2). Similarly, the Netherlands associates veteran status 
with participation in operations; the term “veteran” describes every military person 
who has participated in a war, or has been included in international operations and 
UN operations. Canada redefined the term in 2000: a veteran is every person who 
has served honourably in the Canadian Armed Forces or their allies at any time. In 
2001, the extended content of the definition of a veteran included all former military 
personnel and members of the contract reserve who meet the conditions set out by 
the Canadian Department of National Defence, and have concluded their service 
with an honourable discharge (Sešel, 2007, p. 20). The International Military and 
Defense Encyclopedia12 explains the term veteran depending on whether it is used 
in peacetime or wartime. A veteran during wartime is someone who has combat 
experience, while the term in peacetime often applies to those who have fought 
during wartime (in a war). From the military perspective, the term usually describes 
people who have served for a period of time in the armed forces, have retired from 
active service, and receive suitable benefits for their loyal service to the state. Bowyer 
(2004, p. 250) identifies a veteran as a person with extensive combat experience, 
which fundamentally does not include retirement from the defence system, and 
7 Dictionary of Standard Slovenian. Fran Ramovš Institute of the Slovenian Language, Research Centre of 
the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts. Available at: http://bos.zrc-sazu.si/cgi/a03.exe?name=sskj_
testa&expression=veteran&hs=1
8 Ibid.
9 International Encyclopedia of Military History, 2006, Volume 2: K-Z.
10 In the US, the term denotes every person who has actively served a minimum of two years in the army, and has 
been awarded at least the status of honourable upon leaving the armed forces, irrespective of whether they have 
participated in combat operations or not, or a person who has been permanently injured or disabled due to the 
consequences of war (Sešel, 2007, p.  19).
11 The definition of a British veteran is short and unquestionable: veterans are everyone who has served in the 
armed forces for longer than one day (Dandeker et al., 2005, pp.  161-177). This highly inclusive definition 
represents over 5.5 million former military personnel in the UK, which, together with the relatives these people 
are responsible for, and widowers/widows (which the definition joins with the veteran status), amounts to 
around 13 million people or around 20% of the British population. A more restrictive definition of a veteran has 
been proposed, but has not been adopted due to public disapproval (Sešel, 2007, p.  20).
12 International Military and Defense Encyclopedia, 1993, Volume 6: T-Z.
Vladimir Prebilič
 23 Sodobni vojaški izzivi/Contemporary Military Challenges
consequently a person who is entitled to benefits arising from veteran status. He also 
points out another specific feature: it is becoming increasingly common to use the 
term veteran for those who have completed a military mission – Gulf War veterans, 
Falklands War veterans, etc.
The interchangeable use of the terms “veteran” and “combatant” as synonyms is 
very common. The Military Encyclopaedia (Vojna enciklopedija)13 also defines a 
veteran as a combatant; it says that “veteran” is a title awarded to retired soldiers, old 
combatants and meritorious persons who have performed various social functions 
for a longer period of time. In Slovenia, the term combatant applies to Second World 
War veterans. According to Rogač (2007)14, the term veteran in Slovenian legislation 
is applied explicitly to people who fought in the First and Second World Wars. 
 1.1 A veteran as a former combatant
The status of a veteran as a former combatant is a logical and necessary process 
stemming from two earlier processes: demobilization and reintegration. Both 
processes relate to conventional armed conflicts which are based on call-ups, i.e. the 
mobilization of additional human resources, a wide use of force, and the consequences 
of war. Such understanding of war is most frequently founded on the defence of the 
nation and the territorial integrity of the state. In that context, Garb (2002, p. 32) 
discusses the need for the transition between “the soldier’s war and the nation’s 
war”, and between “the soldier’s story and the nation’s story”15. “The soldier’s story” 
or the rehabilitation of a war veteran as a full and content member of society, takes 
place under circumstances surrounding general reconstruction, and is therefore 
marked with or limited by other reconstruction efforts (for example, the rivalry in 
the labour market), and simultaneously embedded in general efforts and addressed 
in the framework of international, national and local politics. At the national level, 
demobilization and reintegration programmes are being developed, and a legal basis 
for providing help to these groups is being adopted. There is an opinion that the 
demobilization of combatants is a solely logistic problem, while their integration 
is simply a development problem. Former combatants should therefore not require 
special attention, and should not be a special target group entitled to assistance. 
Garb (2002, p. 138) stresses that veterans are not the only group which needs to be 
integrated into society. Returning refugees and displaced people usually exceed even 
the number of veterans. Emphasizing the category of war veterans as a special target 
group in a post-conflict society, and dealing with their problems separately, may lead 
to a sense of neglect of other groups which also suffer due to the consequences of 
war. Despite that, Garb16 notes that arguments for helping war veterans as a special 
13 Vojna enciklopedija, 1975, Volume 10: Tirani-Žažul.
14 Lara Rogač, 2007, Družbeni položaj vojnih veteranov, Ljubljana.
15 Model and Haggerty in: Garb, 2002, p. 137.
16 Ibid.
VETERANS IMPERATIVE TODAY
24 Sodobni vojaški izzivi/Contemporary Military Challenges
group in need of assistance have prevailed. Several arguments justifying that war 
veterans must be given appropriate attention after armed conflict17:
1. Humanitarian reasons – veterans may have a variety of social and economic
issues (they are often unemployed, and far away from home; their basic needs
and accommodation must be provided for);
2. Due to their sacrifice for the state, or as a compensation for missing education
and other rights due to compulsory enlistment in the armed forces;
3. Former combatants can contribute significantly to the overall development of the
community and society as a whole;
4. Failure to pay attention to former combatants may endanger peace and
development processes. War veterans may turn to crime, or join political options
advocating the use of violent means.
It should be noted that there is a clear difference between the demobilization and 
reintegration of professional soldiers and conscripts; especially because the latter is 
undeniably more challenging and long-lasting. In principle, the attitude to veterans – 
former combatants – is not undefined. People who have participated in national conflicts 
and the defence of the nation and territorial integrity enjoy a certain status and related 
benefits in every state. A legal framework clearly defining who is eligible to be a member 
of a veteran organization is normally established as well. The state forms a positive 
attitude in relation to them, for they represent an important part of the national historical 
memory, as one of the key components of national identity. They are the representatives 
of the historical memory; live witnesses to key national historical events. 
However, it must be noted that veteran organizations based on the rule of former 
combatants have no future. The removal of conventional conflict entailing 
mobilization, the introduction of professional armed forces on a global scale, and the 
discontinuation of the conscript system do not enable new members to be included in 
veteran organizations. Such organizations are therefore condemned to the aging and 
gradual loss of their members. During that process, the above-mentioned historical 
memory fades, and the attitude to national security culture changes; the latter should 
be based on a broader understanding of security culture relating to the participation 
in collective efforts to defend the state18. A special, unfortunately largely overlooked, 
category comprises veterans who have served in international operations and 
missions. Participants in these functions undoubtedly perform tasks which exceed 
the understanding of peacetime operations, but are also not conventional combat 
tasks. This discussion undeniably lacks attention to the performance of tasks outside 
Slovenia’s territory; there can be no doubt that members in international operations 
and missions not only participate in the concept of providing collective security, but 
indirectly also increase the safety of Slovenia’s citizens.
17 Kingama and Ball in: Garb, 2002, p. 138.
18 Modern understanding of security culture relates mostly to resource and company management. In that sense 
it is perceived as part of the organizational culture which plays an important role in companies, mostly in the 
form of defining their own system of values and norms, which define the activities of all company stakeholders 
(Sedonja Kardoš, 2011, p. 19).
Vladimir Prebilič
 25 Sodobni vojaški izzivi/Contemporary Military Challenges
 2 VETERANS’ IMPERATIVE
Veterans are inextricably linked to the armed forces because they have served or 
still serve in their structures. Their position in society is therefore a reflection of 
the situation within the defence system, and the presence of the system itself in 
civil society, which is usually more or less distant from it. A typical aspect of the 
armed forces is the functional and social imperative which in its essence defines 
the legitimacy of the armed forces. Gow (1992, p. 27) describes the legitimacy of 
the military as “the quality of the relationship between the armed forces and their 
sociopolitical environment”, and talks about two types of legitimacy19: functional20 
and socio-political21. He believes that it is possible for the socio-political imperative 
to “collide” with the functional one, and that one of the aspects of legitimacy of the 
armed forces is the balance between functional and socio-political demands. “The 
armed forces must be capable of fulfilling their basic functions, and simultaneously 
not distance themselves from their society” (Gow, 1992, p. 28). In other words, the 
armed forces face demands and expectations with regard to their obligations and 
powers. The achievement of social and political imperatives is reflected in the form 
of citizens’ support to the military organization. The level of harmony is therefore 
connected with the level of legitimacy, which as a concept represents the significance 
of understanding the relationship between the armed forces and society. In the 
process of legitimizing the armed forces, two sides are confronted: the army, which 
requires legitimacy, and the citizens of the state, which, under certain conditions, 
can provide legitimacy. In that sense, the loyalty of the public or civil society can 
be viewed through the prism of understanding the armed forces as the holder of 
fundamental social values. On that basis, a field of interaction is formed between the 
armed forces and civil society which defines civil-military relationships. The level of 
harmony or the integration of the military into politics is connected with the notion 
of legitimacy as a concept which is crucial for the understanding of relationships 
between the armed forces and society (Jelušič, 1997, pp. 13-14). The legitimization 
of the armed forces calls for the consideration of specific circumstances of civil 
society, which are based on social norms and values falling into two categories: 
(1) universal values comprising those shared by societies at an approximately equal 
level of development, or closely comparable with them, and (2) national values 
which are held by individual nations, and are therefore not directly comparable, and 
are a result of historical, territorial, sociological and other circumstances. What is 
most important is that the armed forces gain legitimacy exclusively on the basis 
of interaction between the two environments: the defence system and civil society. 
Legitimacy cannot be forced or acquired through various forms of pressure exerted 
19 Ibid., pp. 27-28.
20 Functional legitimacy relates mostly to the effective achievement of the functional imperative or the basic task 
of the armed forces, namely the defence from outside physical threats. Their legitimacy would be seriously 
undermined if the armed forces were unsuccessful at fulfilling that basic function. Gow states that the armed 
forces can meet their functional imperative in two ways: 1) in a latent or covert way, i.e. without the active use 
of force, and 2) in a more obvious way, i.e. by engaging in an open conflict against other armed forces.
21 Sociopolitical legitimacy refers to the effective achievement of the social and political imperative, which the 
author defines as a set of non-functional requirements made by society to the armed forces.
VETERANS IMPERATIVE TODAY
26 Sodobni vojaški izzivi/Contemporary Military Challenges
on civil society. Quite the opposite; it undermines legitimacy, and consequently calls 
into question the acceptability of the defence system as a centre of power.
According to Huntington (1957, pp. 1-3), the relationship between the civil 
environment and the military organization is formed on the basis of two imperatives: 
the functional and the social. The functional imperative stems from the functions 
expected to be fulfilled by the military, especially in relation to the dangers threatening 
state security. The social imperative is composed of other functions assigned to the 
armed forces as a result of ideologies, values and cultural norms. When it comes 
to providing legitimacy to the armed forces, a balanced approach must be taken 
in carrying out both the functional and social imperatives. If the defence system 
completely dedicates itself to meeting the demands and expectations of the social 
imperative, it can no longer fulfil its functional obligations. And vice versa: if the 
military fails to pay enough attention to the social imperative, it will soon distance 
itself from civil society, and therefore, in extreme circumstances, become illegitimate 
and as such unnecessary and even unwanted.
2.1 The functional imperative of veteran organizations
A similar parallel can be drawn in the status and role of veterans and veteran 
organizations. If the basic functional imperative of the defence system is to provide 
security to the civil environment, this imperative in the field of veteran organizations 
represents the position of veterans in society. It relates to the formal legal framework, 
specifically the fulfilment of the legal imperatives and conditions which define 
veterans. As emphasized above, this area is characterized by great diversity, which 
is undeniably reflected in national characteristics of organizing and functioning of 
veteran organizations in individual societies. The functional imperative refers to 
veterans and their position in society, while the social imperative dictates the presence 
of veteran organizations in civil society. Both are interconnected and complement 
each other, but are not always in balance. The absence of one imperative normally 
affects the other, which over a longer period of time results in the deterioration of 
the veteran status on the one hand, and the gradual removal of veteran organizations 
from the civil environment.
One of the important factors of the functional imperative is the establishment of 
normative bases defining the rights and duties of veterans, which are represented by 
veteran organizations on behalf of individuals. The variability of benefits depends 
on national legislation, and also on the military tradition, the formal and informal 
status of soldiers in society and the state, and the financial capabilities of individual 
states. In the case of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, US budget planners will have 
to take veteran benefits into account for the next 10 years or longer. Stiglitz and 
Bilmez (2008, pp. 78-79) have assessed that expenditure on the basis of 751,000 
US soldiers who were deployed to both crisis areas and are entitled to various forms 
of benefits due to physical or mental injuries sustained during the performance of 
tasks on the battlefield. In total, over 1.7 million US soldiers have been deployed to 
Iraq and Afghanistan. The assessment includes the costs of direct medical treatment 
Vladimir Prebilič
 27 Sodobni vojaški izzivi/Contemporary Military Challenges
and future compensation. Over the period 2007-2017, the costs are estimated to 
increase together with the growth rate from $1.3 billion to $6.2 billion. During the 
entire ten-year period, the costs are estimated to reach $37 billion. That is significant 
expenditure; there are 24 million veterans in the US, of which 3.5 million receive 
various forms of disability benefits which amount to $34.5 billion per year (Stiglitz 
and Bilmez, 2008, p. 71).
However, these compensations in and of themselves do not solve a number of issues 
affecting soldiers, who are exposed to stressful situations including facing and 
carrying out tasks in asymmetric combat22 involving direct urban warfare and the 
violation of international military and humanitarian law. Bobrow (2015, p. 33) draws 
attention to the consequences of post-traumatic stress disorder, which continue even 
after veterans attend different counselling programmes and receive professional 
medical help. The effects of the disorder persist; it is important to acknowledge them 
and try to mitigate them. However, one question remains unanswered: what is the 
quality of life of the individuals and their loved ones, if there is any to speak of at 
all? That cannot be translated into numbers and determined financially. But it is 
indisputable that in many aspects these consequences leave negative traces, mostly 
in the mental health of soldiers. Balfour and others (2014, p. 165) note that between 
18% and 30% of those who have worked in war areas suffer from various forms of 
mental disorders, which often lead to the destruction of families and loss of homes, 
reducing them to the life on the social margins of society23. Although all veteran 
and other benefits relating to the veterans’ health conditions, and premiums granting 
them a decent life, are defined by legislation and paid by national governments, 
they represent an area where veteran organizations can contribute significantly to 
the understanding of the numerous problems facing veterans, on the basis of their 
activities and the monitoring of veterans. From that aspect, veteran organizations 
should and must be an important partner in national discussions, and thus carry 
out their functional imperative for the protection of veteran rights, even when 
22 One of the definitions has been provided by Svete (2002, p.  29), who explains that asymmetric warfare takes 
place when “the actors, including individuals and international coalitions (ad hoc and permanent), use 
methods and means over a certain period of time, and cause the most disproportionate effects in relation to the 
resources invested while taking into account the adversary’s and their own defensive and offensive capabilities 
and vulnerabilities. It entails the use of military and non-military forms at all levels of interaction between the 
actors encompassing situations from peacetime to war.”
23 The latest research suggests that every fourth soldier will have suffered the consequences of post-traumatic 
stress disorder (PTSD) after military service in Afghanistan and Iraq. These assumptions are based on the 
fact that 103,792 members of the US Armed Forces were diagnosed with PTSD in the period between 2000 
and 2012. Experts from the field of mental research in the armed forces point to the phenomenon of a new 
generation of veterans with post-traumatic disorders which is predicted to emerge in the next five years. 
Because these disorders lie at the base of stigmatization within the military system and signify a likely end of the 
military career, a timely recognition of such problems is still extremely difficult (Balfour, 2014, p. 166). Severe 
depression can manifest itself in various forms of deviant behaviour, including suicide. The number of suicides 
has risen dramatically over the last decade – over 8,000 veterans have taken their own lives, which equals 22 
suicides per day and exceeds the number of suicides committed by active members of the armed forces – and 
statistics indicate one suicide every 36 hours. 30,000 members of the US Armed Forces, either veterans or 
active soldiers, die every year as a result of suicide. While there were 9.6 suicide cases per 100,000 people in 
2004, the number has increased to 29.2 cases per 100,000 people by 2012. According to experts’ forecasts, the 
trend will continue to grow in the future (Carlos and Kintzle, 2014, p. 1). 
VETERANS IMPERATIVE TODAY
28 Sodobni vojaški izzivi/Contemporary Military Challenges
interference with their rights and benefits is to be expected. Veteran organizations 
are therefore expected to function in the sense of a union, which should not imply 
the politicization of the veteran question and organizations. Veterans should not be 
denied the right to become members of political parties, which is limited by law in 
numerous states; however, the code of conduct should be considered with regard 
to veterans who have served the state and not individual political elites, which is 
why diametrically opposed conduct on behalf of veterans is not to be expected. 
Political polarization usually leads to the disintegration of veteran organizations, 
as a result of the lack of the element of cohesion as the most fundamental aspect 
of their functioning and existence represented by patriotism, i.e. loyalty to the state 
and politics, and their elites. What is important is dialogue, and a presentation of 
the actual situation among veterans supported by valid arguments, which ultimately 
mirrors the situation in the defence system, and particularly in the military system of 
a state. The tasks of the functional imperative can therefore be directly linked to the 
position of veterans in relation to their health, finances and status in civil societies. 
Their position must be balanced, and reflected in civil societies in such a way as to 
prevent the marginalization of veterans on the one hand, and the excessive privilege 
of their status on the other, which can lead to social confrontation. The first stages 
of a growing dissatisfaction are evident in the reduction of legitimacy of veteran 
organizations, which usually has implications for their funding and may significantly 
affect the funding of the entire defence system of individual states. Although veteran 
organizations are difficult to understand in their institutionalized fight for veterans, 
I nevertheless believe that it is possible to be more proactive than Slovenian society 
is nowadays.
2.2 The social imperative of veteran organizations
The social imperative comprises the activities of veteran organizations with regard 
to the interaction between civil society and the defence system. They could even 
be marked as the ambassadors of the defence system; owing to the value system 
which defines them, they represent the mission and values of the defence system in 
a most credible way. The Military Doctrine of the Slovenian Armed Forces defines 
the following values:
 – honour
 – courage
 – loyalty
 – esprit de corps and
 – selfless service.
These values derive from the most basic value, namely patriotism, which is defined 
as the awareness of allegiance to Slovenia, and unselfish performance of duties in 
accomplishing common goals (Military Doctrine, 2006, p. 18).
In a society where different attempts are made to change the security system and even 
re-evaluate the fundamental values which regulate the functioning of all societies, 
it is crucially important to not only defend but also continually give meaning to the 
Vladimir Prebilič
 29 Sodobni vojaški izzivi/Contemporary Military Challenges
value system via different institutions. It should be stressed that military values are 
social values, and are in that sense a mirror of values (Norton-Taylor, 2011). Unlike 
modern societies, defence systems, and the armed forces as their most important part, 
represent a very conservative side to changes in values, of which ethical conduct24 on 
the part of members of the armed forces holds a special position and should be seen 
as the guardian of legal and legitimate performance of functions (Robinson, 2008, 
p. 21). As hierarchical systems they can only function when values are continually 
respected, which is why these values are extremely difficult to change. Seen from 
that perspective, veteran organizations have great social capital which often remains 
unexploited, which is also due to an increasingly precise and consistent distinction 
between the civil and the military (Prebilič and Juvan, 2012, p. 58). Considering 
the thesis that an important source of the deepening economic crisis facing modern 
societies is the severe erosion of fundamental social values, the social capital of 
veteran organizations could help these organizations to become a significant and 
important corrective factor in these societies. In this way, veteran organizations 
could carry out their social imperative to a considerable extent.
Seen from the perspective of the social imperative, veteran organizations represent 
a bearer of military experiences and historical memory. A war as an act which 
irreversibly changes societies and leaves indelible traces is prohibited by international 
law25, and yet it is a constant companion of humanity. The more the memory fades, 
and the more distant wars and conflicts become in space and time, the more important 
it is to draw the attention of decision-makers and civil society to the unacceptability 
of war and especially its consequences. Civil society bears a large proportion of the 
consequences which it cannot imagine (Prebilič and Juvan, 2007, p. 261). It can be 
argued that veteran organizations play the role of the ambassador of patriotism in the 
context of sacrifice for the home, the state and the nation.
Veteran organizations can also be seen as a bridge between the defence system and 
civil society; they no longer carry out the tasks of the defence system in the formal 
legal sense, but having served in the system for a long time, they know it extremely 
well. They can therefore explain and interpret the activities of the defence system, 
and inform civil society even when the defence system is unable or unwilling to do 
so for various objective or subjective reasons. Veteran organizations can represent a 
24 The effectiveness of the defence system is based on military ethos, which most often consists of conservative 
values and norms which are necessary for discipline, morale and obedience. However, the armed forces must 
simultaneously reflect liberal values and norms to be supported by society. It is to be expected that soldiers will 
fight for their homeland and defend the system of rights they identify with personally, that their morale will be 
highest when they are be able to carry out tasks in accordance with their own rights, and that they will fight 
hardest when they understand the political values they are fighting for. That means that the defence system 
may be different from society, but its legitimacy must be provided from its integration in the civil-social value 
concept (Garb: 2009, p. 106).
25 War should be understood as a state of regulated armed conflict between different groups, usually states, which 
relates mostly to the conventional understanding of war as articulated in international law and treaties. Seen in 
the wider context of armed conflict, which has significantly impacted the lives of modern societies especially in 
the 21st century, war can be interpreted as a state in which organized violence is either used or is threatened to 
be used by the armed forces (Speller and Tuck, 2008, p. 1).
VETERANS IMPERATIVE TODAY
30 Sodobni vojaški izzivi/Contemporary Military Challenges
specific form of strategic reserve in the national security system, particularly in an 
era of diminishing security culture of modern societies, and considerable widening 
of the gap between civil society and the defence system, which is partly a result of the 
professionalization of the armed forces on the one hand, and the changing security 
architecture with new security challenges on the other. Representatives of veteran 
organizations could participate in an open curriculum at different levels of the formal 
educational system, significantly contribute to the formation of more distinct patriotic 
feelings of young people, assume the role and tasks of the national security system, 
and with a set of positive values co-create modern, active and responsible young 
citizens (Prebilič and Juvan, 2014, p. 262). However, the potential unprincipled 
political activities of veteran organizations should also be noted; although I do assess 
that their value concept is perhaps the best defence mechanism.
The balance between both imperatives, i.e. the functional and the social, enables the 
provision of the legitimacy of defence structures in civil society. The imperatives 
put forward clear demands and expectations to the military, which are more difficult 
to fulfil in certain circumstances – a substantial reduction in financial sources 
coupled with the expectation of effective performance of tasks and functions. 
Such circumstances are undoubtedly frustrating for everyone: the defence system 
and its employees, and civil society, whose expectations are not realized. Such 
circumstances create the impression that balance between the two imperatives is 
difficult to find, which is finally reflected in the legitimacy of the defence system. 
Therefore, “the final goal of all civil-military relations, such as the balance between 
values and beliefs, and the agreement on the most appropriate role of the armed 
forces in society”, is not achieved (Edmonds, 1988, p. 132). The same applies to the 
existence and functioning of veteran organizations. The problem arises when values 
held by a specific group (for example, veterans) become substantially different from 
the dominant values of civil society. Under such conditions, the doors to first the 
incomprehension of existence and then the marginalization of veteran organizations 
are wide open, which has a significant negative influence on the image of the defence 
system as a whole. Taking into account the observation that the most fundamental 
value of both the defence system and veteran organizations is patriotism, then this 
is the moment of truth: is patriotism still the value that holds the right to homeland 
within civil society? If the answer is negative, it is easier to understand the low level 
of security culture in Slovenia, and the high level of unwillingness to defend one’s 
own homeland.
Veterans exist and are a fact in all states which have been involved in armed conflict in 
the course of their history. That is why states must deal with the question of veterans. 
All discussion about the rationality of the existence of veterans and their role in 
society should be senseless and unnecessary. And yet, the reality is different. The 
meaning and role of veterans are changing under the influence of various external 
and internal factors. A profound difference in the understanding of the importance 
of the veterans’ mission can be perceived, which can be partially explained by the 
difference in the political culture in different states.
Conclusion
Vladimir Prebilič
31 Sodobni vojaški izzivi/Contemporary Military Challenges
And yet, a similar understanding of the veterans’ imperative is expected despite 
all its specifics. Just as the functional and social imperatives provide legitimacy 
to the defence forces, there is ample space in both fields with regard to veteran 
organizations. These organizations are not exactly comparable institutions; however, 
they must ensure their legitimacy in relation to its users, i.e. veterans, and to civil 
society. While the first group holds expectations in the field of the functional 
imperative, the expectations of civil society, namely the social imperative, should not 
be underestimated. Diminished legitimacy usually leads to two situations: the failure 
to meet the expectations of the first causes the undermining of internal cohesiveness 
in the group of veterans, while the distancing from the civil environment leads to the 
lack of understanding of the mission and general existence of veteran organizations. 
If important changes in values and the disagreement between the military and civil 
society is added to these situations, the conditions for the marginalization of veterans 
are quickly met.
In the past, veterans were individuals who were prepared to sacrifice their lives for 
their homeland. That is another reason why they are entitled to certain rights, and 
why they deserve respect from civil society and political elites. Some battles and 
wars would not have been won without veterans. Veterans are an essential pillar of 
historical memory, and a reminder of challenging events. They can act as an important 
link between civil society and the defence system, and thus contribute significantly 
to the strengthening of civil-military relations and the legitimacy of the armed forces. 
But without the awareness of that fact first among veterans and veteran organizations 
themselves, changes in the current, not very enviable, state cannot be expected.
1. Rogač, L., (2007). Družbeni položaj vojnih veteranov, Faculty of Social Sciences,
Diploma thesis, Ljubljana.
2. Sešel, R., (2007). Socialni problemi veteranov britanske vojske, Faculty of Social
Sciences, Master's thesis.
3. Stiglitz, J. in Bilmes, L., (2009). The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Costs of the Iraq
Conlict, Penguin Books Group, New York, USA.
4. Bowyer, R., (2004). Dictionary of Military Terms, MacMillan Press, Bloomsbury, pp. 250.
5. Slovenska vojska in etika (2010). Posebni tematski sklop, Vol. 10, No. 14, The Ministry of
Defence of the Republic of Slovenia.
6. French, S., (2005). The Code of the Warrior: Exploring Warrior Values Past and Present,
Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., USA.
7. Južnič, S., (1993). Identiteta, Faculty of Social Sciences, Ljubljana.
8. Valjavec, S., (2006). Medijski pogled na sodelovanje Slovenske vojske pri zaščiti in
reševanju, Diploma thesis, Faculty of Social Sciences, Ljubljana.
9. Jelušič, L., (1997). Legitimnost sodobnega vojaštva, Faculty of Social Sciences,
Ljubljana.
10. Garb, M., (2002). Demobilizacija in reintegracija vojaškega osebja v razmerah sodobne
družbene tranzicije, Doctoral thesis, Faculty of Social Sciences, Ljubljana.
11. Veliki splošni leksikon (1998), Te-Ž, Državna založba Slovenije, Ljubljana.
Bibliography
VETERANS IMPERATIVE TODAY
32 Sodobni vojaški izzivi/Contemporary Military Challenges
12. Dandeker, C., et. al. (2005). Feasibility Study on the Extent, Causes, Impact and Costs of
Rough Sleeping and Homelessness Amongst Ex-Service Personnel in a Sample of Local
Authorities in England, King's Centre for Military Health Research, King's College,
London.
13. Dandeker, C.; Wesseley, S.; Iversen, A.; Ross, J., (2006). What's in a Name? Defining and
Caring for “Veterans”: The United Kingdom in International Perspective, Armed Forces
& Society, Vol. 32, No. 2, pp. 161-177.
14. Prebilič, V. and Juvan, J., (2014). Vloga in pomen veteranskih organizacij v sodobnih
družbah, Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino, Vol. LIV, No. 1/2014, pp. 259-273.
15. Bobrow, J., (2015). Waking Up from War: A Better Way Home for Veterans and Nations,
Pitchstone Publishing, USA.
16. Nickerson, M. in Goldstein, J., (2015). The Wounds Within: A Veteran, a PTSD Therapist,
and a Nation Unprepared, Skyhorse Publishing, USA.
17. Huntigton, S. l., (1957). Soldier and a State, The Bleknap Press of Harvard University
Press, Cambridge, UK.
18. Sedonja Kardoš, L., (2011). Varnostna kultura z vidika zlorab poslovnih skrivnosti,
Faculty of Social Sciences, Master's thesis, University of Maribor, Maribor.
19. Jogan, S., (1997). Mednarodno vojno (humanitarno) pravo, Center vojaških šol, The
Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Slovenia.
20. The Rules on Service in the Slovenian Armed Forces, Official Gazette, No. 49/1996.
21. The Military Code of Ethics in the Slovenian Armed Forces, Official Gazette, No.
52/2009.
22. Burdett, H., (2012). “Are you a Veteran?” Understanding of the Term “Veteran” among
-UK Ex-Service Personnel A Research Note, Armed Forces & Society, Vol. 53, No. 1, pp.
1-9.
23. De France, O., (2015). Defence budgets in Europe: Downturn or U-turn, EU Institute
for Security Studies, Brief SSUE, EDA, Brussels, available at: http://www.iss.europa.eu/
uploads/media/Brief_12_Defence_spending_in_Europe.pdf.
24. Gow, James (1992), Legitimacy and the Military: the Yugoslav Crisis, Printer Press,
London.
25. Edmonds, M., (1988). Armed Services and Society, Leicester University Press, p. 132.
26. Castro, A. and Kintzle, S., (2014). Suicides in the Military: Post-Modern Combat Veteran
and the Hemingway Effect, Military Mental Health, Springer Science + Business Media
Press, New York.
27. Balfour, M.; Westwood, M. and Buchanan, M., (2014). Protecting into Emotion:
Therapeutic Enactments with Military Veterans Transitioning Back into Civilian Life,
Research in Drama Education, Vol. 19, No. 2, Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, pp.
165-181.
28. Svete, U.; Guštin, D.; Črnčec, D., (2011). Asimetrija in nacionalna varnost: od
zgodovinskih izkušenj do sodobnih izzivov, Defensor, Radomlje.
29. Parham, J.; Gordon, S., (2016). Military veterans bring many positives – and some
needs – into teaching, Building a better teacher, Phi Delta Kappan Magazine, Sage
Journals, Vol. 97, No. 7, pp. 43-47.
30. Garb, M., (2009). Divergentno in konvergentno v odnosu med vojsko in družbo, Teorija in
praksa, Vol. 46, No. 1-2, pp. 105-125.
31. Tylor-Norton, R., (2011). Military can show society the way on moral values and ethics,
says Dannatt, The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/nov/08/military-
moral-values-ethics-dannatt
32. Robinson, P., (2008). Ethics Education in the Military, Ashgate Press, UK.
33. Lucas, G., (2016). Military Ethics: What Everyone Needs to Know, Oxford University
Press, UK.
Vladimir Prebilič
 33 Sodobni vojaški izzivi/Contemporary Military Challenges
34. Prebilič, V. and Juvan, J., (2012). (Ne)obstoj slovenske vojaške identitete, Contemporary 
Military Challenges, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 55-67. 
35. Prebilič, V. and Dobaja, D., (2014). Domobljubje v Sloveniji med svetovnima vojnama, 
Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino, Vol. 54, No. 1, pp. 209-230. 
36. The Military Code of Ethics in the Slovenian Armed Forces (2009), Official Gazette, No. 
55/2009, p. 7650. 
37. Prebilič, V. and Juvan, J., (2014). Vloga in pomen veteranskih organizacij v sodobnih 
družbah, Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino, Vol. 54, No. 1, pp. 259-273. 
38. Speller, I., and Tuck, C., (2008). Understanding Modern Warfare, Cambridge University 
Press, UK. 
39. Sipri Yearbook (2017), Military expenditures by country, available at: https://www.sipri.
org/sites/default/files/Milex-constant-USD.pdf, 10 April 2017. 
40. Furlan, B., (2006). Military Doctrine, Doctrine, Development, Education and Training 
Command, The Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Slovenia, Ljubljana.
VETERANS IMPERATIVE TODAY